Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

43 JAVIER vs.

REYES without assuming office or taking his oath

of office, which one prevails?
FACTS: Petitioner allegedly
was the duly appointed Chief of Police of RULING: The first appointee which
Malolos, Bulacan by the then Mayor complies with all the legal requisites for
Victorino B. Aldaba, which appointment appointment prevails. Bernardo never
was confirmed and approved by the assumed office or took his oath. It cannot
Municipal Council of the said municipality be said, then, that he had accepted his
on the same date as per Resolution No. appointment. Such an appointment
210, Series of 1967. The following day, being ineffective, we hold that the
petitioner took his oath of office and petitioner's appointment prevails.
thereafter assumed and discharged the
rights, prerogatives and duties of the Acceptance is indispensable to complete
office.Pending approval and attestation an appointment. The fact that Bernardo's
of his appointment by the Civil Service appointment was confirmed by the Civil
Commission, respondent, who had then Service Commission does not complete
assumed the office of Municipal Mayor, it since confirmation or attestation by the
recalled petitioner's appointment from Commission, although an essential part
the Civil Service Commission in her letter of the appointing process, serves merely
of said date. Not satisfied with her letter to assure the eligibility of the appointee.
of recall, respondent summarily,
arbitrarily and illegally ousted and Furthermore, Bernardo never contested
relieved petitioner as Chief of Police and the petitioner's right to office. In the case
at the same time, designated Police Lt. at bar, Bayani Bernardo never undertook
Romualdo F. Clements, a non-eligible, steps that would have convinced us that
as Officer-in-Charge of the Police he was interested in, or had accepted,
Department. On May 2, 1968, the Civil the appointment. He did, of course,
Service Commission attested and intervene in the mandamus suit, but it
approved the appointment of petitioner was a belated effort to assert his alleged
as such Chief of Police. The mayor, on rights. It is not indicative of an interested
the other hand, quickly installed Bayani party. It was too little and too late.
Bernardo as Chief of Police of Malolos.
On the other hand, we cannot say the
For lack of the mandatory requirement of same thing as far as the petitioner is
confirmation by the municipal council concerned. The records show that he
under Sec. 1 of Rep. Act No. 1551, the was appointed on November 7, 1967,
Civil Service Commission pronounced and the following day, November 8,
the appointment of the replacement null 1967, he took his oath of office and
and void and directed respondent "that discharged the duties appurtenant
steps be taken immediately to install Mr. thereto until January 13, 1968, when the
Javier as Chief of Police of that succeeding mayor, the herein
Municipality (Malolos)". Notwithstanding respondent Purificacion Reyes, recalled
the aforementioned ruling and directive, his appointment and appointed another.
respondent neglected and refused to Thereupon, the petitioner went to the
reinstate petitioner to tile position of Chief Civil Service Commission to ask for
of Police of Malolos which act is reinstatement. Finally, he brought suit for
specifically enjoined upon her as mandamus. These acts amounted to
Municipal Mayor and public officer, in acceptance and gave rise to a vested
Sec. 19, Article IV of Rep. Act 2260 right to the office in his favor.
otherwise known as the Civil Service Act
of 1959. Respondent Mayor is ORDERED to
REINSTATE the petitioner to office of
ISSUE: Between two appointees, the first Chief of Police, Malolos, Bulacan, or its
complying with all the legal requirements equivalent, or to any position equivalent
to hold office, and the second one made in rank and pay, subject to the
by the incumbent appointing power but requirements of age and fitness, and to
PAY him back salaries equivalent to five Constitution has reserved to the
(5) years without qualification or President alone.

44.MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, 2. Under the Constitutional design, ad

petitioner, vs.SENATOR JOVITO R. interim appointments do not apply to
SALONGA, COMMISSION ON appointments solely for the President to
APPOINTMENTS, COMMITTEE ON make. Ad interim appointments, by their
JUSTICE, JUDICIAL AND BAR very nature under the 1987 Constitution,
COUNCIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND extend only to appointments where the
HESIQUIO R. MALLILLIN, review of the Commission on
respondents. Appointments is needed. That is why ad
FACTS: interim appointments are to remain valid
The President appointed Mary until disapproval by the Commission on
Concepcion Bautista as the Chairman of Appointments or until the next
the Commission on Human Rights adjournment of Congress; but
pursuant to the second sentence in appointments that are for the President
Section 16, Art. VII, without the solely to make, that is, without the
confirmation of the CoA because they participation of the Commission on
are among the officers of government Appointments, cannot be ad interim
"whom he (the President) may be appointments.
authorized by law to appoint." Section
2(c), Executive Order No. 163, 45 Elpidio Valencia vs. Macario
authorizes the President to appoint the Peralta, Jr.,
Chairman and Members of the
Commission on Human Rights. CoA Facts: Valencia was designated Acting
disapproved Bautista's alleged ad interim Chairman of the board of directors of the
appointment as Chairperson of the CHR National Waterworks and Sewerage
in view of her refusal to submit to the Authority by the then Pres. Garcia.
jurisdiction of the Commission on Allegedly upon information that the then
Appointments. Pres. Garcia had extended him as an ad
interim appointment, petitioner took an
ISSUES: oath of office to the position of
1. Whether or not Bautista's appointment Chairman Ad Interim of said Authority of
is subject to CoA's confirmation. which the Commission on Appointments
2. Whether or not Bautista's appointment confirmed and specified the expiration
is an ad interim appointment. date of his term of office. However, Pres.
