Province of Aurora vs Marco

Case Digest: GR 202331 Apr 22 2015

Facts:

Marco was permanently appointed as Corporate Development Specialist II by Gov. Ong 5 days before
the end of her term in June 30, 2004. His appointment, along with 25 other appointments, was
accompanied by a certification stating that funds were available for the position. When the new Gov
took over, the appointments made by Gov Ong were revoked based on the recall made by Budget
Officer regarding the availability of funds for the position. Marcos sought reconsideration from the CSC
Regional Office but was denied. On appeal, the CSC through a resolution dated Apr 14 held the validity
of the appointment on the ground that it complied with the CSC rules and that the recall of the
certification did not affect its validity because evidence was not presented.

Instead of filing an MR, the Province filed a petition for relief. It was denied by the CSC because it was
not allowed by the rules. Meanwhile, Marco filed a motion to implement the Apr 14 Resolution, which
was granted. The Province filed an MR of the Apr 14 Resolution but was again denied because it was not
filed within the 15-day reglementary period. Finally, the Province filed before the CA a petition for
certiorari via Rule 43 against the CSC’s second order implementing the Apr 14 resolution, invoking the
constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments. The CA denied the petition and upheld the
CSC decision.

Issue:

W/N the CA is correct in taking cognizance over the case

Held:

No. The court should have dismissed the petition outright because no appeal may be taken over an
order of execution.

Under Rule 50, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court, the CA is allowed to dismiss an appeal where the order
appealed from is not appealable. This rule is based on the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which
states that a final and executory removes from the court which renders it the power and jurisdiction to
further alter or amend it, much less revoked it. Thus, even if a judgment is later on discovered to be
erroneous, it remains immutable.

Further, The remedy of a petition for relief from judgment is not among those provided under the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. This means that the remedy is not allowed
under civil service rules. Even assuming that a petition for relief may be filed before the Civil Service
Commission, the party must show that the assailed judgment became final through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence.