The constitutional prohibition against "midnight appointments" found in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies only to a President or Acting President and does not extend to appointments made by local elective officials. Furthermore, once an appointment is issued, accepted, and the appointee assumes office, they acquire a legal right to the position, protected by due process, and such appointment cannot be unilaterally revoked by the appointing authority or their successor without just cause and adherence to procedural requirements, with the Civil Service Commission having the authority to review and recall appointments only on specific grounds.

Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama sought to recall the appointments of fourteen municipal employees. These appointments were made by the outgoing mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, in the period leading up to the end of her term and after the election of de Rama. The core of the dispute revolved around the petitioner's belief that these were "midnight appointments" and were therefore invalid, leading him to request their recall from the Civil Service Commission.

• Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama wrote a letter dated July 13, 1995, to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) seeking the recall of the appointments of fourteen municipal employees made by the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja.
• The appointments were made on various dates in June 1995, shortly before the former mayor's term ended.
• Petitioner de Rama justified his recall request by alleging the appointments were "midnight" appointments, violating Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
• While the recall request was pending, three employees (Marino, Ayala, Oriazel) filed a claim for payment of salaries with the CSC, which the CSC Legal and Quasi-Judicial Division granted, stating they were entitled to salaries having assumed their positions.
• On April 30, 1996, the CSC denied de Rama's recall request, ruling the appointments were valid as the constitutional prohibition on "midnight" appointments applies only to Presidents, and the appointments complied with pertinent laws.
• De Rama moved for reconsideration, arguing the CSC lacked jurisdiction to refuse the recall and uphold the appointments, and later filed a "supplement to the consolidated appeal and motion for reconsideration" alleging for the first time that the appointments were fraught with irregularities and fraud.
• The CSC denied the motion for reconsideration on November 21, 1996, stating de Rama failed to present evidence of defects or contravention of law.
• De Rama appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on May 16, 1997, denied the petition, affirming the CSC and finding no abuse of appointment power by the outgoing mayor. The CA also held that de Rama's allegations of irregularities in his supplemental pleading did not constitute "new evidence."
• De Rama's motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied on October 20, 1997.

• The appointments of the fourteen employees were "midnight" appointments made by the outgoing mayor in violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
• The Civil Service Commission (CSC) had no jurisdiction to refuse to revoke the subject appointments and to uphold their validity.
• The petitioner alone has sole discretion to appoint and recall municipal employees, an authority the CSC cannot usurp.
• The appointments were fraught with irregularities and obtained through fraud, specifically: no proper screening process by the Personnel Selection Board, no proper posting of vacancy notices, and non-observance of merit and fitness requirements.
• The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the CSC was correct in not upholding the recall despite alleged fraud and violation of rules on issuance of appointments.
• The grounds for recall (procedural irregularities) were not new issues as they were precisely the violations raised before the CSC.

• The constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" (Article VII, Section 15) applies only to presidential appointments, not to those made by local elective officials.
• The appointments were issued in accordance with pertinent laws and were effective immediately, and cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority until disapproved by the CSC.
• Once an appointee assumes a position under a completed appointment, they acquire a legal right protected by statute and the Constitution, removable only for cause and with due process.
• The petitioner failed to present evidence before the CSC that the appointments were defective or issued in contravention of law or rules during the initial proceedings.
• The alleged irregularities concerning the screening process, posting of vacancies, and merit/fitness were new issues raised for the first time on appeal (in the supplemental pleading to the motion for reconsideration before the CSC) and cannot be considered.
• The documents presented in the petitioner's supplemental pleading did not constitute "new evidence" that would warrant a reversal of the CSC's earlier ruling.

• Whether the constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies to appointments made by local elective officials.
• Whether the petitioner, as the new mayor, could unilaterally recall the appointments of the private respondents made by the outgoing mayor.
• Whether the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the appointments.
• Whether the new grounds for recall (alleged fraud and procedural irregularities) raised by the petitioner in his supplemental pleading before the CSC and subsequently before the Court of Appeals could be considered.

• The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for review and AFFIRMED the Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
• The Court ruled that the prohibition on "midnight appointments" in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies exclusively to a President or Acting President and does not extend to local elective officials. There is no law prohibiting local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
• Once an appointment is issued and the appointee assumes the position, they acquire a legal right to it, protected by statute and the Constitution. Such an appointment cannot be taken away by revocation or removal except for cause and with previous notice and hearing. The petitioner's act of recalling the appointments without notice and hearing violated due process.
• An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and remains in force until disapproved by the CSC. The CSC is authorized to recall an initially approved appointment only on specific grounds such as non-compliance with procedures, failure to pass the selection board, violation of collective agreements, or violation of civil service laws and regulations.
• The petitioner's initial ground for recall ("midnight appointments") was incorrect. The subsequent grounds (fraud and procedural irregularities) were raised belatedly in a supplemental pleading to the motion for reconsideration before the CSC. Issues or questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Supplemental pleadings are meant for transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented, not for old facts and issues that could have been raised earlier.
• The factual findings of the CSC, supported by evidence (appointments made after Personnel Selection Board meetings and attested by the CSC field office), are generally accorded respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner failed to seasonably present evidence to warrant the recall of the appointments on valid grounds.

