04 Provincial Government of Aurora V Marco

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 757
G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015.*

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA,
petitioner, vs. HILARIO M. MARCO, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Immutability of Final

Judgments; Execution of Judgments; The rule prohibiting appeals
from orders of execution is based on the doctrine of immutability of
final judgments.—The rule prohibiting appeals from orders of
execution is based on the doctrine of immutability of final
judgments. Under this doctrine, a final and executory judgment
“is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which
rendered it to further alter or amend it, much less revoke it.” The
judgment remains immutable even if it is later on discovered to be
erroneous. The doctrine “is grounded on fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk
of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final
at some definite date fixed by law. To allow courts to amend final
[and executory] judgments will result in endless litigation.”
Same; Same; Same; Civil Service Commission; A decision of
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) becomes final and executory if
no motion for reconsideration is filed within the fifteen (15)-day
reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS).—
The doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies to
decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission. A decision of
the Civil Service Com-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
223
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 223

The Provincial Government of Aurora vs. Marco
mission becomes final and executory if no motion for

reconsideration is filed within the 15-day reglementary period
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcfc05803797007c5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/34
under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative

Cases in the Civil Service: Section 80. Execution of Decision.—The
decisions of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices shall
be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt
thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in
which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.
Same; Same; Relief from Judgment; The remedy of a petition
for relief from judgment is not among those provided under the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(URACCS). This means that the remedy is not allowed under civil
service rules.—The remedy of a petition for relief from judgment is
not among those provided under the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. This means that the
remedy is not allowed under civil service rules. Even assuming
that a petition for relief may be filed before the Civil Service
Commission, the party must show that the assailed judgment
became final through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence.
Civil Service; Appointments; Public Officers; Once the
appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he or she is
entitled to receive the salaries corresponding with the position
though the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has not yet approved
the appointment.—Under Rule IV, Section 1 of Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, an appointment
takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing
authority. Once the appointee has assumed the duties of the
position, he or she is entitled to receive the salaries corresponding
with the position though the Civil Service Commission has not yet
approved the appointment. Should the appointment be initially
disapproved, it nevertheless remains effective if a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal of the disapproval is seasonably filed
with the proper office. Therefore, during the pendency of the
motion for reconsideration, the appointee remains entitled to his
or her salaries until the appointment is finally disapproved by the
Civil Service Commission.
Same; Same; That the Province suddenly had no funds to pay
for Marco’s salaries despite its earlier certification that funds were
available under its 2004 Annual Budget does not affect his
appoint-
224
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ment.—As required by Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil

Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Marco’s
appointment was accompanied by a certification from the
Province, through the Provincial Budget Officer and the
Provincial Accountant, that funds were available under the 2004
Annual Budget of the Province for the 26 positions issued by
Governor Ong. Therefore, there was no violation of Rule V,
Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 40-98. There was no violation of existing Civil
Service Law, rules and regulations. Marco’s appointment remains
effective. That the Province suddenly had no funds to pay for
Marco’s salaries despite its earlier certification that funds were
available under its 2004 Annual Budget does not affect his
appointment.
Same; Same; Midnight Appointments; A midnight
appointment “refers to those appointments made within two (2)
months immediately prior to the next presidential election.”
Midnight appointments are prohibited under Article VII, Section
15 of the Constitution.—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. 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.” However, the constitutional
prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential
appointments. It does not apply to appointments made by local
chief executives.
Administrative Agencies; Civil Service Commission;
Jurisdiction; The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central
personnel agency of the Government, may “establish rules and
regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil
service.”—The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel
agency of the
225
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 225
Government, may “establish rules and regulations to promote

efficiency and professionalism in the civil service.” Although it
conceded that no law prohibits local elective officials from making
appointments during the last days of their tenure, this court in
Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, 590 SCRA 110 (2009), upheld
Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 010988, which
prohibited local elective officials from making appointments
immediately before and after elections. In addition, Resolution
No. 010988 prohibited “mass appointments,” or those “issued in
bulk or in large number after the elections by an outgoing local
chief executive and there is no apparent need for their immediate
issuance.”
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Manuel Joseph R. Bretana III for petitioner.
LEONEN, J.:

The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies
to presidential appointments. It does not apply to
appointments made by local chief executives.
Nevertheless, the Civil Service Commission has the
power to promulgate rules and regulations to
professionalize the civil service. 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.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Court
of Appeals Decision2 that denied the appeal of the
Provincial
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 13-53.

2 Id., at pp. 56-86. The Decision dated March 2, 2012 and docketed as
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 118227 was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices
226

Government of Aurora (the Province). The Province

appealed the Resolution3 of the Civil Service Commission
granting the Motion for Execution filed by Hilario M.
Marco (Marco). The Civil Service Commission had earlier
reversed and set aside the disapproval of Marco’s
permanent appointment as Cooperative Development
Specialist II.4
Governor Ramoncita P. Ong (Governor Ong)
permanently appointed5 Marco as Cooperative
Development Specialist II on June 25, 2004, five (5) days
before the end of her term as Governor of the Province.6 On
June 28, 2004, Marco’s appointment, together with 25
other appointments, was submitted to the Civil Service
Commission Field Office-Aurora (the Field Office). Annexed
to Marco’s appointment papers was a certification from
Provincial Budget Officer Norma R. Clemente (Provincial
Budget Officer Clemente) and Provincial Accountant
Wilfredo C. Saturno (Provincial Accountant Saturno)
stating that funds from the Province’s 2004 Annual Budget
were available to cover the position.7
On June 30, 2004, newly elected Governor Bellaflor
Angara-Castillo assumed office. The next day, she called to
an executive meeting all the department heads of the
Province.8
During the executive meeting, Provincial Budget Officer
Clemente allegedly manifested that the Province had no
funds available to pay for the salaries of Governor Ong’s 26
appointees.9 She subsequently issued a Letter recalling the
previously issued certification of the availability of funds:
_______________
Franchito N. Diamante and Angelita A. Gacutan of the Seventeenth

Division.
3 Id., at pp. 325-330. The Resolution dated July 6, 2010 is identified as
Resolution No. 101361.
4 Id., at pp. 124-129.
5 Id., at p. 112.
6 Id., at p. 57.
7 Id.
8 Id., at pp. 57-58.
9 Id., at p. 58.
227
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 227

