You are on page 1of 2

Obiasca vs.

Basallote │ Kat  Ombudsman found Oyardo and Gonzales administratively

February 17, 2010 liable for withholding information from Basllote on the
ARLIN B. OBIASCA, Petitioner, vs. JEANE O. status of her appointment, and suspended them from the
BASALLOTE, Respondent. service for three months. Diaz was absolved of any
CORONA, J. wrongdoing.
 Basallote also filed a protest with CSC Regional Office V.
SUMMARY: Basallote was appointed as Administrative Officer II.  CSC Reg. Office V: Dismissed protest. It should first be
However, her appointment could not be her forwarded to the CSC submitted to the Grievance Committee of the DepEd for
because of her failure to submit the position description form (PDF) appropriate action.
duly signed by Gonzales (school principal). Despite repeated  MR: Protest was reinstated but was eventually dismissed
requests, the signature could still not be obtained. She was then for lack of merit.
advised by Oyardo (new City Schools Division Superintendent) to  CSC Regional Office: Dismissed the appeal for failure to
return to her former teaching position of Teacher I. Subsequently, show that her appointment had been received and
Oyardo appointed Obiasco as Administrative Officer II. This attested by the CSC.
prompted Basallote to file a protest with the CSC. The CSC  CSC (November 29, 2005 resolution): granted the appeal,
approved Basallote’s appointment and recalled the approval of approved Basallote’s appointment and recalled the
Obiasca’s appointment. The CA and the SC agreed with the CSC. approval of Obiasca’s appointment.
The appointment of Obiasca was inconsistent with the law and well-  Obiasca filed a petition for certiorari in the CA claiming that
established jurisprudence. It not only disregarded the doctrine of the CSC acted without factual and legal bases in recalling
immutability of final judgments but also unduly concentrated on a his appointment. He also prayed for the issuance of a TRO
narrow portion of the provision of law, overlooking the greater part and a WPI.
of the provision and other related rules and using a legal doctrine
 CA (September 26, 2006 decision): denied the petition and
rigidly and out of context. Its effect was to perpetuate an injustice.
upheld Basallote’s appointment which was deemed
effective immediately upon its issuance by the appointing
Section 12, Book V of EO 292 amended Section 9(h) of PD 807 by
authority on May 26, 2003 because Basallote had
deleting the requirement that all appointments subject to CSC
accepted the appointment upon her assumption of the
approval be submitted to it within 30 days
duties and responsibilities of the position.
Section 9(h) of PD 807: an appointment shall take effect
o Basallote possessed all the qualifications and
immediately upon issue by the appointing authority if the appointee
none of the disqualifications for the position of
assumes his duties immediately and shall remain effective until it is
Administrative Officer II;
disapproved by the [CSC].
o Due to the Basallote’s valid appointment, no
other appointment to the same position could be
made without the position being first vacated;
 May 26, 2003: City Schools Division Superintendent Nelly o Obiasca’s appointment to the position was thus
B. Beloso appointed Jeane O. Basallote to the position of void;
Administrative Officer II, Item No. OSEC-DECSB- o Contrary to the argument of Obiasca that he had
ADO2-390030-1998, of the DepEd, Tabaco National High been deprived of his right to due process when
School in Albay. he was not allowed to participate in the
 In a letter dated June 4, 2003: The new City Schools proceedings in the CSC, it was Obiasca who
Division Superintendent, Ma. Amy O. Oyardo, advised failed to exercise his right by failing to submit a
School Principal Dr. Leticia B. Gonzales that the papers of single pleading despite being furnished with
the applicants for the position of Administrative Officer II of copies of the pleadings in the proceedings in the
the school, including those of Basallote, were being CSC.
returned and that a school ranking should be o Diaz unreasonably refused to affix her signature
accomplished and submitted to her office for review. In on Basallote’s PDF and to submit Basallote’s
addition, Gonzales was advised that only qualified appointment to the CSC on the ground of non-
applicants should be endorsed. submission of Basallote’s PDF. The PDF was not
 June 19, 2003: Basallote assumed the office of even required to be submitted and forwarded to
Administrative Officer II. the CSC.
 However, Basallote received a letter from Ma. Teresa U. o (February 8, 2007): MR denied
Diaz, Human Resource Management Officer I of the City  Hence, this petition.
Schools Division of Tabaco City, Albay, informing her that  Obiasca: Basallote was not validly appointed to the
her appointment could not be forwarded to the Civil position of Administrative Officer II because her
Service Commission (CSC) because of her failure to appointment was never attested by the CSC. Without the
submit the position description form (PDF) duly CSC attestation, Basallote’s appointment as
