Sales vs. Carreon

Appointments to civil service positions are void if the vacancies were published before they actually existed, in violation of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7041, and if the Personnel Selection Board that screened the candidates lacked the mandated rank-and-file representative as required by civil service rules. The law requires that vacant positions be filled only after they have been reported to and published by the CSC as existing vacancies; a publication that precedes the actual existence of a vacancy does not satisfy the statute. An appointment may also be recalled where the Selection Board’s composition violates applicable CSC regulations, the CSC possessing the authority to recall appointments made in disregard of civil service law and rules.

In the May 2001 elections, then Dapitan City Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz ran for re-election and was defeated by respondent Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr. On June 1, 18, and 27, 2001, during his last month in office, outgoing Mayor Ruiz issued 83 appointments, including those of the 44 petitioners. Respondent Carreon assumed office on July 1, 2001. The following day, he issued Memorandum Orders Nos. 1 and 2 revoking all 83 appointments, invoking CSC Resolution No. 01-988 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 2001, which imposed a ban on issuing appointments during the election period. Respondent also prohibited the release of the appointees’ salaries and benefits.

• The 2001 Elections and the Appointments: During the May 2001 elections, incumbent Dapitan City Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz lost his re-election bid to respondent Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr. In June 2001 — on June 1, 18, and 27 — outgoing Mayor Ruiz issued 83 appointments, including those of the 44 petitioners. Respondent Carreon assumed office on July 1, 2001. On July 2, 2001, he issued Memorandum Orders Nos. 1 and 2 revoking all 83 appointments, citing CSC Resolution No. 01-988 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 2001, which imposed a ban on appointments during the election period. Respondent also prohibited the release of the appointees’ salaries and benefits.
• Proceedings before the CSC: Petitioner Patricio Sales, as president of the Dapitan City Government Employees Association, sought a ruling from CSC Regional Office No. IX. Respondent submitted position papers asserting that the appointments were “issued in bulk” and there was no urgent need to fill the positions. On August 17, 2001, the Regional Office declared the appointments valid and not “mass appointments,” nullified the mayor’s revocation orders, and directed payment of salaries. The CSC En Banc reversed on June 17, 2002, finding that the positions had been published as vacant even before actual vacancies existed, in violation of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7041, and that the Personnel Selection Board lacked a first-level rank-and-file representative when deliberating on 43 first-level positions. The CSC En Banc revoked the approval of all 83 appointments, reverted promoted employees, and declared the mayor’s Memorandum Orders void. Reconsideration was denied.
• Appellate Review: The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ appeal, holding that the vacancies were published prior to their actual existence and that no first-level representative sat on the Personnel Selection Board, as required by civil service rules.

• Validity of the Personnel Selection Board’s Action: Petitioners admitted that after the retirement on April 22, 2000 of Beltran Faconete, the first-level representative to the Personnel Selection Board, no replacement was chosen by the Dapitan City Government Employees Association. They nonetheless maintained that the Board’s proceedings and the resulting appointments remained valid despite the absence of the required first-level representative.

• Violation of the CSC Election Ban on Appointments: Respondent Carreon initially revoked the appointments on the basis of CSC Resolution No. 01-988 and Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 2001, which prohibited issuing appointments during the election period. He asserted that the appointments were issued in bulk and that there was no urgent need to fill the positions.
• Violation of R.A. No. 7041 and CSC Rules: On appeal before the CSC En Banc and the courts, respondent successfully defended the revocation on the grounds that the vacancies were published before they occurred and that the Personnel Selection Board lacked the required first-level representative.

• Publication of Vacancies: Whether the 83 appointments issued by outgoing Mayor Ruiz are void because the positions were published as vacant before the actual vacancies occurred, in violation of Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7041.
• Composition of the Personnel Selection Board: Whether the appointments to first-level positions are void because the Personnel Selection Board deliberated and recommended candidates without the required first-level rank-and-file representative, contrary to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 18, as amended.