In view of the result of the dialogue of the concerned offices

regarding the financial status of the Provincial Government of
Aurora, we hereby recall/retrieve our previously issued
certification of availability of funds relative to the appointments
issued by Governor Ramoncita P. Ong.10

Provincial Budget Officer Clemente’s Letter was
submitted to the Province’s Human Resource Management
Office. It was then forwarded to the Field Office.11
Due to the recall of the certification, the Field Office
disapproved Marco’s appointment in the Letter12 dated
July 5, 2004.13
The Province, through Human Resource Management
Officer Liwayway G. Victorio, served Marco a copy of the
Letter dated July 5, 2004. Marco was, thus, advised to
refrain from reporting for work beginning July 8, 2004, the
day he received notice of the disapproval of his
appointment.14
Marco wrote the Civil Service Commission Regional
Office No. IV (Regional Office), moving for the
reconsideration of the disapproval of his appointment.15
The Regional Office, however, denied reconsideration in its
Decision16 dated April 6, 2005 and affirmed the disapproval
of Marco’s appointment. It said that “[t]he lack of funds for
the [26 appointments Governor Ong issued] was
established during the meeting of the different department
heads of Aurora Province and their new governor.”17
_______________
10 Id., at p. 126.
11 Id., at p. 58.
12 Id., at p. 114.
13 Id., at p. 58.
14 Id., at p. 126.
15 Id.
16 Id., at pp. 130-134. The Regional Office’s Decision dated April 6,
2005 is identified as Decision No. 050212.
17 Id., at p. 133.
228

Through the Letter dated May 17, 2005, Marco appealed

before the Civil Service Commission.18 The Province,
through its Human Resource Management Office, received

a copy of Marco’s Letter on May 23, 2005.19 However, it
failed to comment on the appeal within 10 days from
receipt as required by Section 73 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.20
In the Resolution21 dated April 14, 2008, the Civil
Service Commission granted Marco’s appeal and set aside
the Regional Office’s Decision dated April 6, 2005. It ruled
that Marco’s appointment was valid since it was
accompanied by a certification of availability of funds.22 As
to the Letter withdrawing the certification, the Civil
Service Commission 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].”23
The Civil Service Commission added that the Province’s
withdrawal of the certification was “unfair to Marco”:24
It is unfair to Marco who applied for the said position believing

in good faith that funds were available,
_______________
18 Id., at p. 59.
19 Id., at p. 76.
20 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule V,
Sec. 73 provides:
Section 73. Requirement of Filing.—The appellant shall furnish a
copy of his appeal to the head of department or agency concerned who
shall submit his comment, together with the records, to the Commission
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. Proof of service of the appeal on
the head of department or agency shall be submitted with the
Commission.
21 Rollo, pp. 124-129. The Resolution dated April 14, 2008 is identified
as Resolution No. 080656.
22 Id., at pp. 125-126 and 128.
23 Id., at p. 128.
24 Id.
229
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 229

passed the screening conducted by the Personnel Selection

Board (PSB) on February 12 & 13, 2004, was appointed on June
25, 2004 and was later told to stop reporting for work as his
appointment was disapproved by [the Civil Service Commission
Field Office-Aurora] simply because the provincial government
under the new governor realized that it has no funds to pay for
his services.25

Thus, the Civil Service Commission ordered the
Regional Office to investigate whether Provincial Budget
Officer Clemente and Provincial Accountant Saturno were
administratively liable for certifying that funds were
available to cover the positions filled by Governor Ong’s
appointees but subsequently withdrawing this
26
certification. It ordered the Field Office to reflect the
Resolution in Marco’s appointment papers and in his
Service Record.27
The Province received a copy of the April 14, 2008
Resolution on May 21, 2008.28
On July 22, 2008, Provincial Administrator Alex N.
Ocampo (Provincial Administrator Ocampo), on behalf of
the Province, filed before the Civil Service Commission a
Petition for Relief29 on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
According to him, the Civil Service Commission deprived
the Province of an opportunity to be heard when it failed to
implead the Province as an indispensable party.30 He
reiterated that Marco’s appointment was void since the
Province had no funds to pay for Marco’s salaries.31
_______________
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id., at p. 129.
28 Id., at p. 473.
29 Id., at pp. 137-154.
30 Id., at pp. 143-146.
31 Id., at pp. 147-148.
230

The Civil Service Commission denied outright the

Petition for Relief in the Resolution32 dated November 4,
2008. It ruled that Provincial Administrator Ocampo had
no legal personality to file the Petition for Relief absent an

authorization from the Provincial Governor. Moreover, a
petition for relief was not allowed under the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Thus,
Provincial Administrator Ocampo erred in filing a Petition
for Relief.33
Provincial Administrator Ocampo filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,34 this time with a written authority35 to
file from Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo annexed to the
Motion.36
The Civil Service Commission denied the Motion for
Reconsideration in the Resolution37 dated September 8,
2009. It ruled that its April 14, 2008 Resolution had
become final and executory considering that the Province
did not file a motion for reconsideration of this Resolution
within the reglementary period.38
Consequently, Marco requested the Civil Service
Commission to implement the April 14, 2008 Resolution.39
Through the Resolution40 dated July 6, 2010, the
Commission granted Marco’s request.
Provincial Administrator Ocampo filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Quash “Execution,”41
arguing that
_______________
32 Id., at p. 320. The Resolution dated November 4, 2008 is identified

33 Id.
34 Id., at pp. 157-177.
35 Id., at p. 178.
36 Id., at p. 60.
37 Id., at pp. 322-323. The Resolution dated September 8, 2009 is
identified as Resolution No. 091314.
38 Id., at p. 322.
39 Id., at p. 61.
40 Id., at pp. 325-330. The Resolution dated July 6, 2010 is identified
41 Id., at pp. 189-200.
231
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 231

the April 14, 2008 Resolution had already been

implemented. As the Civil Service Commission had
ordered, the Province reflected the April 14, 2008

