Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete

The Civil Service Commission may validly issue rules prohibiting mass appointments by outgoing local chief executives after elections, and may disapprove or invalidate such appointments notwithstanding the accreditation granted to a local government unit to take final action on its appointments. The Commission's authority derives from its constitutional and statutory mandate as the central personnel agency, and accreditation operates only subject to civil service law, rules, and regulations.

Dumaguete City had been accredited by the Civil Service Commission under Resolution No. 992411 dated October 25, 1999, pursuant to the Commission's Accreditation Program, granting it authority to take final action on all its appointments subject to conditions — among them, that the exercise of such authority be subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, that appointments be subject to monthly monitoring by the Civil Service Field Office, and that appointments issued or acted upon in violation of pertinent rules be immediately invalidated by the Civil Service Regional Office upon the Field Office's recommendation. The dispute arose against the backdrop of the May 14, 2001 national and local elections and the Commission's issuance of CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001, which adopted guidelines on appointments issued by outgoing local chief executives after elections, treating them as analogous to the "midnight appointments" prohibited to the President under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution. Related litigation involving the same appointments had already reached the Court in G.R. No. 177795 and G.R. No. 168484.

Dumaguete City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo sought re-election in the May 14, 2001 elections but lost to respondent Agustin R. Perdices. In the period following the elections, on June 5, 7, and 11, 2001, outgoing Mayor Remollo promoted 15 city hall employees and regularized another 74, among them the 52 petitioners, who held positions ranging from casual or job-order status to plantilla items and were moved into roles such as Assistant Department Head I, Legislative Staff Officer III, Supply Officer IV, Records Officer II, and various utility, aide, and clerical positions. The appointments were reflected in the Report of Personnel Actions for June 2001.

On July 2, 2001, Mayor Perdices publicly announced at the flag-raising ceremony at the Dumaguete City Hall grounds that he would not honor the appointments made by former Mayor Remollo. On the same day, he instructed the City Administrator, respondent Dominador Dumalag, Jr., to direct respondent City Assistant Treasurer Erlinda C. Tumongha (now deceased) to refrain from making any cash disbursements for payments of petitioners' salary differentials based on their new positions. The winning mayor's assumption date was June 30, 2001.

On August 1, 2001, the CSC Field Office in Dumaguete City, through Director II Fabio R. Abucejo, revoked and invalidated the appointments of petitioners. The Field Office found that there were 15 promotional and 74 original appointments in the June 2001 ROPA; that only one en banc meeting of the City Personnel Selection Board was held on June 5, 2001 to consider all 89 appointments, with no other certified call for a PSB meeting; that no minutes were available to show the PSB's deliberations; that no PSB statements certified actual screening and evaluation of all candidates for each position; that the appointing officer was an outgoing local official who had lost in the May 14, 2001 mayoralty race; and that all 89 appointments were issued after the elections and when the new city mayor was about to assume office. The appointments were invalidated for violating CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001, which required, among other requisites, that the appointment have gone through regular PSB screening before the prohibited period, that the appointee be qualified, that there be an immediate need to fill the vacancy so as not to prejudice public service or endanger public safety, and that the appointment not be one of those mass appointments issued after the elections — "mass appointments" being defined as those issued in bulk or in large number after the elections by an outgoing local chief executive with no apparent need for their immediate issuance.

Petitioners sought reconsideration and thereafter appealed through the CSC Regional Office, the Commission en banc, and the Court of Appeals, each of which sustained the invalidation. The Commission en banc explained that the prohibition was designed to discourage losing candidates from extending appointments to their protégés or from giving their constituents "promised" positions, and to prevent the outgoing local chief executive from hurriedly issuing appointments that would subvert the policies of the incoming leadership. The Court of Appeals likewise held that the spirit behind CSC Resolution No. 010988 was to thwart the practice of outgoing local chief executives in making appointments before, during, and/or after regular local elections for ulterior partisan motives.

