You are on page 1of 2

Obiasca v Basallote

2010 | Corona, J.
2003, City Schools Division Superintendent
appointed respondent to Admin Officer II.
Later, the Oyardo, new CSDS, advised the school
principal Gonzales that the papers of applications for the
position of Admin Officer II, including those of respondent,
were being returned and that a school ranking should be
accomplished and submitted for review.
Respondent was then advised by HRMO Diaz that
her appointment could not be forwarded to CSC for her
failure to submit the position description form. She tried
to obtain Gonzales’ signature but the latter refused
despite repeated requests. When she informed Oyard, she
was advised to return to her former teaching position of
Teacher I.
Meanwhile, Oyardo appointed petitioner to same
position of Admin Officer II which appointment was sent
and attested by the CSC. After learning this, respondent
filed a complaint with Ombudsman against Oyardo,
Gonzales and Diaz.
Oyardo and Gonzales was held administratively
liable for withholding information from respondent on the
status of her appointment, and suspended them from the
service for three months.

Respondent also filed a protest with CSC Regional
Office but was dismissed. CSC granted her appeal,
approved her appointment and recalled petitioner’s
Petitioner then went to CA. CA denied her petition
for certiorari.

W/N the deliberate failure of the appointing
authority (or other responsible officials) to submit
respondent’s appointment paper to the CSC within
30 days from its issuance made her appointment
ineffective and incomplete. No.

Petitioner contends: respondent was not validly appointed
to the position of Administrative Officer II because her
appointment was never attested by the CSC.
- She relies on Section 9(h) of PD 807;
- She argues that respondent’s appointment
became effective on the day of her appointment
but it subsequently ceased to be so when the
appointing authority did not submit her
appointment to the CSC for attestation within 30

SC: No.
- CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005
recalling petitioner’s appointment and approving
that of respondent has long become final and
- Petitioner did not file a petition for
reconsideration of the CSC resolution dated
November 29, 2005 before filing a petition for
review in the CA. Such fatal procedural lapse on
petitioner’s part allowed the CSC resolution dated
November 29, 2005 to become final and

1. Section 9(h) of PD 807 Already Amended by
Section 12 Book V of EO 292
- Section 12, Book V of EO 292 amended
Section 9(h) of PD 807 by deleting the
requirement that all appointments subject to
CSC approval be submitted to it within 30
o As a rule, an amendment by the deletion
of certain words or phrases indicates an
intention to change its meaning;
o The word, phrase or sentence excised
should accordingly be
- Under Section 9(h) of PD 807, appointments
not submitted within 30 days to the CSC
become ineffective, no such specific adverse
effect is contemplated under Section 12 (14)
and (15) of EO 292; certainly, the two
provisions are materially inconsistent with
each other;
- There being no requirement in EO 292 that
appointments should be submitted to the CSC
for attestation within 30 days from issuance,
it is doubtful by what authority the CSC
imposed such condition under Section 11,
Rule V of the Omnibus Rules;
2. Undisputed that respondent’s appointment was
not submitted to the CSC, not through her own
fault but because of HRMO Diaz’s unjustified
refusal to sign it on the feigned and fallacious
ground that respondent’s position description
form had not been duly signed by the principal;
- Court cannot look the other way and make
respondent suffer the malicious consequences
of Gonzales’s and Oyardo’s malfeasance.
Otherwise, the Court would be recognizing a
result that is unconscionable and unjust by
effectively validating the following inequities:
o respondent, who was vigilantly following
up her appointment paper, was left to
hang and dry;
o to add insult to injury, not long after
Oyardo advised her to return to her
teaching position, she (Oyardo)
appointed petitioner in respondent’s

Respondent’s papers were in order
- no doubt that, had the appointing authority
only submitted respondent’s appointment to
the CSC within the said 30 days from its
issuance, the CSC would (and could ) have
approved it;
3. Favis case: tolerance, acquiescence or mistake
of the proper officials, resulting in the non-
observance of the pertinent rules on the matter
does not render the legal requirement, on the
necessity of approval by the Commissioner
of Civil Service of appointments, ineffective
and unenforceable;
- Above not applicable here;
- This case shows that the lack of CSC
approval was not due to any negligence
on respondent’s part. Neither was it due
to the "tolerance, acquiescence or
mistake of the proper officials." Rather,
the underhanded machinations of
Gonzales and Oyardo, as well as the
gullibility of Diaz, were the major
reasons why respondent’s appointment
was not even forwarded to the CSC.

Article 1186 of the Civil Code, "[t]he condition
shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor
voluntarily prevents its fulfillment."
- Applying this to the appointment process in
the civil service, unless the appointee himself
is negligent in following up the submission of
his appointment to the CSC for approval, he
should not be prejudiced by any willful act
done in bad faith by the appointing authority
to prevent the timely submission of his
appointment to the CSC;
4. In appointing petitioner, the appointing
authority effectively revoked the previous
appointment of respondent and usurped the
power of the CSC to withdraw or revoke an
appointment that had already been accepted
by the appointee.