Resolution in Marco’s appointment papers and in his
Service Record.42
In the Resolution43 dated January 24, 2011, the Civil
Service Commission denied the Motion for Reconsideration
with Motion to Quash “Execution.” It noted that the
Province still refused to reinstate Marco despite the April
14, 2008 Resolution and thus clarified that this Resolution
necessarily resulted in the approval of Marco’s
appointment and his reinstatement as Cooperative
Development Specialist II.44 The January 24, 2011
Resolution states:
Ocampo, et al. nonchalantly tries to sweep away what is

obvious in the ruling of the Commission in [the April 14, 2008
Resolution], i.e., the reversal of the disapproval by [the Regional
Office] and [the Field Office] of Marco’s appointment. The reversal
of the two (2) decisions mean[s] that Marco’s appointment as
Cooperative Development Specialist II is in order and should be
approved. Consequently, the approval of Marco’s appointment is
legal proof that he is entitled to perform the duties and functions
of the said position and receive the salaries and benefits attached
to the position.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
Quash of Alex N. Ocampo, Provincial Administrator, and Manuel
Joseph R. Bretana III, Legal Counsel, Provincial Government of
Aurora, is DENIED. Accordingly, [the July 6, 2010 Resolution]
which grants the Motion for the Implementation of [the April 14,
2008 Resolution] filed by Hilario M. Marco, STANDS.
The Provincial Governor of Aurora is directed to reinstate
Marco to his Cooperative Development Specialist
_______________
42 Id., at p. 190.
43 Id., at pp. 202-206. The Resolution dated January 24, 2011 is
identified as Resolution No. 1100127.
44 Id., at p. 206.
232

II position and pay his back salaries and other benefits from
the time that Marco was actually prohibited from reporting for
work up to his actual reinstatement.45

A Petition for Review46 under Rule 43 with prayer for
issuance of a temporary restraining order47 was filed before
the Court of Appeals. For the first time, the Province
argued that Marco was a midnight appointee since
Governor Ong appointed him during the last five (5) days of
her tenure. Therefore, Marco’s appointment was void.48
In the Decision dated March 2, 2012, the Court of
Appeals denied the Petition for Review and affirmed the
implementation of the Civil Service Commission’s April 14,
2008 Resolution.49
The Court of Appeals ruled that the April 14, 2008
Resolution already became final and executory since there
was no motion for reconsideration filed within the
reglementary period. Although the Province filed a Petition
for Relief before the Civil Service Commission, the Court of
Appeals held that the remedy of a petition for relief is not
allowed under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service. Moreover, the Province failed to prove
the extrinsic fraud that allegedly prevented it from filing a
motion for reconsideration. Thus, the Civil Service
Commission correctly denied the Petition for Relief.50
On the merits, the Court of Appeals affirmed Marco’s
appointment. The Province had earlier certified that it had
funds to pay for his salary as Cooperative Development
Specialist II.51 It found that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan even
_______________
45 Id.
46 Id., at pp. 207-239.
47 Id., at p. 236.
48 Id., at pp. 232-233.
49 Id., at p. 86.
50 Id., at pp. 72-78.
51 Id., at p. 81.
233
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 233

passed a “Supplemental Budget for 2004 appropriating

P54,014,127.01 in provincial funds.”52 Therefore, the
issuance of the Letter recalling the certification “[did] not
change the fact that there [were] funds available for

[Marco’s] appointment.”53
On the claim that Marco was a midnight appointee, the
Court of Appeals said that Marco’s case fell within the
exception provided under Civil Service Commission
Resolution No. 030918.54 He was fully qualified for the
position and underwent a screening process on February 12
and 13, 2004, long before the election ban.55 Therefore, he
was validly appointed.
The Province filed a Motion for Reconsideration,56 which
the Court of Appeals denied in the Resolution57 dated June
13, 2012.
The Province filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
before this court. Marco filed his Comment,58 after which
the Province filed its Reply.59
In the Resolution60 dated January 30, 2013, this court
ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda. The
_______________
52 Id.
53 Id., at p. 82.
54 CSC Resolution No. 030918, paragraph 2.1 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.
55 Rollo, p. 84.
56 Id., at pp. 93-110.
57 Id., at pp. 88-92. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Angelita A. Gacutan of the Former
Seventeenth Division.
58 Id., at pp. 344-351.
59 Id., at pp. 353-379.
60 Id., at pp. 417-419.
234

Province filed its Memorandum61 on April 25, 2013,

while Marco filed his Memorandum62 on May 2, 2013.
The Province maintains 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. 030918,63 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.

On Marco’s claim that he underwent a regular screening
process, which exempted his appointment from the
prohibition on midnight appointments, the Province
counters that Marco failed to present convincing evidence
to prove this claim. The Minutes of the Meeting of the
Promotion Selection Board showed that Marco was among
the 201 applicants allegedly screened by the Board within
two (2) days. According to the Province, two days is a
period too short for the Personnel Selection Board to have
carefully considered all the applications.64
As to the claim that the April 14, 2008 Resolution is
final and executory and may no longer be reversed, the
Province argues that nothing prevents this court from
setting aside this Resolution. It argues that the
promulgation of Nazareno,
_______________
61 Id., at pp. 420-467.

62 Id., at pp. 469-481.
63 Id., at pp. 426-428. The Resolution is identified as Resolution No.
030918, dated August 28, 2003.
64 Id., at pp. 430-431.
235
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 235

et al. v. City of Dumaguete65 was a supervening event

warranting the reversal of the final and executory
decision.66
In Nazareno, this court voided 89 appointments made by
a city mayor within the month that he left office, ruling
that they were mass appointments prohibited under Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 010988.67 The Province

argues that Governor Ong’s appointments were analogous
to the Nazareno appointments; hence, Governor Ong’s
appointments should likewise be voided.68
_______________
65 617 Phil. 795; 590 SCRA 110 (2009) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].
66 Rollo, pp. 433-436.
67 Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, supra at p. 808; p. 121. CSC
Resolution No. 010988, pars. 3 and 4 provide:
3. All appointments, whether original, transfer, reemployment,
reappointment, promotion or demotion, except in cases of renewal and
reinstatement, regardless of status, which are issued AFTER the
elections, regardless of their dates of effectivity and/or date of receipt by
the Commission, including its Regional or Field Offices, of said
appointments or the Report of Personnel Actions (ROPA), as the case may
be, shall be disapproved unless the following requisites concur relative to
their issuance:
a) The appointment has gone through the regular screening by the
Personnel Selection Board (PSB) before the prohibited period on the
issuance of appointments as shown by the PSB report or minutes of its
meeting;
b) That the appointee is qualified;
c) There is a need to fill up the vacancy immediately in order not to
prejudice public service and/or endanger public safety;
d) That the appointment is not one of those mass appointments issued
after the elections.
4. The term “mass appointments” refers to those issued in bulk or in
large number after the elections by an outgoing local chief executive and
there is no apparent need for their immediate issuance.
68 Rollo, pp. 431-432.
236

