De Rama vs. Court of Appeals

The constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies exclusively to the President and Acting President, not to local elective officials such as municipal mayors. Additionally, an appointment accepted by the appointee and assumed creates a legal (not merely equitable) right to the position protected by the Constitution, which cannot be unilaterally revoked by the appointing authority or his successor without cause and prior notice and hearing.

Change of administration in the Municipality of Pagbilao, Quezon. Outgoing Mayor Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, who lost the May 1995 elections, appointed 14 employees in June 1995, days before the end of her term on June 30, 1995.

• July 13, 1995: Petitioner De Rama (newly elected Mayor) wrote CSC seeking recall of 14 appointments made by outgoing Mayor Abeja.
• June 30, 1995: De Rama issued Office Order No. 95-01 recalling the appointments.
• January 15, 1996: CSC Legal and Quasi-Judicial Division ordered payment of salaries to three employees (Marino, Ayala, Oriazel) who had assumed duties.
• April 30, 1996: CSC denied recall request (Resolution No. 96-2828), ruling appointments valid and that Art. VII, Sec. 15 applies only to the President.
• November 21, 1996: CSC denied Motion for Reconsideration (Resolution No. 96-7527).
• Filed: Petition for Review before CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 42896).
• May 16, 1997: CA denied petition.
• October 20, 1997: CA denied Motion for Reconsideration.
• Filed: Instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before SC.

• Petitioner Conrado L. De Rama assumed office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon on June 30, 1995.
• Outgoing Mayor Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja appointed 14 employees on various dates from June 1 to June 27, 1995 (positions included Registration Officer, Bookbinder, Accounting Clerks, General Services Officer, Municipal Agriculturist, etc.).
• Abeja had lost the mayoralty election; results were proclaimed on May 11, 1995.
• The appointments were attested by the Head of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City.
• The appointments were processed through the Municipal Personnel Selection Board in meetings held on May 31 and June 26, 1995.
• De Rama's first official act was issuing Office Order No. 95-01 on June 30, 1995 recalling the appointments without prior notice or hearing.
• Three employees filed claims for salaries with the CSC, which were granted.

• The appointments were "midnight appointments" prohibited by Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution (prohibition on appointments 2 months before presidential elections).
• As the new appointing authority, he has sole discretion to recall appointments made by his predecessor.
• The CSC lacks jurisdiction to refuse to recall appointments or to uphold their validity; his recall order should prevail.
• The appointments were fraudulent and violated civil service rules (no screening process/criteria, no posting of vacancies in 3 conspicuous places, failure to observe merit and fitness requirements).
• These grounds (fraud/irregularities) were raised in a supplemental pleading to his appeal/MR before the CSC, which the CSC and CA erroneously ignored.

• Art. VII, Sec. 15 applies only to the President/Acting President, not local officials; no law prohibits local officials from appointing until their last day in office.
• The appointments were valid, issued in accordance with RA 7041 and CSC rules, and attested by the CSC Field Office.
• Once an appointment is issued and assumed, the appointee acquires a legal right protected by the Constitution that cannot be revoked unilaterally by the appointing authority; only the CSC can recall appointments on specific grounds (fraud, violation of law, etc.).
• The issues regarding irregularities (screening, posting, merit requirements) were raised for the first time on appeal via supplemental pleading; this is barred by waiver/estoppel and principles of fair play.
• Supplemental pleadings are discretionary and must state new events occurring since the original pleading; the alleged fraud occurred contemporaneously with the appointments, not after.
• SC review under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law, not fact.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the CSC and CA erred in refusing to consider petitioner's supplemental pleading raising allegations of fraud and irregularities in the appointment process.
  • Whether petitioner can raise factual issues regarding the validity of the appointments (non-compliance with screening, posting, merit requirements) for the first time on appeal before the CSC and the SC.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments under Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies to local elective officials (municipal mayors).
  • Whether a newly elected local chief executive may unilaterally recall appointments made by his predecessor that have been approved by the CSC and assumed by the appointees.
  • Whether the appointments were valid despite alleged procedural irregularities.

