De Rama v.

Court of Appeals (Ynares-Santiago, 2001) 1

Facts:
-

Mayor Conrado de Rama won as mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon. One of the first things he did upon
assumption of office was to write the Civil Service Commission and seek the recall of the
appointments of 14 municipal employees. According to him, said appointments should be recalled
as they were midnight appointments of the former mayor, Evelyn Abeja. The CSC denied his
request saying that the appointments of the 14 employees were made in accordance with law and
that the sec.15, art.VII of the Constitution which is being relied upon by Mayor de Rama, pertains
only to the appointments of the outgoing President and not of local elective officials.

Upon appeal to the CA, Mayor de Rama filed a supplemental pleading to the appeal alleging that
the appointments were also tainted with fraud since the former mayor did not follow the rule in
sec.80 of Ra 7041 that appointments can only be made within 4 months from the publication of
the vacancies.

Issue: WON the appointments made by the former mayor should be recalled.
Held and Ratio:
-

NO. The CSC has correctly ruled that the appointments were made in accordance with the law. It
was already too late for Mayor de Rama to claim that appointments were tainted with fraud since
he did not raise this in his first complaint, which only relied on his allegation that the same were
midnight appointments. Only the CSC has the power to recall the appointments upon grounds
mentioned in the Revised Administrative Code. 2 However, none of the grounds exist to warrant
the recall of the said appointments. To grant the mayors request is to violate the security of
tenure of the appointed employees.

Aside from this, the Court ruled that it was error for Mayor de Rama to invoke the constitutional
prohibition against midnight appointments. According to the Court, this only pertains to
appointments made by an outgoing President and is not applicable to appointments made by an
outgoing mayor.

Mendoza, dissenting:
-

1
2

The prohibition against midnight appointments is not limited to those made by an outgoing
President. The same covers those made by outgoing elective officials since midnight
appointments in general are bad because they are made hurriedly, without due deliberation and
careful consideration of the needs of the office and the qualifications of the appointee. Moreover,
the offend principle of fairness, justice and righteousness.

Angelica Paglicawan

Sec.20, rule VI that appointments may be recalled on any of the following grounds:
a. non-compliance with the procedures/criteria provided in the agencys Merit Promotion Plan
b. failure to pass through the agencys Selection/Promotion Board
c. violation of the existing collective agreement between management and employees relative to promotion; or
d. violation of other existing civil service law, rules and regulations.