Finally, the Province insists that Marco’s appointment

was void due to lack of funds to pay for the position.69 In
ordering the Province to uphold Marco’s appointment
despite the lack of funds, the Civil Service Commission
allegedly “interfered with [the Province’s] prerogative to
draw up its own budget and to spend its . . . revenues as it
deems fit.”70
For his part, Marco maintains that the Civil Service
Commission’s Resolution dated April 14, 2008 has long
become final and executory. Therefore, the Resolution may

no longer be disturbed.71
On the claim that he was a midnight appointee, Marco
pointed out that the Province belatedly raised this claim.
The Province never raised it before the Civil Service
Commission but only did so before the Court of Appeals.72
By belatedly raising this claim, the Province should be
deemed to have “implicitly recognized”73 that he was not a
midnight appointee.
In any case, Marco asserts that he was qualified for the
position and that he underwent a selection process as
required by Resolution No. 030918. Thus, his appointment
was an exception to the prohibition on midnight
appointments.74
On the alleged interference of the Civil Service
Commission with the Province’s discretionary power to
appoint, Marco argues that it “merely upheld the validity of
an existing appointment[.]”75 The Civil Service Commission
did not “[substitute] its own appointee for the one chosen
by the appointing authority.”76 Therefore, it correctly
upheld his appointment.
_______________
69 Id., at p. 454.
70 Id., at p. 455.
71 Id., at pp. 473-474.
72 Id., at pp. 474-476.
73 Id., at p. 474.
74 Id., at pp. 476-477.
75 Id., at p. 480.
76 Id.
237
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 237

Lastly, Marco argues that Nazareno does not apply in

this case. This court in Nazareno voided the 89
appointments of the appointing authority based on the
criteria set in Resolution No. 010988.77 However, Nazareno
had been promulgated even before he was appointed in
office. Moreover, Resolution No. 010988 did not set any new
criteria for appointments made during the last days of the
appointing authority in office. Therefore, the promulgation
of Nazareno is not a supervening event that can set aside

the final and executory April 14, 2008 Resolution.78
The issues for this court’s resolution are:
First, whether the Resolution dated July 6, 2010, which
ordered the implementation of the April 14, 2008
Resolution, was void for varying the terms of the April 14,
2008 Resolution;
Second, whether the withdrawal of the certification of
sufficiency of funds voided Marco’s appointment; and
Lastly, whether Marco’s appointment was void on the
ground that he was a midnight appointee.
This Petition must be denied.

I

We note that the Province filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals against the Civil Service Commission’s
Resolution that ordered the execution of the April 14, 2008
Resolution.79
The Province erred in filing an appeal before the Court
of Appeals, as no appeal may be taken from an order of
execution.80 Instead, it should have filed a petition for
certiorari —
_______________
77 Id., at pp. 477-478.

78 Id., at p. 478.
79 Id., at p. 207.
80 Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1(f).
238

the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the

Rules of Court.81
The Court of Appeals, therefore, should have dismissed
the Province’s appeal outright. Rule 50, Section 1(i) of the
Rules of Court allows the Court of Appeals to dismiss an
appeal where the order appealed from is not appealable.82
The rule prohibiting appeals from orders of execution is
based on the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.
Under this doctrine, a final and executory judgment “is
removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which
rendered it to further alter or amend it, much less revoke
it.”83 The judgment remains immutable even if it is later on
discovered to be erroneous.84 The doctrine “is grounded on

fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments
of the courts must become final at some definite date fixed
by law. To allow courts to amend final [and executory]
judgments will result in endless litigation.”85
The doctrine of immutability of final judgments applies
to decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission. A
decision of the Civil Service Commission becomes final and
executory if no motion for reconsideration is filed within
the 15-day
_______________
81 Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1.

82 Rules of Court, Rule 50, Sec. 1(i) provides:
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.—An appeal may be
dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee, on the following grounds:
....
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not
appealable.
83 Mendiola v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 100671, April 7,
1993, 221 SCRA 295, 305 [Per J. Campos, Jr., En Banc], citing Young v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81239, December 4, 1991, 204 SCRA 584, 599
[Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division].
84 Id.
85 Id., citing Young v. Court of Appeals, supra.
239
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 239

reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the

Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service:
Section 80. Execution of Decision.—The decisions of the

Commission Proper or its Regional Offices shall be immediately
executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a
motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the
execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance.

In Mendiola v. Civil Service Commission,86 Teodorico
Mendiola (Mendiola) occupied the position of Budget
Examiner III when the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau terminated his employment.87 On

Mendiola’s appeal, the Civil Service Commission ordered
his reinstatetment in the resolution dated September 21,
1988.88
The Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau
failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day
reglementary period. Consequently, Mendiola filed a
motion for execution of the September 21, 1988
resolution.89
Unknown to Mendiola, the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau belatedly filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Civil Service Commission
granted despite having been filed out of time.90
This court reversed the Civil Service Commission’s grant
of the motion for reconsideration and ordered Mendiola’s
reinstatement as the Commission previously ordered in the
September 21, 1998 resolution. This court held that the
September 21, 1998 resolution had become final and
executory when the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau failed to file a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary
_______________
86 Id.
87 Id., at pp. 297-298.
88 Id., at pp. 298-299.
89 Id., at p. 299.
90 Id.
240

period. Thus, the Civil Service Commission may no

longer reverse the resolution.91
In Obiasca v. Basallote,92 Jeane O. Basallote (Basallote)
was appointed Administrative Officer II by the Department
of Education and was assigned to work in Tabaco National
High School in Albay. Basallote had assumed the duties of
her office as Administrative Officer II when she learned
that Arlin B. Obiasca (Obiasca) was subsequently
appointed to the same position. Obiasca’s appointment was
attested to by the Civil Service Commission, while
Basallote’s appointment papers were not even forwarded to
the Civil Service Commission.93
Basallote protested Obiasca’s appointment before the