• Procedural:
  • The CSC and CA did not err in refusing to give credence to the supplemental pleading. Under Rule 10, Sec. 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, supplemental pleadings must state transactions, occurrences, or events happening since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The alleged fraud and irregularities occurred contemporaneously with the appointments (old facts), not new events subsequent to the original pleading.
  • Issues of fact cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Petitioner failed to allege irregularities in his original request for recall or in his original appeal to the CSC, raising them only in a supplemental pleading. This constitutes waiver and is barred by estoppel.
  • SC jurisdiction under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law, not fact. The factual findings of the CSC and CA (that the appointments were processed through the Personnel Selection Board and attested by CSC) are supported by evidence.
• Substantive:
  • Art. VII, Sec. 15 applies only to the President and Acting President. There is no constitutional or statutory prohibition against local elective officials making appointments during the last days of their term.
  • A completed appointment accepted and assumed creates a legal right. Citing Aquino v. CSC, once an appointee assumes a position under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal right protected by the Constitution and statute, which cannot be taken away by revocation or removal except for cause and with previous notice and hearing.
  • The appointing authority cannot unilaterally revoke appointments. Under Rule V, Sec. 9 of the Omnibus Rules, an appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and remains in force until disapproved by the CSC.
  • Grounds for recall are limited. Under Rule VI, Sec. 20 of the Omnibus Rules, appointments may be recalled only for: (a) non-compliance with Merit Promotion Plan; (b) failure to pass through Selection Board; (c) violation of collective agreement; or (d) violation of civil service law/rules. "Midnight appointment" is not a ground for recall.
  • Due process required. Petitioner recalled the appointments without prior notice or hearing, violating due process.
  • The appointments were valid as they were attested by the CSC Field Office and processed through the Personnel Selection Board.

• Midnight Appointments (Presidential vs. Local) — The prohibition in Art. VII, Sec. 15 is specific to the President/Acting President. Local officials may appoint until their term expires. However, see dissent arguing for application of caretaker principle to all officials.
• Completed Appointment Doctrine — Once an appointment is issued and the appointee assumes the position, he acquires a legal right (not merely equitable) to the position, protected by the Constitution and statute. The right cannot be removed except for cause and with due process (notice and hearing).
• Non-revocability Principle — An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority; it remains in force until disapproved by the CSC.
• Immediate Effect of Appointments — Under Rule V, Sec. 10 of the Omnibus Rules, an appointment issued in accordance with law takes effect immediately upon issuance; if the appointee has assumed duties, he is entitled to salary without awaiting CSC approval.
• Grounds for Recall of Appointments — Limited to four grounds under Rule VI, Sec. 20: (a) Non-compliance with agency Merit Promotion Plan; (b) Failure to pass through Selection/Promotion Board; (c) Violation of collective agreement; (d) Violation of civil service law/rules.
• Supplemental Pleading Requirements — Must state transactions/occurrences/events happening since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented; admission is discretionary.
• Waiver/Estoppel on Issues — Issues or questions of fact not raised in original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where raised for the first time.

• "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."
• "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."
• "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact."

• Aquino v. Civil Service Commission (G.R. No. 92403, 208 SCRA 240) — Controlling precedent on the legal right of appointees under completed appointments and protection from revocation except for cause and with due process.
• Aytona v. Castillo (4 SCRA 1) — Cited in dissent; established the "caretaker" principle for outgoing presidents and the impropriety of last-minute appointments lacking deliberate consideration.
• Mauna v. Civil Service Commission (232 SCRA 388) — Reiterated the legal right to position once appointment is completed.
• Debulgado v. Civil Service Commission (237 SCRA 184) — On CSC authority to recall appointments only on specific grounds.
• Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte v. CA (284 SCRA 511) — Issues of fact cannot be raised first time on appeal.

• 1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 15 — Midnight appointment prohibition (limited to President).
• 1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 1 — Public office is a public trust (cited in dissent).
• Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), Book V:
  • Rule V, Sec. 9 — Non-revocability of accepted appointments.
  • Rule V, Sec. 10 — Immediate effect of appointments; entitlement to salary upon assumption.
  • Rule VI, Sec. 20 — Grounds for recall of appointments.
  • Republic Act No. 7041 — Publication of vacancies requirements.
  • 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 10, Sec. 6 — Supplemental pleadings.
  • Rules of Court, Rule 45 — Scope of review (errors of law only).

• Bellosillo, J. — Concurs on the ground that bad faith cannot be presumed in this case.
• Puno, J. — Concurs because evidence of bad faith is weak.
• Vitug, J. — Concurs; perceives no clear irregularities in the appointments.

• Mendoza, J. — Argues that the prohibition on midnight appointments should apply to all elective officials, not just the President, based on the principle that public office is a public trust and outgoing officials should act as prudent caretakers. Cites Aytona v. Castillo. The appointments here were made hastily (14 appointments in two brief meetings) after the outgoing mayor lost the election, offending principles of fairness and propriety regardless of the lack of a specific constitutional provision for local officials.