Separately, on August 1, 2001, petitioners had filed a Petition for Mandamus with Injunction and Damages against the City of Dumaguete and the respondent city officers, docketed as Civil Case No. 13013 and raffled to Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, seeking to enjoin respondents from nullifying their appointments and to compel payment of salaries and emoluments. The trial court found that there was no ministerial duty compellable by a writ of mandamus and that petitioners were not as yet entitled to damages resulting from the invalidation of their appointments, and dismissed the petition, denying reconsideration in an Order dated April 26, 2007.

• Invalidity of CSC Resolution No. 010988: Petitioners maintained that CSC Resolution No. 010988 is invalid because the Commission is without authority to issue regulations prohibiting mass appointments at the local government level.
• Inapplicability of the Presidential Prohibition: Petitioners cited De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, which held that Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution is applicable only to the President or Acting President, and argued that outgoing or defeated local appointing authorities are authorized to make appointments of qualified individuals until their last day in office.
• Not All Mass Appointments Invalid: Petitioners claimed that not all mass appointments are invalid.
• Effect of Accreditation: Petitioners argued that because Dumaguete City had been granted authority to take "final action" on all appointments, the Commission did not have any authority to disapprove the appointments made by outgoing Mayor Remollo.

• Violation of Civil Service Rules: Respondents argued that petitioners' appointments violated civil service rules and regulations other than CSC Resolution No. 010988.
• Authority to Invalidate: Respondents asserted that the Commission is authorized to invalidate petitioners' appointments because the CSC accreditation program carried with it the caveat that "said exercise of authority shall be subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations."
• Forum Shopping: Respondents claimed that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping because the issues in this case and in G.R. No. 177795 are the same.

• Authority to Issue CSC Resolution No. 010988: Whether the Civil Service Commission has the authority to issue CSC Resolution No. 010988 prohibiting mass appointments at the local government level.
• Validity of the Invalidation: Whether the invalidation of petitioners' appointments was warranted.
• Effect of Accreditation: Whether the grant to the City Government of Dumaguete of authority to take final action on all appointments removed the Commission's authority to review and disapprove those appointments.
• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioners engaged in forum shopping in filing the present petition alongside G.R. No. 177795.

• Authority to Issue CSC Resolution No. 010988: Yes. The Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, has statutory authority under Presidential Decree No. 807 and Executive Order No. 292 to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations to promote economical, efficient, and effective personnel administration in the civil service.
• Validity of the Invalidation: Yes. The appointments were mass appointments issued by a defeated outgoing local chief executive within a ten-day period in the same month he left office, without evidence of PSB deliberation on the qualifications of the appointees or of any urgent need for their immediate issuance.
• Effect of Accreditation: No. The authority granted under CSC Resolution No. 992411 to take final action on appointments was expressly subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, and appointments in violation thereof were to be immediately invalidated.
• Forum Shopping: No. Although the factual antecedents are the same, the mandamus case and the present case involve different issues, and the matter had already been settled in G.R. No. 177795.

• Authority to Issue CSC Resolution No. 010988: The Commission's rule-making power is anchored on its constitutional mandate as the central personnel agency and on statutory provisions. Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 807 empowers the Commission to prescribe, amend, and enforce suitable rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Decree, to promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines for the civil service, and to approve all appointments and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualifications. Section 12 of Executive Order No. 292 similarly authorizes the Commission to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations, to promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines, to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters in the civil service, and to inspect and audit the personnel actions and programs of government offices, including local government units. The legislative standards for the exercise of this delegated authority are set out in the statutes — to promote "economical, efficient, and effective personnel administration." The Court found substantial reason behind CSC Resolution No. 010988. While there is no constitutional prohibition against "mass appointments" by defeated local government officials prior to the expiration of their terms, and such appointments are not the same as the "midnight appointments" proscribed by Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, which applies only to presidential appointments, the rationale behind the prohibition against midnight appointments may be applied to appointments made by chief executives of local government units. As explained in Quirog vs. Aumentado, the prohibition is designed to discourage, even preclude, losing candidates from issuing appointments merely for partisan purposes, thereby depriving the incoming administration of the opportunity to make corresponding appointments in line with its new policies. Sales vs. Carreon, Jr. likewise recognized that appointments after elections by defeated candidates are prohibited, except under the circumstances 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 outgoing local officials.

