G.R. No.

154674             May 27, 2004

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, 

vs.
FELICISIMO O. JOSON, JR., in his capacity as former Administrator of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), respondent.

Irrefragably, Ong assumed the position and discharged her functions as Executive Assistant IV on
July 1, 1995. Thenceforth, she was entitled to the payment of her salary, as provided for in Section
10 of Rule V of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service Commission on the matter of
Appointments, viz:

An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect
immediately upon its issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee has
assumed the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his salary at once,
without awaiting the approval of his appointment by the Commission. The appointment
shall remain effective until disapproved by the Commission. In no case shall an appointment
take effect earlier than the date of its issuance.33

Moreover, the Court of Appeals took note of CSC Resolution No. 953263 dated May 23, 1995 which
states, thus:

… If the appointment was disapproved on grounds which do not constitute a violation of the
civil service law, such as the failure of the appointee to meet the Qualification Standards
(QS) prescribed for the position, the same is considered effective until disapproved by
the Commission or any of its regional or field offices. The appointee is meanwhile
entitled to payment of salaries from the government. Furthermore, if a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal from the disapproval is seasonably filed with the proper
office the appointment is still considered to be effective. The disapproval becomes final
only after the same is affirmed by the Commission.34

G.R. No. L-16507             May 31, 1961

JESUS T. GESOLGON, ROSENDO MENESES, RUBEN DEL ROSARIO, EDUARDO

ADVINCULA, ALFREDO GARCIA, GORGONIO MARIANO, CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, GERONIMO
CAGUIAT, FIDEL SALDAÑA, JOSE MANGALIMAN, EUSEBIO CAMPILLO and JOSE C.
GONZALES, petitioners-appellees, 
vs.
ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila, MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as Treasurer
of the City of Manila and JOSE ERESTAIN, as Auditor of the City of Manila, respondents-
appellants.

But discretion is not a blanket authority for its abusive exercise. Except as to petitioners Eusebio
Campillo and Jose Gonzales, we agree with the lower court that respondent mayor committed a
grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue promotional appointments to petitioners.

What clearly reveals the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of respondent mayor's conduct
is his refusal or failure to give any plausible reason for denying increased salaries to
petitioners who are civil service personnel. Neither here nor in the court below has he attempted
to justify his keeping their salaries at such a level that a lieutenant (Gesolgon) still receives the same
pay that is now that of a sergeant. Such arbitrariness can not constitute legal discretion.
But while petitioners have shown themselves entitled to promotions (except Campillo and Gonzales
whose ratings in many semesters fall below 85%), we see no reason for ordering the payment to
them of back salaries. Section 256 of the Revised Administrative Code is explicit in laying down the
appointments are not to take effect prior to the date of appointment, unless so provided by the Head
Department for exceptional reasons. Moreover, petitioners themselves aver that these appointments
have yet to be passed upon and approved by the Office of the President thru proper channels. To
order payment of back salaries is to impose on a co-equal branch of the government.