CONRADO L. DE RAMA vs. C.A., ELADIO MARTINEZ, DIVINO DE with pertinent laws.
with pertinent laws. Thus, the same were effective immediately, and
JESUS, MORELL AYALA, ARISTEO CATALLA, DAISY PORTA,
FLORDELIZA ORIASEL, GRACIELA GLORY, FELECIDAD ORINDAY, MA.
PETRA MUFFET LUCE, ELSA MARINO, BERNARDITA MENDOZA,
Rights & Privileges – Security of Tenure
February 28, 2001 | J. Ynares-Santiago
GROUP: Group No. 2
DIGEST MAKER: Zaldivar
SUMMARY: Upon assuming position, Mayor de Rama sought to recall the
appointments of 14 municipal employees, alleging that they were “midnight”
appointments made by the previous mayor. CSC denied this. Upon appeal
and MR, Mayor de Rama alleged that the previous mayor committed fraud
and that there were irregularities in the appointments. SC held there were
no irregularities in the appointment which has already been completed.
More importantly, the employees’ right to the position cannot be revoked or
removed, unless there is valid cause to do so.
DOCTRINE: A person assuming a position in the civil service under a
completed appointment acquires a legal, not just an equitable, right to the
position. This right is protected not only by statute, but by the Constitution
as well, which right cannot be taken away by either revocation of the
appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid cause to do so, provided
that there is previous notice and hearing.
FACTS:
 Upon assuming position as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, Conrado de
Rama wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), seeking the
recall of the appointments of fourteen (14) municipal employees.
o He justified this on the allegation that theirs "midnight"
appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, done in
violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution
 Three of the 14 municipal employees (Elsa Marino, Morell Ayala, and
Flordeliza Oriazel) filed a claim for payment of their salaries as de Rama
withheld the payment pursuant to Office Order No. 95-01.
o They allege that their appointments were declared permanent by
Conrado Gulim, Director II of the CSC Field Office based in Quezon
 CSC issued an Order finding that since the employees had assumed their
respective positions and performed their duties pursuant to their
appointments, they are therefore entitled to receive the salaries and
benefits appurtenant to their positions. Additionally:
o According to Rule V, Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus Rules, the
appointments of the said employees were issued in accordance
cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority until
disapproved by CSC.
o The Constitutional provision on “midnight” appointments only apply
to the president and not local elective officials.
o The appointments had already been approved by the Head of the
CSC Field Office in Lucena City
o De Rama’s failed to present evidence that would warrant the
revocation or recall of the said appointments.
 De Rama filed MR questioning CSC’s jurisdiction. Denied since De Rama
failed to present evidence that the appointments should be revoked or
recalled because they were issued in contravention of law or rules.
 De Rama filed an appeal before the CA. CA denied, finding that there was
no abuse of power of appointment by the outgoing mayor and that RA
7041 does not require that all appointments be made within 4 months of
publication of vacancies.
 De Rama filed an MR alleging that there were defects as to the
appointment of the 14 employees:
o No screening process and no criteria were adopted by the
Personnel Selection Board in nominating the respondents;
o No posting in three (3) conspicuous public places of notice of
vacancy as required by the rules and the law;
o Merit and fitness requirements were not observed by the selection
board and by the appointing authority as required by CSC
 MR denied. Hence, the current petition before SC
ISSUE: W/N the appointments are valid – YES.
RULING:
 The midnight appointments forbidden under the Constitution applies only
to presidential appointments. There is no law that prohibits local elective
officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her
tenure.
 De Rama even contradicted himself by asking CSC to approve his act but
then later questioning CSC’s jurisdiction.
 It is only later (through a supplement and MR) that De Rama invoked the
alleged fraud committed by the outgoing mayor and the alleged violation
of civil service rules and procedures when the appointments were made.
(Procedural Issue)
 Supplemental pleadings must be with reasonable notice, and it is
discretionary upon the court or tribunal to allow the same or not.
 CSC was under no obligation to admit the supplemental pleading, or even
consider the averments therein. A supplemental pleading must state
transactions, occurrences or events which took place since the time the
 pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Here, De Rama alleged
fraud and irregularities that supposedly occurred contemporaneous to the
execution of the appointments. They should have been raised at the very
first opportunity.
 Accordingly, CSC, as well as CA found that the allegations did not
constitute "new evidence" that can be the proper subject of a
supplemental pleading. Consequently, CSC and CA did not err in refusing
to give credence to the supplemental pleading
 The grounds raised by De Rama to recall the appointments are
considered as new issues that cannot be raised for the first time in
appeal. He should have raised them in his order of recall.
 CSC’s ruling is supported by the evidence and law. As such, SC no longer
needed to look into the facts as a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of
law.
(Substantive Issue)
 There is no showing that any of the private respondents were not qualified
for the positions they were appointed to. Moreover, their appointments
were duly attested to by the Head of the CSC field office at Lucena City.
 By virtue thereof, they had already assumed their appointive positions
even before De Rama himself assumed his elected position
Consequently, their appointments took effect immediately and cannot be
unilaterally revoked or recalled by De Rama.
 The person assuming a position in the civil service under a
completed appointment acquires a legal, not just an equitable, right
to the position. This right is protected not only by statute, but by the
Constitution as well, which right cannot be taken away by either
revocation of the appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid
cause to do so, provided that there is previous notice and hearing.
 There was no notice and hearing when the appointments were recalled.
While De Rama argues that the appointing power has the sole authority to
revoke said appointments, there is no debate that he does not have
blanket authority to do so. Neither can he question CSC’s jurisdiction to
affirm or revoke the recall.
 Rule V, Section 9 of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the
Revised Administrative Code specifically provides that "an appointment
accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the
appointing authority and shall remain in force and in effect until
disapproved by the Commission."
 Thus, CSC is authorized to recall an appointment initially approved, but
only when such appointment and approval are proven to be in disregard
of applicable provisions of the civil service law and regulations.
CA-G.R. SP No. 42896 affirming CSC Resolutions Nos. 96-2828 and 96-
7527 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
NOTES:
CONSTI Article VII, 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.
Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code
library
Rule V, SECTION 10. 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.
Rule VI,SECTION 20. Notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment,
the same may be recalled on any of the following
grounds:
(a) Non-compliance with the procedures/criteria provided in the agency’s
Merit Promotion Plan;
(b) Failure to pass through the agency’s Selection/Promotion Board;
(c) Violation of the existing collective agreement between management and
employees relative to promotion; or
(d) Violation of other existing civil service law, rules and regulations.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant

petition for review is DENIED and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in