• Validity of the Invalidation: CSC Resolution No. 010988 does not purport to nullify all mass appointments; the validity of an appointment issued immediately before and after elections by an outgoing local chief executive is determined on the basis of the nature, character, and merit of the individual appointment and the particular circumstances surrounding it. As held in Sales, each appointment must be judged on that basis, and it is only when appointments were made en masse by the outgoing administration and shown to have been made through hurried maneuvers and under circumstances departing from good faith, morality, and propriety that the Court has struck down "midnight" appointments. Here, Mayor Remollo issued the 89 original and promotional appointments on three separate dates but within a ten-day period, in the same month that he left office. The Commission's audit further found violations of CSC rules and regulations justifying disapproval. Under Section 1 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, the Revised Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, non-compliance with requirements — including PSB evaluation and screening, evidenced by a certification signed by the Chairman of the Board at the back of the appointment or a copy of the proceedings or minutes of the Board's deliberation, with the appointment not to be issued earlier than the date of final screening or deliberation — is a ground for disapproval. Only one en banc meeting of the city PSB was held to consider the appointments, with no evidence of any deliberations on the qualifications of petitioners and no indication of an urgent need for immediate issuance. The absence of evidence showing careful consideration of the merits of each appointment, coupled with the timing and number of appointments, indicated that the appointments were hurriedly issued by the outgoing administration.

• Effect of Accreditation: The authority granted by CSC Resolution No. 992411 to the City Government of Dumaguete to "take final action" on all its appointments did not deprive the Commission of its authority and duty to review appointments. Resolution No. 992411 itself states that the exercise of such authority shall be "subject to civil service law, rules and regulations" and that appointments in violation of pertinent rules "shall immediately be invalidated." Moreover, Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations. The Commission is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions, and that power includes the authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of civil service law and regulations.

• Forum Shopping: The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment; it is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Although the factual antecedents of the cases are the same, they involve different issues. The petition for mandamus with injunction and damages in Civil Case No. 13013, raised before the Court as G.R. No. 177795, challenged respondents' refusal to recognize petitioners' appointments and to pay their salaries, salary adjustments, and other emoluments, and entailed only the applications for a writ of mandamus and for damages. The present case involves the merits of petitioners' appeal from the invalidation and revocation of their appointments by the CSC Field Office, affirmed by the CSC Regional Office, the CSC en banc, and the Court of Appeals. In any event, the issue had already been settled in the Decision of June 19, 2009 in G.R. No. 177795, which found petitioners not guilty of forum shopping.