signed by Gonzales. Administrative Officer II was never completed and never
 Basallote tried to obtain Gozales’ signature but the latter vested her a permanent title. As such, Basallote’s
refused despite repeated requests. appointment could still be recalled or withdrawn by the
 When Basallote informed Oyardo of the situation, she was appointing authority.
instead advised to return to her former teaching o Basallote’s appointment issued on May 23, 2003
position of Teacher I. Basallote followed the advice. should have been transmitted to the CSC not
 August 25, 2003: Oyardo appointed Arlin B. Obiasca to later than (30 days on) June 22, 2003 for proper
the same position of Administrative Officer II. attestation. Because Basallote’s appointment
o The appointment was sent to and was properly was not sent to the CSC within the proper period,
attested by the CSC. her appointment ceased to be effective and the
 Upon learning this, Basallote filed a complaint with the position of Administrative Officer II was already
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against vacant when petitioner was appointed to it.
Oyardo, Gonzales and Diaz.
 Obiasca relies on an overly restrictive reading of Section Yes since the petitioner failed to file a motion for recall
9(h) of PD 807 which states that an appointment must be
submitted by the appointing authority to the CSC within 30
before taking it to CA
days from issuance, otherwise, the appointment becomes
ineffective: DEAR requires that for reasons of law, comity and
o Sec. 9. Powers and Functions of the convenience, where the enabling statute indicates a
Commission. — The [CSC] shall administer the
Civil Service and shall have the following powers
procedure for administrative review and provides a system
and functions: of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts will
o (h) Approve all appointments, whether original or not entertain a case unless the available administrative
promotional, to positions in the civil service,
except those of presidential appointees, remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, authorities have been given the opportunity to act and
police forces, firemen and jailguards, and
disapprove those where the appointees do not
correct errors committed within the province of an AA.
possess the appropriate eligibility or required
qualifications. An appointment shall take effect Exceptions to DEAR (+3)
immediately upon issue by the appointing
authority if the appointee assumes his duties - Where no administrative review is provided by law;
immediately and shall remain effective until it is
disapproved by the [CSC], if this should take - Where the rule of QPA applies; and
place, without prejudice to the liability of the
appointing authority for appointments issued in - Where the issue of non-exhaustion of admin remedies
violation of existing laws or rules: Provided,
finally, That the [CSC] shall keep a record of has been rendered moot.
appointments of all officers and employees in the
civil service. All appointments requiring the A petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to the
approval of the [CSC] as herein provided, filing of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
shall be submitted to it by the appointing
authority within thirty days from issuance, Court (refer to modes of Judicial Review)
otherwise the appointment becomes
ineffective thirty days thereafter. Public office - no right to property (not a property right)
 This provision is implemented in Section 11, Rule V of the but once given to you, it needs to be protected.
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 (Omnibus
Rules): Complaints for public officers can be directed to the (1)
o Section 11. An appointment not submitted to the
[CSC] within thirty (30) days from the date of admin agency or (2) ombudsman. When one starts the
issuance which shall be the date appearing on case the other cannot decide anymore
the fact of the appointment, shall be ineffective.
 Basallote: Her appointment was wrongfully not submitted
by the proper persons to the CSC for attestation. The
reason given by Oyardo for the non-submission of
Basallote’s appointment papers to the CSC — the alleged
failure of Basallote to have her PDF duly signed by
Gonzales — was not a valid reason because the PDF was
not even required for the attestation of Basallote’s
appointment by the CSC.

ISSUE: W/N the deliberate failure of the appointing authority (or

other responsible officials) to submit Bsallote’s appointment paper
to the CSC within 30 days from its issuance made her appointment
ineffective and incomplete? NO

 The law on the matter is clear.
 When the law is clear, there is no other recourse but to
apply it regardless of its perceived harshness. Dura lex
sed lex. Nonetheless, the law should never be applied or
interpreted to oppress one in order to favor another. As a
court of law and of justice, this Court has the duty to
adjudicate conflicting claims based not only on the cold
provision of the law but also according to the higher
principles of right and justice.

WON the DEAR is violated?