• Publication of Vacancies: The appointments were void for non-compliance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7041. That provision expressly states that “[v]acant positions shall not be filled until after publication.” The law requires that the CSC publish lists of vacant positions quarterly, and that appointing authorities may fill vacancies only after the positions have been reported to the CSC as vacant and only after such publication. Here, publication of the vacancies was undertaken before the positions actually became vacant. A publication that precedes the actual existence of a vacancy does not satisfy the statutory requirement; the law contemplates publication of an existing, not an anticipated, vacancy. Outgoing Mayor Ruiz’s action thus contravened the clear mandate of R.A. No. 7041.
• Composition of the Personnel Selection Board: The appointments to first-level positions were void because the Personnel Selection Board lacked the mandated first-level representative. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 18, series of 1988, as amended, requires that a first-level rank-and-file representative, chosen by the accredited employees’ association, sit during the screening of candidates for first-level vacancies. Petitioners admitted that no replacement was chosen after the incumbent representative retired in April 2000. The Board’s deliberations and recommendations made without this representative violated the CSC rule. Pursuant to Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V-A of the Administrative Code of 1987, an appointment may be recalled for, among other grounds, violation of existing civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The authority of the CSC to recall appointments made in disregard of civil service rules was affirmed in Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission.

• Publication Requirement Under R.A. No. 7041 — Republic Act No. 7041 requires that all existing vacant positions in government be published quarterly by the CSC and posted in conspicuous places. Vacant positions shall not be filled until after publication. The appointing authority may fill a position only after the vacancy has been reported to the CSC and only after publication. Publication of a position as vacant before it actually becomes vacant does not satisfy the statutory prerequisite; the law mandates that the publication correspond to an actual, existing vacancy.
• Recall of Appointments for Violation of Civil Service Rules — Under Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V-A of the Administrative Code of 1987, an appointment may be recalled on the grounds of non-compliance with prescribed procedures or criteria, failure to pass through the agency’s Selection/Promotion Board, violation of a collective bargaining agreement relative to promotion, or violation of other existing civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The CSC possesses the authority to take appropriate action on all appointments, including recalling those issued in disregard of the applicable provisions of civil service law and regulations (Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 130214, August 9, 1999).
• Midnight Appointments — Not all “midnight” appointments issued by an outgoing administration are invalid. Each appointment must be assessed based on its nature, character, merits, and the circumstances surrounding it. Appointments are struck down as invalid midnight appointments only when they were made en masse and shown to have been accomplished through hurried maneuvers and under circumstances departing from good faith, morality, and propriety (Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. 19315, January 19, 1962; Quisumbing v. Tajanglangit, G.R. No. 19981, February 29, 1964). In this case, the appointments were voided on specific statutory and regulatory grounds without the necessity of resolving whether they constituted invalid midnight appointments per se.

• On the policy behind R.A. No. 7041: “It is State policy that ‘opportunities for government employment shall be open to all qualified citizens’ and ‘employees shall be selected on the basis of fitness to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities of the positions.’ It was precisely in order to ensure transparency and equal opportunity in the recruitment and hiring of government personnel, that Republic Act No. 7041 was enacted.”
• On the mandatory nature of the publication requirement: “The vacant positions may only be filled by the appointing authority after they have been reported to the CSC as vacant and only after publication.”
• On the CSC’s recall authority: “In Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, this Court upheld the authority of the CSC to take appropriate action on all appointments, including its authority to recall appointments made in disregard of the applicable provisions of Civil Service Law and regulations.”

• Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 130214, August 9, 1999, 312 SCRA 91 — Followed as controlling precedent for the CSC’s authority to recall appointments that violate civil service law and regulations.
• Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. 19315, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1; Rodriguez, Jr. v. Quirino, G.R. No. 19800, October 28, 1963, 9 SCRA 284 — Cited to distinguish the doctrine on invalid midnight appointments made en masse in bad faith from the present case, which was resolved on other grounds.
• Quisumbing v. Tajanglangit, G.R. No. 19981, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 446; Davide v. Roces, G.R. No. 21754, October 13, 1975, 67 SCRA 279 — Cited for the principle that not all midnight appointments are invalid and each must be examined on its individual merits and circumstances.

• Section 2, Republic Act No. 7041 — Mandates posting of all existing vacant positions and prohibits filling vacancies until after publication. Applied to void the subject appointments because the positions were published as vacant before they actually became vacant.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 7041 — Requires CSC quarterly publication of existing vacancies and prohibits the CSC from acting on an appointment unless the vacancy has been reported and published. Applied as an integral part of the statutory publication scheme.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 18, series of 1988, as amended — Prescribes the composition of the Personnel Selection Board, including a rank-and-file representative for the first level to sit during screening for first-level vacancies. Applied to invalidate the appointments to first-level positions due to the absence of the required representative.
• Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V-A of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Civil Service Law) — Enumerates the grounds for recall of an appointment, including violation of civil service laws, rules, and regulations. Applied as the legal basis for recalling the irregularly issued appointments.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Dante O. Tinga, Cancio C. Garcia, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura was on leave.)