You are on page 1of 2


G.R. NO.181559


 The outgoing Dumaguete City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo sought reelection in the May 2001
elections, but he lost to Mayor Agustin R. Perdices.
 On June 5, 7 and 11, 2001 – Outgoing Mayor Remollo promoted 15 city hall employees and regularized
another 74 city hall employees, including the herein 52 petitioners.
 On July 2, 2001, Mayor Perdices publicly announced at the flag raising ceremony at the Dumaguete City
Hall that he would not honor the appointments made by former Mayor Remollo.
 He instructed the City Administrator, respondent Dominador Dumalag, Jr. to direct respondent City
Assistant Treasurer Erlinda C. Tumongha to refrain from making any cash disbursements for payments of
the petitioners’ salary based on their new positions.
 Petitioners filed a Mandumus with Injunction and Damages with Prayer for a TRO against City of
Dumaguete. Petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondents from
taking any action or issuing any orders nullifying their appointments.

Decision of RTC

 RTC dismissed the petition

 Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

Revocation of Appointments of CSC Field Office

 CSC Filed Office through Director Fabio R. Abucejo revoked and invalidated the appointments of the
petitioners based on the following:
o There was only 1 en banc meeting of the City Personnel Selection Board for the 15 promotional
appointments and 74 original appointments.
o No minutes of the meeting to show the deliberations of the PSB.
o No PSB statements certifying that there was actual screening and evaluation done on all the
candidates for each position
o The appointing officer was an outgoing local official and the appointments were issued after the
elections and when the new city mayor was about to assume office.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration before CSC Region VII Office in Cebu
 Motion was denied on the ground that the same should have been filed before the CSC Field Office
 Petitioners asked CSC Regional Office to treat their MR as appeal.

Decision of CSC Regional Office

 Affirmed the invalidation of the appointments of the petitioners

Decision of the CSC en Bank and the Court of Appeals

 Denied the Appeal and affirmed the invalidation of the appointments on the ground that these were mass
appointments made by an outgoing local chief executive
 Prohibition is designed to discourage to losing candidates from extending appointments to their proteges
or from giving their constituents promised positions.

Decision of Court of Appeals

 Denied the appeal and affirmed the invalidation of the appointments

Arguments of the Petitioner

 Commission has no authority to issue regulations prohibiting mass appointments at the local government
level. Petitoners cited De Rama vs. CA which held that Artciel VII of the Constitution is only applicable to
the president or acting president
 They claim that outgoing or defeated local appointing authorities are authorized to make appointments
of qualified individuals until their last day in office and that not all mass appointments are invalid
 They also claim that Dumaguete City has been granted authority to take final action on all appointments
and the Commission did not have any authority to disapproved the appointments made by the outgoing


Whether or not Civil Service Commission has the authority to issue CSC Resolution No. 010988 and invalidate the
petitioners’ appointment?


 SC held that CSC has the authority to issue CSC Resolution No. 010988 and that the invalidation of
petitioner’s appointments were warranted.
 CSC has the authority to establish rules to promote efficiency in the civil service.
 The Commission, as the Central Personnel Agency of the government, has the statutory authority to
establish rules and regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the Civil Service.
 Included in the powers of the Commission as provided for in PD No. 807 or Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines is the power to issue rules and regulations and to review appointments.
 Administrative Code of 1987 also provides that the CSC has the power to prescribe, amend and enforce
rules to cover the civil service.
 There is no law that prohibits local elective official from making appointments during the last days of his /
her tenure, but CSC prohibits the same as it not only causes animosities between the outgoing and income
officials but also affects efficiency in the local governance.
 CSC Resolution No. 010988 does not purport to nullify all mass appointments.
 It must be shown that the appointments have undergone the regular screening process, the appointee is
qualified, there is a need to fill up the vacancy immediately and that the appointment are not in bulk.
 Not all appointments made immediately before and after the elections are invalid, it must be determined
on the basis of the nature, character of the individual appointment and the particular circumstances
surrounding the same.