• Prohibition on Midnight Appointments (Article VII, Section 15, 1987 Constitution) — This constitutional provision prohibits a President or Acting President from making appointments (except temporary ones to executive positions in urgent cases) two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of their term. The Court ruled this prohibition is specific to the President/Acting President and does not apply to local elective officials.
• Security of Tenure in Civil Service — Once an appointment is issued and the appointee assumes the position in the civil service under a completed appointment, they acquire a legal, not merely equitable, right to the position, which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. This right cannot be taken away either by revocation of the appointment or by removal, except for cause and with previous notice and hearing. This was applied to protect the private respondents from unilateral recall by the new mayor.
• Rule on Raising New Issues on Appeal — Matters, theories, or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time. The Court applied this to disregard petitioner's allegations of fraud and procedural irregularities, which were raised belatedly in a supplemental pleading after the initial CSC ruling.
• Supplemental Pleadings (Rule 10, Section 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) — A supplemental pleading sets forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. It cannot be used to introduce old facts or issues that should have been raised in the original pleading. The Court found that petitioner's supplemental pleading alleging fraud and irregularities did not constitute "new evidence" or proper subject for such a pleading as these were matters contemporaneous with the appointments.
• Estoppel — The raising of factual issues for the first time in a pleading which is supplemental only to an appeal is barred by estoppel. Petitioner was estopped from raising new grounds for recall at a late stage.
• CSC Authority over Appointments (Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code, Rule V, Sections 9 & 10; Rule VI, Section 20) — An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force until disapproved by the CSC. The CSC is authorized to recall an appointment initially approved, but only on specific grounds (e.g., non-compliance with merit promotion plan, failure to pass selection board, violation of civil service laws). This affirmed the CSC's role in validating or invalidating the recall.
• Due Process in Removal from Office — Removal from a civil service position must be for a valid cause and must be preceded by notice and hearing. The petitioner's immediate recall of appointments upon assuming office, without notice or hearing for the appointees, violated due process.
• Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Petitions for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court) — The Supreme Court's jurisdiction in such petitions is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless factual findings are devoid of support or based on misapprehension of facts. The Court found the CSC's ruling supported by evidence.

• "It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right (to the position), which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing."
• "In truth and in fact, there is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure."
• "It is well-settled that issues or questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. We have consistently held that matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time."
• "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.'"

• Aquino v. Civil Service Commission (208 SCRA 240) — Cited for the principle that once an appointment is issued and assumed, the appointee acquires a legal right to the position protected by the Constitution and statute, and cannot be removed without cause, notice, and hearing.
• Shoemart, Inc. v. CA (190 SCRA 189) — Referenced in a footnote regarding the nature of supplemental pleadings, indicating they should not entirely substitute the original pleading.
• Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte v. CA (284 SCRA 511); Cheng v. Genato (300 SCRA 722) — Cited in footnotes to support the rule that issues or questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• Salafranca v. Philamlife Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (300 SCRA 469) — Cited in a footnote to support the rule that matters, theories, or arguments not brought out in original proceedings cannot be considered on review if raised for the first time.
• San Juan Structural and Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. CA (296 SCRA 631) — Cited in a footnote to illustrate that considering issues raised late would trample on fair play, justice, and due process.
• Reyes v. CA (281 SCRA 277) — Cited in a footnote regarding waiver of grounds not raised and supported by documents in earlier proceedings.
• Sanchez v. CA (279 SCRA 647) — Cited in a footnote regarding estoppel in raising factual issues for the first time in a supplemental pleading on appeal.
• Linzag v. CA (291 SCRA 304) — Cited in a footnote for the rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law.
• Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary v. CA (291 SCRA 385) — Cited in a footnote for the exception to the rule on factual review (when findings are devoid of support or based on misapprehension of facts).
• Mauna v. Civil Service Commission (232 SCRA 388) — Cited for the principle that upon issuance of an appointment and assumption of position, the appointee acquires a legal right that cannot be taken away without cause, notice, and hearing.
• Debulgado v. Civil Service Commission (237 SCRA 184) — Cited for the CSC's authority to recall an appointment initially approved if it disregards applicable civil service law and regulations.

• Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution — This provision, prohibiting "midnight appointments" by a President or Acting President, was central to petitioner's initial argument. The Court clarified it does not apply to local elective officials.
• Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules (Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292) — Cited by the CSC to state that if an appointee has assumed duties, they are entitled to salary without awaiting CSC approval of the appointment.
• Rule V, Sections 9 of the Omnibus Rules (Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292) — Cited by the CSC and the Supreme Court, providing that an accepted appointment cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and remains effective until disapproved by the CSC.
• Republic Act No. 7041, Section 80 (Local Government Code provisions on personnel) — Cited by the Court of Appeals regarding public notice of vacancy and the Personnel Selection Board, determining that it doesn't mandate appointments within a specific timeframe from publication.
• CSC Circular Order No. 27, Section 7, Series of 1991 — Mentioned by the Court of Appeals as not requiring vacant positions published quarterly to be filled before the next quarter.
• Rule 10, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Discussed by the Supreme Court regarding supplemental pleadings, emphasizing they are for new matters arising after the original pleading.
• Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court — Referenced by the Supreme Court concerning its limited jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari to errors of law.
• Rule VI, Section 20 of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code — Cited by the Supreme Court, enumerating the grounds upon which an initially approved appointment may be recalled by the CSC.

• Mendoza, J. — Argued that the majority overlooked the broader principle that an outgoing appointing authority, having lost the election, acts as a caretaker and should not fill positions unless required by imperatives of public service, a principle applicable to all, including mayors, stemming from the concept of public office as a public trust. He contended that "midnight appointments" are inherently bad due to being made hurriedly without due deliberation, regardless of whether by a President or a mayor. He pointed to the perfunctory nature of the Personnel Selection Board meetings and the timing of the appointments by Mayor Abeja after losing her re-election bid as evidence of an attempt to deprive the new administration of the opportunity to make appointments, similar to the situation in Aytona v. Castillo. He believed the appointments should be declared null and void.