• Civil Service Commission's Rule-Making Authority — The Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government under Article IX(B), Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, possesses statutory authority under Presidential Decree No. 807 and Executive Order No. 292 to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the civil service law, to promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines for the civil service, to approve or disapprove appointments, and to inspect and audit the personnel actions of government offices including local government units. The delegated authority is bounded by the statutory standard of promoting "economical, efficient, and effective personnel administration." The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the validity of CSC Resolution No. 010988.
• Mass Appointments Distinguished from Constitutional Midnight Appointments — The prohibition in Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution against appointments two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President's or Acting President's term applies only to presidential appointments; there is no equivalent constitutional or statutory prohibition against local elective officials making appointments during the last days of their tenure. Nevertheless, the rationale behind the prohibition against midnight appointments may be applied to appointments made by chief executives of local government units, since the prohibition is designed to discourage losing candidates from issuing appointments merely for partisan purposes and to preserve the incoming administration's opportunity to make appointments in line with its new policies.
• Requisites for Validity of Post-Election Appointments by Outgoing Local Chief Executives — CSC Resolution No. 010988 does not totally proscribe appointments by a local chief executive immediately before and after elections. Under the Resolution, an appointment issued after the elections shall be disapproved unless the following requisites concur: (a) the appointment has gone through regular screening by the Personnel Selection Board before the prohibited period, as shown by the PSB report or minutes of its meeting; (b) 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; and (d) the appointment is not one of those mass appointments issued after the elections. "Mass appointments" refers to those issued in bulk or in large number after the elections by an outgoing local chief executive where there is no apparent need for their immediate issuance.
• Individualized Assessment of Appointments — The validity of an appointment issued immediately before and after elections by an outgoing local chief executive is determined on the basis of the nature, character, and merit of the individual appointment and the particular circumstances surrounding the same. It is only when appointments were made en masse by the outgoing administration and shown to have been made through hurried maneuvers and under circumstances departing from good faith, morality, and propriety that "midnight" appointments have been struck down.
• Accreditation Does Not Divest the Commission of Review Authority — A local government unit's accreditation to take final action on its appointments is granted subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, and appointments found in the course of monthly monitoring to have been issued or acted upon in violation of pertinent rules shall immediately be invalidated. Notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations; the Commission's power to take appropriate action on all appointments includes the authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable civil service provisions.
• Forum Shopping — Forum shopping consists of the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It is the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Where the factual antecedents are the same but the issues are different, there is no forum shopping.

• "CSC Resolution No. 010988 does not totally proscribe the local chief executive from making any appointments immediately before and after elections. The same Resolution provides that the validity of an appointment issued immediately before and after elections by an outgoing local chief executive is to be determined on the basis of the nature, character, and merit of the individual appointment and the particular circumstances surrounding the same." — This passage states the controlling standard for evaluating post-election appointments by outgoing local executives and is the ratio for the Court's rejection of a blanket invalidation rule.
• "It is only when the appointments were made en masse by the outgoing administration and shown to have been made through hurried maneuvers and under circumstances departing from good faith, morality, and propriety that this Court has struck down 'midnight' appointments." — Quoted from Sales vs. Carreon, Jr. and adopted as the operative test, this formulation defines when mass appointments cross into invalid "midnight" appointments.
• "The prohibition is designed to discourage losing candidates from extending appointments to their protégés or from giving their constituents 'promised' positions (CSC Resolution No. 97-0317 dated January 17, 1997, Re: Roldan B. Casinillo). Moreover, the same is intended to prevent the outgoing local chief executive from hurriedly issuing appointments which would subvert the policies of the incoming leadership." — This passage, drawn from the CSC en banc's explanation, articulates the policy rationale behind CSC Resolution No. 010988 that the Court found to constitute substantial reason for its issuance.
• "The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment." — This is the Court's canonical statement of forum shopping, applied to hold that the mandamus case and the present case, though sharing factual antecedents, involved different issues.

• De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 94 — Cited by petitioners for the ruling that Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution applies only to presidential appointments and that no law prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure; the Court affirmed this ruling but held that the rationale behind the prohibition may still be applied to local appointments.
• Quirog vs. Aumentado, G.R. No. 163443, November 11, 2008 — Followed for the proposition that the raison d'être behind the prohibition against midnight appointments may be applied to appointments by chief executives of local government units; distinguished on the ground that Quirog's appointment was made on June 1, 2001, three days prior to the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 010988, so retroactive application was not warranted.
• Sales vs. Carreon, Jr., G.R. No. 160791, February 13, 2007, 515 SCRA 597 — Followed as the source of the individualized-assessment test and the "hurried maneuvers" standard; also cited for the Commission's authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable civil service law and regulations.
• Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 177795, June 19, 2009 — The companion case involving the same appointments; cited for the ruling that petitioners were not entitled to a writ of mandamus for payment of salaries and emoluments and were not as yet entitled to damages, and for the finding that petitioners were not guilty of forum shopping.
• Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 508 — Cited for the ruling that both the appointing authority and the appointee may question the disapproval of an appointment, and that the appointing authority with the right to assail the invalidation is the mayor occupying the position at the time of the institution of the appeal, not the former mayor who made the assailed appointment.
• Mathay vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 130214, August 9, 1999, 312 SCRA 91 — Cited in support of the Commission's authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable civil service provisions.
• Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 111471, September 26, 1994, 237 SCRA 184 — Cited alongside Mathay and Sales for the same proposition on the Commission's power over appointments.
• Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 154187, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 585 — Cited for the definition of forum shopping.
• Transfield Philippines, Inc. vs. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. No. 146717, May 19, 2006, 490 SCRA 14 — Cited for the definition of forum shopping.
• Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 207 — Cited for the definition of forum shopping.