Civil Service Commission Regional Office V. The Regional
Office dismissed the protest. On appeal, the Civil Service
Commission reversed the Regional Office’s Decision, thus
approving Basallote’s appointment and recalling that of
Obiasca.94
Without filing a motion for reconsideration before the
Civil Service Commission, Obiasca directly filed an appeal
before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the Civil Service Commission’s Decision.95
Obiasca’s Petition for Review on certiorari was likewise
denied by this court.96 This court held that Obiasca’s
failure to file a motion for reconsideration rendered the
Civil Service Commission’s Decision approving Basallote’s
appointment final and executory. Thus, the Civil Service
Commission’s Decision may no longer be disturbed:97
_______________
91 Id., at pp. 304-306.

92 626 Phil. 775; 613 SCRA 110 (2010) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
93 Id., at pp. 785-786; p. 136.
94 Id., at pp. 786-787; p. 145.
95 Id., at p. 787; p. 145.
96 Id., at p. 807.
97 Id., at p. 791; p. 149.
241
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 241

[Obiasca] did not file a petition for reconsideration of the [Civil

Service Commission’s resolution] before filing a petition for review
in the [Court of Appeals]. Such fatal procedural lapse on
[Obiasca]’s part allowed the [Civil Service Commission’s
resolution] to become final and executory. Hence, for all intents
and purposes, the [Civil Service Commission’s resolution] has
become immutable and can no longer be amended or modified. A
final and definitive judgment can no longer be changed,
revised, amended or reversed. Thus, in praying for the
reversal of the assailed Court of Appeals decision which affirmed
the final and executory [Civil Service Commission resolution],
[Obiasca] would want the Court to reverse a final and executory
judgment and disregard the doctrine of immutability of final
judgments.98 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

In this case, the Province, through its Human Resource

Management Office, received a copy of the Civil Service
Commission’s April 14, 2008 Resolution on May 21, 2008.99
Thus, the Province had until June 5, 2008 to file a motion
for reconsideration.
However, the Province failed to file a motion for
reconsideration of the April 14, 2008 Resolution within the
15-day reglementary period. With no motion for
reconsideration seasonably filed, the April 14, 2008
Resolution became final and executory on June 6, 2008.
In addition, the remedy of a petition for relief from
judgment is not among those provided under the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. This
means that the remedy is not allowed under civil service
rules.100 Even assuming that a petition for relief may be
filed before the Civil Service Commission, the party must
show that the as
_______________
98 Id.
99 Rollo, p. 473.
100 National Tobacco Administration v. Castillo, 641 Phil. 64, 67; 626
SCRA 752, 755 (2010) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
242

sailed judgment became final through fraud, accident,

mistake, or excusable negligence.101
Here, the Province failed to refute that it received a copy
of the Civil Service Commission’s April 14, 2008
Resolution. It was given an opportunity to be heard, which
is the essence of administrative due process.102 It did not
even justify why it failed to file a motion for
reconsideration despite its receipt of the Civil Service
Commission’s Resolution. Contrary to the Province’s claim,
there was no extrinsic fraud since the Province was not
prevented “from fully and fairly presenting [its]
defense[.]”103 The Civil Service Commission correctly
denied the Province’s Petition for Relief.
Since the April 14, 2008 Resolution already became final
and executory, it may no longer be reversed. The Civil
Service Commission correctly granted Marco’s request for
the Resolution’s implementation.
_______________
101 Rules of Court, Rule 38, Secs. 1 and 2 provide:

Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other
proceedings.—When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other
proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such
court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding
be set aside.
Sec. 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal.—When a judgment or
final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented
from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the
same case praying that the appeal be given due course.
102 Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No.
187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276, 281 [Per J. Bersamin, En
Banc].
103 City of Dagupan v. Maramba, G.R. No. 174411, July 2, 2014, 728
SCRA 520, 541-542 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
243
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 243

II

In implementing the April 14, 2008 Resolution, the Civil
Service Commission ordered the Province to reinstate
Marco and to pay him back salaries and other benefits:
WHEREFORE, the request of Hilario M. Marco, Cooperative

Development Specialist II, Provincial Government of Aurora, for
the implementation of CSC Resolution No. 08-0656 dated April
14, 2008 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Provincial Government
of Aurora is directed to reinstate Marco to his former position and
the payment of his back salaries and other benefits starting from
the date he was advised to stop reporting for work on July 8, 2004
up to his actual reinstatement.104

According to the Province, the Civil Service Commission
went beyond the order sought to be implemented and
“varie[d] the term of the judgment.”105 The Province claims
that nothing in the April 14, 2008 Resolution ordered the
reinstatement of Marco. The dispositive portion of the
resolution stated:106
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Hilario M. Marco is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Decision No. 05-0212 dated April 6, 2005 of the
Civil Service Commission Regional Office IV, Quezon City,
affirming the disapproval of the appointment of Marco for lack of
certification of availability of funds is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The Civil Service Commission Field Office-Aurora is directed to
reflect this decision in the appointment of Marco and in his
Service Record.107

Therefore, the Province claims that the order
implementing the April 14, 2008 Resolution must be set
aside.
_______________
104 Rollo, p. 330.