Macapagal appointed respondent as ad
RULING: interim to the same position. Thereafter,
1. No. The position of Chairman of CHR the petitioner ceased to attend any board
is not among the positions mentioned in meeting and eventually instituted the
the first sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7 of the present petition.
Constitution, which provides that the
appointments which are to be made with Issue: Whether or not the appointment of
the confirmation of CoA. Rather, it is Valencia is valid.
within the authority of President, vested
upon her by Constitution (2nd sentence Ruling: No. The designation of petitioner
of Sec. 16 Art 7), that she appoint as Acting Chairman of the NAWASA
executive officials without confirmation of Board of Directors is of revocable and
CoA. temporary character which could not
The Commission on Appointments, by ripen into a permanent appointment,
the actual exercise of its constitutionally even if it was subsequently confirmed by
delimited power to review presidential the Commission on Appointments,
appointments, cannot create power to because confirmation presupposes a
confirm appointments that the valid nomination or recess appointment,
of which there is no trace. Neither does
the fact that petitioner Valencia Civil Service Commission of the date of
subscribed an oath of office as ad said notice.
interim appointee to the position help his Consequently, Ramon V. Mitra filed
case, since the oath clearly does not with the Court of First Instance of Manila
correspond to the temporary designation praying for the issuance of a writ of
as Acting Chairman that was accorded preliminary mandatory injunction to
him. There is on record only one written restrain the Acting Commisisoner of Civil
designation of petitioner, a mere Acting Service from enforcing his order
Chairman, that was not a permanent terminating his services as Senior
appointment, was revocable at any time Technical Assistant in the Office of the
by the Chief Executive, and actually Mayor, and to order the City Auditor and
revoked by the subsequent designation City Treasurer to authorize and pay,
of respondent Peralta. respectively, his salary corresponding to
the period from January 16 to 31, 1963,
46 RAMON V. MITRA, petitioner- and those which may thereafter become
appellee, vs.ABELARDO SUBIDO, in due and payable. The court a quo then
his capacity as Acting Commissioner rendered the decision holding that the
of Civil Service, ET AL., respondents- appointment of petitioner Ramon V. Mitra
appellants. as Senior Technical Assistant in the
Facts: Office of the Mayor at P8,400.00 per
Effective July 1, 1962, Mayor Antonio J. annum effective July 1, 1962, bears,
Villegas, of the City of Manila, appointed among others, the valid approval of the
the petitioner as Senior Technology Civil Service Commission and is
Assistant in his office, with compensation complete and that the certification
at the rate of P8,400 per annum. This requirement of the law is not necessary
appointment was forwarded to the Civil in the appointment.
Service Commission for approval which Issue:
was approved subject to the usual Whether or not the appointment of
physical and medical examination. petitioner Ramon Mitra as Senior
The appointee Ramon V. Mitra Technical Assistant is valid and
qualified for and assumed the position of complete.
Senior Technical Assistant in the Office Held:
of the Mayor of Manila. Since then, he Yes, the appointment of petitioner
discharged the duties of the position and Ramon Mitra is valid and complete.
was paid the corresponding salary for his It is apparent from the provisions of the
services, until January 15, 1963. Civil Service Law that prior certification of
On January 11, 1963, the Acting eligibles is required only if a position is
Commissioner of Civil Service, Abelardo not filled by promotion, by transfer of
Subido, wrote to the City Mayor informing persons already in the government
him that the appointment extended to the service, and by reinstatement or
petitioner was in violation of the reemployment of persons separated
certification requirement prescribed by from the service through reduction in
the Civil Service Law and was force. In the case at bar, it was shown
incomplete, because the approval during the trial that the appointee was
thereof by Epi Rey Pangramuyen, Chief, formerly employed in the Department of
Personnel Transactions Division, was Foreign Affairs and the Central Bank of
"ultra vires," the latter having acted the Philippines. Obviously, therefore, the
beyond the scope of his delegated appointment was a reinstatement, and
authority. In the same communication, there was no necessity of obtaining prior
the acting Commissioner of Civil Service certification of eligibles from the Civil
ordered the termination of the services of Service Commission.
