Provincial Government of Aurora v.

Hilario Marco,
G.R. No. 202331 April 22, 2015
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. It may issue rules and regulations
prohibiting local chief executives from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
Appointments of local chief executives must conform to these civil service rules and regulations in order
to be valid.

FACTS:
Governor Ramoncita P. Ong (Governor Ong) permanently appointed Hilario Marco (Marco) as
Cooperative Development Specialist II 5 days before the term of Governor Ong end. Marco and other
appointees are submitted to the CSC field office in Aurora. However, when Governor Bellaflor Castillo
(Governor Castillo) assumed office, she called a meeting and her Provincial Budget Officer manifested
that the province had no funds available to pay for the salaries of Governor Ong's 26 appointees including
Marco.

Marco’s contention:
Thus, this resulted to Disapproval of Marco’s appointment. He was also served a letter stating that he
should refrain from reporting for work. Marco then appealed before the CSC regarding his disapproval of
appointment. The CSC granted the appeal and the CSC ruled that it did not affect the validity of Marco's
appointment because the Province "failed to submit documentary evidence to support its claim [that it
had no funds to pay for the services of Governor Ong's appointees]."

Province of Aurora’s contention:

They maintain that Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee.
Marco was appointed by Governor Ong five (5) days before the end of her term, in violation of Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 030918, paragraph 2.1 of which provides:

2.1. All appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 shall 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.

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:
W/N 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.

Q: What are midnight appointments?

A: A midnight appointment "refers to those appointments made within two months immediately prior to
the next presidential election." Midnight appointments are prohibited under Article VII, Section 15 of the
Constitution:

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his
term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety.

Q: Why prohibited?
A: Midnight appointments are prohibited because an outgoing President is "duty bound to prepare for the
orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President, and he [or she] should not do acts which he [or
she] ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his [or her] successor." An outgoing
President should not "deprive the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding
appointments.