105 Id., at p. 445.
106 Id., at pp. 445-446.
107 Id., at p. 129.
244

We rule that the Civil Service Commission did not vary

the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution.
Under Rule IV, Section 1 of Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, an appointment takes
effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing
authority. Once the appointee has assumed the duties of
the position, he or she is entitled to receive the salaries
corresponding with the position though the Civil Service
Commission has not yet approved the appointment.
Should the appointment be initially disapproved, it
nevertheless remains effective if a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal of the disapproval is
seasonably filed with the proper office.108 Therefore, during
the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, the
appointee remains entitled to his or her salaries until the
appointment is finally disapproved by the Civil Service
Commission.109
Marco’s appointment immediately took effect on June
25, 2004 when Governor Ong appointed him as Cooperative
Development Specialist II. Although his appointment was
ini-
_______________
108 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule VI, Sec. 3 provides:
SECTION 3. . . .
....
If the appointment was disapproved on grounds which do not constitute
a violation of civil service law, such as 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.
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.
109 Id.
245
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 245

tially disapproved by the Field Office, Marco seasonably

filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Civil Service
Commission. Thus, Marco’s appointment remained
effective during the pendency of the Motion for
Reconsideration.
Because the Civil Service Commission granted his
Motion for Reconsideration and set aside the disapproval of
his appointment, Marco remained entitled to his position.
The necessary consequence of granting reconsideration is
his reinstatement as Cooperative Development Specialist
II.
The Civil Service Commission correctly implemented the
April 14, 2008 Resolution by ordering Marco’s
reinstatement and the payment of his back salaries and
other benefits.

III

The Province contends that the Civil Service
Commission erred in approving Marco’s appointment as
Cooperative Development Specialist II. It allegedly had no
funds to cover the position. Therefore, the appointment was
void, having been issued in violation of Rule V, Section 1(e)
(ii) of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular
No. 40-98. The rule states:
SECTION 1. In addition to the common requirements and

procedures, the following requirements and guidelines shall also
be observed and the necessary documents submitted, when
applicable.
....
e. LGU Appointment. Appointment in local government units
for submission to the Commission shall be accompanied, in
addition to the common requirements, by the following:
....
ii. Certification by the Municipal/City/Provincial
Accountant/Budget Officer that funds are available.
246

The certification ensures that the appointee shall occupy

a position adequately covered by appropriations as
required by Section 325(e) of the Local Government Code:
SECTION 325. General Limitations.—The use of the

provincial, city, and municipal funds shall be subject to the
following limitations:
....
(e) Positions in the official plantilla for career positions which
are occupied by incumbents holding permanent appointments
shall be covered by adequate appropriations[.]

As required by Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil
Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98,
Marco’s appointment was accompanied by a certification
from the Province, through the Provincial Budget Officer
and the Provincial Accountant, that funds were available
under the 2004 Annual Budget of the Province for the 26
positions issued by Governor Ong. Therefore, there was no
violation of Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 40-98. There was
no violation of existing Civil Service Law, rules and
regulations. Marco’s appointment remains effective.
That the Province suddenly had no funds to pay for
Marco’s salaries despite its earlier certification that funds
were available under its 2004 Annual Budget does not
affect his appointment.
None of the grounds for disapproval of an appointment
under Rule V, Section 7110 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing
_______________
110 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, Rule V, Sec.
7 provides:
SEC. 7. The Commission shall disapprove the appointment of a
person who:
(a) does not meet the qualifications for the position; or
247
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 247

the Civil Service Law exists in this case. The

appointment remains effective, and the local government
unit remains liable for the salaries of the appointee.111
Moreover, the earlier certification, if proven false,
constitutes intentional misrepresentation of a material fact
concerning a civil service matter. This is an offense
punishable by fine, or imprisonment, or both as provided
under Section 67 of the Civil Service Law:
SEC. 67. Penal Provision.—Whoever makes any

appointment or employs any person in violation of any provision
of this Title or the rules made thereunder or whoever commits
fraud, deceit or intentional misrepresentation of material facts
concerning other civil service matters, or whoever violates,
refuses or neglects to comply with any of such provisions or rules,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine not exceeding one
thousand pesos or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months,
or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
We, therefore, agree with the Civil Service Commission

in ordering the Regional Office to commence appropriate
administrative proceedings against Provincial Budget
Officer Norma R. Clemente and Provincial Accountant
Wilfredo C. Saturno for issuing the certification of
availability of funds:
_______________
(b) has been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude, or of

infamous, disgraceful conduct or addiction to narcotics, or dishonesty; or
(c) has been dismissed from the service for cause, unless an executive
clemency has been granted; or
(d) has intentionally made a false statement of any material fact or has
practiced or attempted to practice any deception or fraud in connection
with his appointment; or
(e) has been issued such appointment in violation of existing Civil

Service Law, rules and regulations.
111 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule VI, Sec. 3.
248

The Commission disapproves of the conduct of the officials of

the Provincial Government of Aurora in issuing a certification
dated June 25, 2004 that funds are available in the 2004 Annual
Budget to support the appointments issued by outgoing Governor
Ong and then later [withdrawing] the same when a new governor
assumes office. As such, the CSCRO No. IV is directed to conduct
the appropriate administrative proceedings to determine whether
Norma R. Clemente (Provincial Budget Officer) and Wilfredo C.
Saturno (Provincial Accountant) violated Civil Service Law, rules
and regulations.112
IV

The Province claims that Marco was a midnight
appointee. Moreover, he was among those appointed “en
masse”113 by Governor Ong before the end of her term.
Thus, the Civil Service Commission should have
disapproved Marco’s appointment.
A midnight appointment “refers to those appointments
made within two months immediately prior to the next
presidential election.”114 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.

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
_______________
112 Rollo, p. 128.