Ramon V. Mitra, upon receipt of said Moreover, it may be stated as a general
letter by the City Mayor, who was rule that an appointment once made is
"requested to notify accordingly the irrevocable and not subject to
employee affected and to advise" the reconsideration. The rule is qualified,
however, where the assent, confirmation
or approval of some other officer or body assumed the duties of his position. Under
is needed before the appointment may the same appointment as approved by
issue and be deemed complete. the Chief, Personnel Transactions
Necessarily, this calls for a determination Division in the name of the
in any given situation whether or not all Commissioner of Civil Service, the City
the acts necessary to make an Auditor and City Treasurer allowed and
appointment complete have been paid, respectively, the salary of the
performed. Where the power of appellee for the period from July 1, 1962
appointment is absolute, and the to January 15, 1963, a period of six and
appointee has been determined upon, no a half months. In the case of
further consent or approval is necessary, appointments made by local officials and
and the formal evidence of the attested to by Provincial Treasurers and
appointment, the commission, may issue City Treasurers under Section 20 of the
at once. Where, however, the assent or Civil Service Law, the appointments are
confirmation of some other officer or deemed to have been properly made if
body is required, the commission can within a period of one hundred eighty
issue or the appointment be complete days the Commissioner of Civil Service
only when such assent or confirmation is fails to make any correction or revision
obtained. thereof. After the lapse of the period
Under our Civil Service Law and therein allowed, corrections of mistakes
the rules promulgated thereunder, an may no longer be had, considering that
appointment to a position in the civil after the lapse of that time the
service must be submitted to the probationary period of an employee
Commissioner of Civil Service for under his appointment also ends, and his
approval, i.e., for determination whether appointment automatically becomes
the proposed appointee is qualified to permanent.
hold the position, and whether or not the A removal from office takes place
pertinent rules had been followed in after title to the office has become vested
making the appointment. We have said in the appointee, whereas revocation of
in this connection that the appointment an appointment is had, if it is to be
made by an officer duly empowered to successful, before the appointment is
make it, is not final and complete until complete. The moment the appointee
after the Commissioner of Civil Service assumes a position in the civil service
has certified that such appointment may under a completed appointment, he
be made The acts of the head of acquires a legal, not merely equitable
Department or Office making the right, which is protected not only by
appointment and the Commissioner of statute, but also by the Constitution, and
Civil Service acting together, though not it cannot be taken away from him, either
concurrently, but consecutively, are by revocation of the appointment or by
necessary to make an appointment removal, except for cause, and with
complete. And there should be no previous notice and hearing, consistent
question that for an appointee in the with Section 4 of Article XII of our
classified position in the civil service to fundamental law, and with the
be entitled to the protection of the law constitutional requirement of due
against unjust removal, his appointment process. And when, as in this case, the
must receive the approval of the appointee has been regularly performing
Commissioner of Civil Service. the duties of his office and been paid the
Applying the rules above- corresponding salary for more than six
explained, it was held that the months already under a known
appointment of the appellee had become appointment that was never questioned
complete when the appellant by either the City Treasurer or the City
Commissioner of Civil Service issued his Auditor of Manila before granting the
order terminating the services of the salary of the appellee, the act of the
former. The appointment in question was Acting Commissioner of Civil Service in
extended to the appellee on July 1, 1962, summarily terminating the services of the
by virtue of which the appointee appointee may not be said to be a
reconsideration of the appointment, but private respondent to her position under
is in fact a removal from office. Like a her previously approved appointment.
judgment that is not void upon its face, In the case at bar, petitioner assailing the
the appointment in question is not "the revocation of his appointment, invokes
serpent that may be attacked or slain at the rulings in previous jurisprudence that
sight." The power to remove from office the CSC has no authority to revoke an
cannot lightly be inferred from the duty of appointment on the ground that another
the Commissioner of Civil Service to person is more qualified for a particular
make investigations and take corrective position for that would have constituted
measures when unsatisfactory situations an encroachment on the discretion
are found to exist. Under the vested solely in the appointing authority.
circumstances of this case, that duty Issue: Whether or not appointment of the
should be exercised, if it is to be exercise respondent can be revoked.
at all, with the end in view of ratifying the Held: No. It is well settled that once an
appointment in question should he appointment is issued and the moment
believe that the act of his subordinate in the appointee assumes position, he
approving the appointment is not acquires a legal, not merely equitable
sufficient, considering that the appellee right, which is protected not only by
has been found qualified for the position statute, but also by the Constitution, and
to which he was appointed. cannot be taken away from him either by
revocation of the appointment, or by
47 .R. No. 92403. April 22, 1992.* removal, except for cause and with
VICTOR A. AQUINO, previous notice and hearing.
petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE Said appointment cannot also be
COMMISSION and LEONARDA D. DE revoked on the ground that the protestant
LA PAZ, respondents. is more qualified than the first appointee.
