THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA VS. HILARIO M.

MARCO
GR NO. 202331, APRIL 22, 2015; SECOND DIVISION; LEONEN, J.-
PONENTE
DOCTRINE: The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to
presidential appointees, not to appointments made by local chief executives.
However, the Civil Service Commission may nonetheless promulgate rules and
regulations that would prohibit such on local chief executives.
FACTS:
Marco was appointed as Cooperative Development Specialist II by
outgoing Governor Ong, five (5) days prior to the election, together with other
25 appointees. However, during the assumption of office of the subsequent
Governor Castillo, the provincial budget manifested that they did not have
enough funds to cover the 26 appointees made by Ong, which included Marco.
This was a deviation from the prior certification issued by the same that funds
were available.
Proceedings were then instituted on the issue on whether or not the
subsequent withdrawal of the certification of funds was a valid ground to make
the appointment void before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office, then
to the National Office. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
provincial government averred that the appointment was void because the
appointment was a midnight appointment.
The provincial government of Aurora averred that the ruling by the Court
in Nazareno, et.al. vs. City of Dumaguete should apply, when in that case, the
Court declared that the 89 appointments made were void in violation the
prohibition on midnight appointments, and CSC Resolution No. 010988 which
prohibited mass appointments made by an outgoing Local Chief Executive
without no apparent need for their immediate issuance.
ISSUE:
Is the appointment of Marco in violation of the rules on Midnight
Appointment?
RULING:
No. The appointment of Marco is not violative of the rules on Midnight
Appointment, and the application of Nazareno is misplaced.
First, it must be noted that the prohibition of Midnight Appointments
under Sec. 15 of Art. VII of the Constitution only applies to presidential
appointments. However, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the government, may establish rules to promote efficiency and
professionalism in the civil service.
Second, Nazareno was decided on the basis of CSC Resolution No.
101988, which was superseded by CSC Resolution No. 030918, the applicable
rule in this case. The rule applicable in this case provides that appointments
covered by the rule in Midnight Appoints should be disapproved, except if the
appointee is fully qualified for the position and had undergone regular
screening processes before the Election Ban as shown in the Promotion and
Selection Board (PSB) report or minutes of meeting.
In this case, records show that Marco was fully qualified for the position,
and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban, unlike
in Nazareno where there was no showing that the appointees possessed such
qualification and undergone regular screening processes. Moreover, the fact
that the appointments were in bulk does not invalidate the appointments,
unlike the previous CSC Resolution.
 THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA VS. HILARIO M. MARCO
GR NO. 202331, APRIL 22, 2015; SECOND DIVISION; LEONEN, J.-
PONENTE
DOCTRINE: The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to
presidential appointees, not to appointments made by local chief executives.
However, the Civil Service Commission may nonetheless promulgate rules and
regulations that would prohibit such on local chief executives.
FACTS:
Marco was appointed as Cooperative Development Specialist II by
outgoing Governor Ong, five (5) days prior to the election, together with other
25 appointees. However, during the assumption of office of the subsequent
Governor Castillo, the provincial budget manifested that they did not have
enough funds to cover the 26 appointees made by Ong, which included Marco.
This was a deviation from the prior certification issued by the same that funds
were available.
Proceedings were then instituted on the issue on whether or not the
subsequent withdrawal of the certification of funds was a valid ground to make
the appointment void before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office, then
to the National Office. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
provincial government averred that the appointment was void because the
appointment was a midnight appointment.
The provincial government of Aurora averred that the ruling by the Court
in Nazareno, et.al. vs. City of Dumaguete should apply, when in that case, the
Court declared that the 89 appointments made were void in violation the
prohibition on midnight appointments, and CSC Resolution No. 010988 which
prohibited mass appointments made by an outgoing Local Chief Executive
without no apparent need for their immediate issuance.
ISSUE:
Is the appointment of Marco in violation of the rules on Midnight
Appointment?
RULING:
No. The appointment of Marco is not violative of the rules on Midnight
Appointment, and the application of Nazareno is misplaced.
First, it must be noted that the prohibition of Midnight Appointments
under Sec. 15 of Art. VII of the Constitution only applies to presidential
appointments. However, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the government, may establish rules to promote efficiency and
professionalism in the civil service.
Second, Nazareno was decided on the basis of CSC Resolution No.
101988, which was superseded by CSC Resolution No. 030918, the applicable
rule in this case. The rule applicable in this case provides that appointments
covered by the rule in Midnight Appoints should be disapproved, except if the
appointee is fully qualified for the position and had undergone regular
screening processes before the Election Ban as shown in the Promotion and
Selection Board (PSB) report or minutes of meeting.
In this case, records show that Marco was fully qualified for the position,
and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban, unlike
in Nazareno where there was no showing that the appointees possessed such
qualification and undergone regular screening processes. Moreover, the fact
that the appointments were in bulk does not invalidate the appointments,
unlike the previous CSC Resolution.