113 Id., at p. 427.
114 Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, supra note 65 at p. 810; p. 142.
249
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 249

not do acts which he [or she] ought to know, would

embarrass or obstruct the policies of his [or her]
successor.”115 An outgoing President should not “deprive
the new administration of an opportunity to make the
corresponding appointments.”116
However, the constitutional prohibition on midnight
appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It
does not apply to appointments made by local chief
executives.
In De Rama v. Court of Appeals,117 Mayor Conrado L. de
Rama (Mayor de Rama) of Pagbilao, Quezon sought to
recall 14 appointments made by former Mayor Ma. Evelyn
S. Abeja on the sole ground that they were midnight
appointments.118 The Civil Service Commission denied
Mayor de Rama’s request, ruling that the prohibition on
midnight appointments only applies to outgoing
Presidents.119 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Civil Service Commission’s decision.120
This court agreed with the Civil Service Commission
and the Court of Appeals. In denying Mayor de Rama’s
petition for review on certiorari, this court said that the
prohibition on midnight appointments “applies only to
presidential appointments.”121 This court noted that “there
is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making
appointments during the last days of his or her tenure.”122
Nonetheless, the Civil Service Commission, as the
central personnel agency of the Government,123 may
“establish rules
_______________
115 Aytona v. Castillo, No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1, 9-10
[Per CJ. Bengzon, En Banc].
116 Id., at p. 10.
117 405 Phil. 531; 353 SCRA 94 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En
Banc].
118 Id., at p. 539; p. 97.
119 Id.
120 Id., at pp. 542-543; pp. 99-100.
121 Id., at p. 545; p. 102.
122 Id.
123 Const., Art. IX-B, Sec. 3.
250

and regulations to promote efficiency and

professionalism in the civil service.”124 Although it
conceded that no law prohibits local elective officials from
making appointments during the last days of their tenure,
this court in Nazareno upheld Civil Service Commission
Resolution No. 010988, which prohibited local elective
officials from making appointments immediately before
and after elections.125 In addition, Resolution No. 010988
prohibited “mass appointments,” or those “issued in bulk or
in large number after the elections by an outgoing local
chief executive and there is no apparent need for their
immediate issuance.” Resolution No. 010988 states:
WHEREAS, the May 14, 2001 national and local elections

have just concluded and the Commission anticipates controversies
that would arise involving appointments issued by outgoing local
chief executives immediately before and after elections;
WHEREAS, the Commission observed the tendency of some
outgoing local chief executives to issue appointments even after
the elections, especially when their successors have already been
proclaimed;
WHEREAS, this practice of some outgoing local chief
executives causes animosities between the outgoing and incoming
officials and the people who are immediately affected and made to
suffer the consequences thereof are the ordinary civil servants
and eventually, to a larger extent, their constituents themselves;
WHEREAS, one of the reasons behind the prohibition in
issuing appointments or hiring of new employees during the
prohibited period as provided for in CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 7, Series of 2001 is to prevent the occurrence of the foregoing,
among others;
WHEREAS, local elective officials, whose terms of office are
about to expire, are deemed as “caretaker” ad-
_______________
124 Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, supra note 65 at pp. 808-809; p.

591.
125 Id., at pp. 808-813; p. 596.
251
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 251

ministrators who are duty bound to prepare for the smooth and
orderly transfer of power and authority to the incoming local chief
executives;
WHEREAS, under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution,
the President or Acting President is prohibited from making
appointments two (2) months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety;
WHEREAS, while there is no equivalent provision in the Local
Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) or in the Civil
Service Law (Book V of Executive Order No. 292) of the above
stated prohibition, the rationale against the prohibition on the
issuance of “midnight appointments” by the President is
applicable to appointments extended by outgoing local chief
executives immediately before and/or after the elections; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also deems it fit to issue
guidelines that would assist processors in their actions on
appointments issued by these outgoing local chief executives
immediately before and/or after the elections;
NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, pursuant to its
constitutional mandate as the central personnel agency of the
government, hereby issues and adopts the following guidelines:
1. The validity of an appointment issued immediately before or
after the elections by outgoing local chief executives is to be
determined on the basis of the nature, character and merit of the
individual appointment and the particular circumstances
surrounding the same.
....
3. All appointments, whether original, transfer, reemployment,
reappointment, promotion or demotion, except in cases of renewal
and re-
252

instatement, regardless of status, which are issued AFTER the

elections, regardless of their dates of effectivity and/or date of
receipt by the Commission, including its Regional or Field Offices,
of said appointments or the Report of Personnel Actions (ROPA),
as the case may be, shall be disapproved unless the following
requisites concur relative to their issuance:
a) The appointment has gone through the regular screening by

the Personnel Selection Board (PSB) before the prohibited period
on the issuance of appointments as shown by the PSB report or
minutes of its meeting;
b) That the appointee is qualified;
c) There is a need to fill up the vacancy immediately in order
not to prejudice public service and/or endanger public safety;
d) That the appointment is not one of those mass appointments
issued after the elections.
4. The term “mass appointments” refers to those issued in bulk
or in large number after the elections by an outgoing local chief
executive and there is no apparent need for their immediate
issuance.

This court said that the rationale behind Resolution No.
010988 “is not difficult to see”:126
Appointments are banned prior to the elections to ensure that

partisan loyalties will not be a factor in the appointment process,
and to prevent incumbents from gaining any undue advantage
during the elections. To this
_______________
126 Id., at p. 812; p. 595.
253
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 253

end, appointments within a certain period of time are

proscribed by the Omnibus Election Code and related issuances.
After the elections, appointments by defeated candidates are
prohibited, except under the circumstances mentioned in CSC
Resolution No. 010988, to avoid animosities between outgoing and
incoming officials, to allow the incoming administration a free
hand in implementing its policies, and to ensure that
appointments and promotions are not used as a tool for political
patronage or as a reward for services rendered to the outgoing
local officials.127 (Citation omitted)

In Nazareno, this court affirmed the disapproval of 89
appointments Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo (Mayor
Remollo) of Dumaguete City made within the month that
he left office. This court found that the appointments were
issued in violation of Resolution No. 010988. Particularly,
it found no evidence that the Personnel Selection Board

carefully deliberated on the qualifications of Mayor
Remollo’s appointees.128 Moreover, the timing and the large
number of appointments “indicate that the appointments
were hurriedly issued by the outgoing administration.”129
The Province argues that the 26 appointments Governor
Ong issued during the last days of her tenure were similar
to those Mayor Remollo issued in Nazareno. Governor Ong
allegedly issued mass appointments, the immediate
issuance of which the Province had no apparent need.
We note, however, that Resolution No. 010988 — the
Resolution effective when Mayor Remollo issued the
appointments in Nazareno — was superseded by
Resolution No. 030918 dated August 28, 2003.130
Resolution No. 030918 on “midnight appointments” by local
chief executives was effective at the
_______________
127 Id., at pp. 812-813; p. 595.

128 Id., at pp. 814-815; p. 597.
129 Id., at p. 815; p. 598.
130 CSC Resolution No. 030918 (2003), penultimate paragraph.
254

time Governor Ong issued the disputed appointments.

