THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA, PETITIONER, VS. HILARIO M. MARCO, RESPONDENT.

Provincial Government of Aurora versus Marco

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Provincial Government of Aurora against Hilario M. Marco, a private respondent who had been appointed Cooperative Development Specialist II by the outgoing provincial governor. The Province sought to overturn the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's order to implement its earlier resolution approving Marco's appointment. The case matters because it settles two questions every civil service examinee must know: whether the prohibition on so-called midnight appointments extends to local chief executives, and whether a final and executory decision of the Civil Service Commission may still be disturbed. The Court reminds us that the prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments, yet the Civil Service Commission may still regulate local appointments through its own rules, and that final judgments are immutable.

Procedural History

Marco's appointment was disapproved by the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Aurora. He moved for reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office Number Four, which denied the motion and affirmed the disapproval. Marco then appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which in its resolution dated April 14, 2008 granted his appeal and set aside the Regional Office decision. The Province did not file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Instead, it filed a Petition for Relief, which the Commission denied outright, and denied again on motion for reconsideration. Marco then moved for implementation, which the Commission granted. The Province filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash Execution, which the Commission also denied, clarifying that its April 14, 2008 resolution necessarily approved Marco's appointment and entitled him to reinstatement and back salaries.

The Province then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the implementation of the Commission's April 14, 2008 resolution. It held that the resolution had become final and executory, that a petition for relief is not allowed under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and that on the merits Marco's appointment was valid. The Province's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Governor Ramoncita P. Ong permanently appointed Marco as Cooperative Development Specialist II on June 25, 2004, just five days before the end of her term. His appointment papers, along with twenty-five others, were submitted to the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Aurora on June 28, 2004, accompanied by a certification from the Provincial Budget Officer and the Provincial Accountant that funds were available to cover the position.

On June 30, 2004, newly elected Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo assumed office. The next day, she called an executive meeting of all department heads. During that meeting, the Provincial Budget Officer allegedly stated that the Province had no funds to pay the salaries of Governor Ong's twenty-six appointees. She then issued a letter recalling the earlier certification of availability of funds. That letter was forwarded to the Field Office, which, on July 5, 2004, disapproved Marco's appointment. Marco was advised to stop reporting for work beginning July 8, 2004.

Marco sought reconsideration, but the Regional Office affirmed the disapproval. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which reversed the Regional Office and held that his appointment was valid because it was accompanied by a certification of availability of funds, and that the later withdrawal of that certification did not affect its validity. The Province failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the fifteen-day period, and its subsequent Petition for Relief was denied. When Marco moved for implementation, the Commission granted it and directed the Province to reinstate him and pay his back salaries and benefits from the time he was prohibited from reporting for work up to his actual reinstatement.

Issues

• Whether or not the resolution ordering the implementation of the April 14, 2008 resolution was void for varying its terms.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of the certification of sufficiency of funds voided Marco's appointment.
• Whether or not Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee.

Applicable Provisions

Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Section 80. Execution of Decision. The decisions of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.

This provision fixes the period within which the Commission's decision becomes final and executory, and it is the basis for the Court's holding that the April 14, 2008 resolution can no longer be disturbed.

Paragraph 2.1 of Civil Service Commission Resolution Number 030918 provides:

2.1. All appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 shall be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified for the position and had undergone regular screening processes before the Election Ban as shown in the Promotion and Selection Board report or minutes of meeting.

This is the rule the Province invoked to argue that Marco was a midnight appointee, and the exception the Court of Appeals applied to uphold his appointment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not vary the terms of its April 14, 2008 resolution. Under Rule IV, Section 1 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 40-98, an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority, and once the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he or she is entitled to receive the corresponding salaries even though the Commission has not yet approved the appointment. Should the appointment be initially disapproved, it remains effective if a motion for reconsideration or appeal is seasonably filed. Thus, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, the appointee remains entitled to salaries until the appointment is finally disapproved. The Commission's order of reinstatement and back salaries was therefore a necessary consequence of its earlier resolution, not a variation of it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the withdrawal of the certification of sufficiency of funds did not void Marco's appointment. The Province had already certified that funds were available, and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had even passed a Supplemental Budget for 2004 appropriating provincial funds. The subsequent recall of the certification did not change the fact that funds were available.

On the third issue, the Court held that Marco's appointment was not void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee. The prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments, not to appointments made by local chief executives. Nevertheless, the Civil Service Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to professionalize the civil service, and it may prohibit local chief executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these rules to be valid. Marco fell within the exception under Resolution Number 030918 because he was fully qualified for the position and had undergone a regular screening process before the election ban. The Court also held that the April 14, 2008 resolution had become final and executory, and the doctrine of immutability of final judgments barred its reversal.

Doctrine

The prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments and does not extend to appointments made by local chief executives. However, the Civil Service Commission may promulgate rules prohibiting local chief executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure, and such appointments must conform to those rules to be valid. A decision of the Civil Service Commission becomes final and executory after fifteen days from receipt unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, and once final, it is immutable and may no longer be altered, amended, or revoked, even if later discovered to be erroneous. The remedy of a petition for relief is not among those provided under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Disposition

The Petition was denied. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, upheld the Civil Service Commission's resolution ordering Marco's reinstatement and payment of back salaries and other benefits, and ruled against the Provincial Government of Aurora.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments, not to local chief executives, though the Civil Service Commission may still regulate local appointments through its own rules. Examiners like to use this case to test the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and the finality of Civil Service Commission decisions under Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.