Facts: Petitioner was designated as The protest must be for a cause or
Officer-in-charge of the Division Supply predicated on those grounds provided for
Office by the DECS Regional Director in under Sect 19 (6) of the Civil Service Law
view of the retirement of the Supply (PD 807), namely:
Officer I. 1) that the appointee is not qualified;
Two years thereafter, the Division 2) that the appointee is not the next in
Superintendent of City Schools issued a rank; and
promotional appointment to private 3) in case of appointment transfer,
respondent as Supply Officer I in the reinstatement, or by original
DECS division. The Civil Service appointment, that the protestant is not
Regional Office IV approved her satisfied with the written special reasons
appointment as permanent. or reason given by the appointing
Petitioner filed a protest with DECS authority.
Secretary questioning the qualification Note: “for a cause” means “for reasons
and competence of private respondent which the law and sound public policy
for the position of Supply Officer I. recognized as sufficient warrant for
Finding the petitioner better qualified removal, that is, legal cause, and not
than the respondent, the DECS merely causes which the appointing
Secretary in a decision sustained the power in the exercise of discretion may
protest and revoked the appointment of deem sufficient. It is implied that officers
private respondent, and petitioner was may not be removed at the mere will of
issued a permanent appointment as those vested with the power of removal,
Supply Officer by the DECS Regional or without any cause. Moreover, the
Director. Said appointment was cause must relate to and affect the
approved by the Civil Service Regional administration of office and must be
Office IV. restricted to something of a substantial
In an appeal to the CSC, public nature directly affecting the rights and
respondent CSC found the appeal interests of the public.”
meritorious, thus revoking the
appointment of petitioner and restoring
48 sarmiento III vs Mison enumeration of subjects excludes others
FACTS: not enumerated, it would follow that only
Mison was appointed as the those appointments to positions
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs expressly stated in the first group require
and Carague as the Secretary of the the consent (confirmation) of the
Department of Budget, without the Commission on Appointments.
confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments. Sarmiento assailed the It is evident that the position of
appointments as unconstitutional by Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs
reason of its not having been confirmed (a bureau head) is not one of those within
by CoA. the first group of appointments where the
consent of the Commission on
ISSUE: Appointments is required. The 1987
Whether or not the appointment is valid. Constitution deliberately excluded the
position of "heads of bureaus" from
RULING: appointments that need the consent
Yes. The President acted within her (confirmation) of the Commission on
constitutional authority and power in Appointments.
appointing Salvador Mison, without
submitting his nomination to the CoA for 49 Aytona vs Castillo
confirmation. He is thus entitled to Facts: Dominador Aytona was one of
exercise the full authority and functions those appointed by outgoing president
of the office and to receive all the salaries Carlos Garcia during the last day of his
and emoluments pertaining thereto. term. Aytona was appointed as the ad
interim governor of the Central Bank.
Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987 When the next president, Diosdado
Constitution, there are 4 groups of Macapagal took his office, he issued
officers whom the President shall Order No. 2 which recalled Aytona’s
appoint: position and at the same time he
1st, appointment of executive appointed Andres Castillo as the new
departments and bureaus heads, governor of the Central Bank. Aytona
ambassadors, other public ministers, then filed a quo warranto proceeding
consuls, officers of the armed forces from claiming that he is qualified to remain as
the rank of colonel or naval captain, and the Central Bank governor and that he
other officers with the consent and was validly appointed by the former
confirmation of the CoA. president. Macapagal averred that the
2nd, all other Government officers whose ex-president’s appointments were
appointments are not otherwise provided scandalous, irregular, hurriedly done,
by law; contrary to law and the spirit of which,
3rd those whom the President may be and it was an attempt to subvert the
authorized by the law to appoint; incoming presidency or administration.
4th, low-ranking officers whose Issue: Whether or not Aytona should
appointments the Congress may by law remain in his post.
vest in the President alone. Ruling : No. Had the appointment of
First group of officers is clearly appointed Aytona been done in good faith then he
with the consent of the Commission on would have the right to continue office.
Appointments. Appointments of such Here, even though Aytona is qualified to
officers are initiated by nomination and, if remain in his post as he is competent
the nomination is confirmed by the enough, his appointment can
Commission on Appointments, the nevertheless be revoked by the
President appoints. president. Garcia’s appointments are
hurried maneuvers to subvert the
2nd, 3rd and 4th group of officers are the upcoming administration and is set to
present bone of contention. By following obstruct the policies of the next
the accepted rule in constitutional and president. As a general rule, once a
statutory construction that an express person is qualified his appointment
should not be revoked but in here it may
be since his appointment was grounded
on bad faith, immorality and impropriety.
In public service, it is not only legality that
is considered but also justice, fairness
and righteousness.