Resolution No. 030918 states, in part:
WHEREAS, under Section 3, Article IX-B of the 1987

Constitution, the Commission, as the central personnel agency of
the Government, is mandated to establish a career service and
adopt measures to promote efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness and courtesy in the civil service, among others;
WHEREAS, the Constitution further mandates the
Commission to issue its own rules and regulations for effective
and efficient personnel administration in the Civil Service;
WHEREAS, Section 12(1) and (2), Book V of the Executive
Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) mandates the
Commission to administer and enforce the constitutional and
statutory provisions on the merit system for all ranks and levels
in the Civil Service and to prescribe, amend and enforce rules and
regulations for carrying into effect the provision of the Civil
Service Law and other pertinent laws;
WHEREAS, problems and controversies inevitably arise

involving appointments issued by outgoing elective and
appointive officials just before and after election periods;
WHEREAS, personnel morale, office operations, and delivery
of public services are inevitably disrupted by such problems and
controversies;
WHEREAS, there is a need to forestall such problems by
defining and making more stringent the restrictions on personnel
appointments to be observed by outgoing appointing officials,
elective or appointive, before they leave office;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission, pursuant to its
constitutional and statutory mandates as the central personnel
agency of the government, hereby issues and adopts the following
guidelines:
....
255
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 255

2. Action on Appointments issued by Elective and

Appointive Officials After the Elections Up to June 30
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.
....
This Resolution supersedes CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated 4
June 2001 and shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
Quezon City, August 28, 2003.

Since Resolution No. 030918 was effective at the time
Governor Ong issued the 26 appointments, we must decide
this case based on Resolution No. 030918. Nazareno is not
applicable, as it was decided based on Resolution No.
0109888.
We agree with the Civil Service Commission and the
Court of Appeals that Governor Ong issued Marco’s
appointment in accordance with Resolution No. 030918.
Although his appointment was made five (5) days before
the end of Governor Ong’s term, Marco was fully qualified
for the position and had undergone regular screening
processes before the election ban. As the Civil Service
Commission found, Marco “applied for the [position of

Cooperative Development Specialist II] [and] passed the
screening conducted by the Personnel Selection Board
(PSB) on February 12 & 13, 2004[.]”131 The Court of
Appeals reiterated this finding in its Decision dated March
2,
_______________
131 Rollo, p. 128.
256

2012.132 Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion,

this court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Civil
Service Commission,133 especially since it has acquired
“specialized knowledge and expertise”134 in the field of civil
service law.
Assuming without conceding that Governor Ong’s 26
appointments were issued in bulk, this per se does not
invalidate the appointments. Unlike Resolution No.
010988, Resolution No. 030918 does not prohibit
appointments that are large in number. Moreover, 26
appointments can hardly be classified as “mass
appointments,” compared with the 89 appointments this
court invalidated in Nazareno.
Marco’s appointment was valid. The Civil Service
Commission correctly approved his appointment.
Considering that Marco had already accepted his
appointment by the time the Province prevented him from
assuming his office, his appointment remains effective up
to the present.135 Consequently, the Civil Service
Commission correctly ordered the Province to reinstate
Marco as Cooperative Development Specialist II and to pay
him his back salaries from July 8, 2004 when the Province
prevented him from reporting for work up to his actual
reinstatement.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March 2,
2012 is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez** and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.
_______________
132 Id., at p. 83.

133 Japson v. Civil Service Commission, 663 Phil. 665, 675; 648 SCRA
532, 542 (2011) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
134 Id.
135 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule VI, Sec. 3.
* * Designated acting member per S.O. No. 1977 dated April 15, 2015.
257
VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 257

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.—While a litigant’s right to initiate an action in

court is fully respected, once his case has been adjudicated
by a competent court in a valid final judgment, he should
not be permitted to initiate similar suits in the hope of
securing a favorable ruling. (Bongcac vs. Sandiganbayan,
588 SCRA 64 [2009])
Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal
within the prescribed period, the winning party also has
the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of
his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment.
(Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, 595
SCRA 149 [2009])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

04 Provincial Government of Aurora V Marco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Provincial Government of Aurora V Marco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 Provincial Government of Aurora V Marco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 757

G.R. No. 202331. April 22, 2015.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Immutability of Final

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 223

mission becomes final and executory if no motion for

under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ment.—As required by Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 225

The Provincial Government of Aurora vs. Marco

Government, may “establish rules and regulations to promote

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

1 Rollo, pp. 13-53.

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Government of Aurora (the Province). The Province

Franchito N. Diamante and Angelita A. Gacutan of the Seventeenth

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 227

In view of the result of the dialogue of the concerned offices

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Through the Letter dated May 17, 2005, Marco appealed

through its Human Resource Management Office, received

It is unfair to Marco who applied for the said position believing

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 229

passed the screening conducted by the Personnel Selection

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Civil Service Commission denied outright the

no legal personality to file the Petition for Relief absent an

32 Id., at p. 320. The Resolution dated November 4, 2008 is identified

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 231

the April 14, 2008 Resolution had already been

ordered, the Province reflected the April 14, 2008

Ocampo, et al. nonchalantly tries to sweep away what is

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

work up to his actual reinstatement.45

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 233

passed a “Supplemental Budget for 2004 appropriating

change the fact that there [were] funds available for

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Province filed its Memorandum61 on April 25, 2013,

Marco was appointed by Governor Ong five (5) days before

2.1. All appointments issued by elective appointing officials

61 Id., at pp. 420-467.

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 235

et al. v. City of Dumaguete65 was a supervening event

Service Commission Resolution No. 010988.67 The Province

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Finally, the Province insists that Marco’s appointment

become final and executory. Therefore, the Resolution may

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 237

Lastly, Marco argues that Nazareno does not apply in

of Nazareno is not a supervening event that can set aside

77 Id., at pp. 477-478.

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the

discovered to be erroneous.84 The doctrine “is grounded on

81 Rules of Court, Rule 41, Sec. 1.

VOL. 757, APRIL 22, 2015 239

reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the

Section 80. Execution of Decision.—The decisions of the