• Article IX(B), Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Establishes the Civil Service Commission as the central personnel agency of the Government, mandated to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. Cited as the constitutional anchor of the Commission's authority to issue CSC Resolution No. 010988.
• Article VII, Section 15, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the President or Acting President from making appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Cited to distinguish constitutional "midnight appointments" from the mass appointments of local chief executives, and to explain why the rationale, though not the letter, of the prohibition applies to local appointments.
• Section 9, Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) — Empowers the Commission to prescribe, amend, and enforce suitable rules and regulations for carrying into effect the Decree's provisions; to promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines for the civil service and adopt plans and programs to promote economical, efficient, and effective personnel administration; and to approve all appointments and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualifications. Cited as the principal statutory basis for the Commission's rule-making and appointment-review authority.
• Section 12, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Confers on the Commission the powers to prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations; to promulgate policies, standards, and guidelines for the civil service; to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters in the civil service; and to inspect and audit the personnel actions and programs of departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, local government units, and other government instrumentalities. Cited to confirm the Commission's authority over appointments in local government units.
• Section 20, Rule VI, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Provides that notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations. Cited to establish that accreditation and initial approval do not bar subsequent recall or invalidation.
• Section 1, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40 (Revised Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions) — Requires that appointees be screened and evaluated by the Personnel Selection Board, if applicable, as proved by a certification signed by the Chairman of the Board at the back of the appointment or a copy of the proceedings or minutes of the Board's deliberation, and that the appointment not be issued earlier than the date of the final screening or deliberation; non-compliance is a ground for disapproval. Applied to find that the absence of evidence of PSB deliberation justified disapproval of petitioners' appointments.
• Section 261, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines — Punishes as an election offense the appointment or hiring of new employees, creation of new positions, promotion, or giving of salary increases during the forty-five days before a regular election and thirty days before a special election, except upon prior authority of the Commission, and declares any appointment or hiring in violation of the provision null and void. Cited to explain the rationale for banning appointments prior to elections.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 3401 (December 15, 2000) — Prohibited, from March 30, 2001 until May 14, 2001, any appointing officer of a national or local government office from appointing or hiring any new employee or creating and filling any new positions except upon prior authority of the Commission. Cited in connection with the ban on appointments during the election period.
• CSC Resolution No. 992411 (October 25, 1999) — Granted the City Government of Dumaguete authority to take final action on all its appointments, subject to conditions including that the exercise of such authority be subject to civil service law, rules and regulations, that appointments be subject to monthly monitoring by the Civil Service Field Office, and that appointments issued or acted upon in violation of pertinent rules be immediately invalidated by the Civil Service Regional Office upon the Field Office's recommendation. Construed as not divesting the Commission of its review authority.
• CSC Resolution No. 010988 (June 4, 2001) — Adopted guidelines requiring the disapproval of appointments issued after the elections unless the appointment underwent regular PSB screening before the prohibited period, the appointee is qualified, there is an immediate need to fill the vacancy, and the appointment is not one of those mass appointments issued after the elections; defined "mass appointments" as those issued in bulk or in large number after the elections by an outgoing local chief executive with no apparent need for immediate issuance. Upheld as a valid exercise of the Commission's rule-making authority.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2001 — Prescribed guidelines on the transfer, detail, and issuance of appointments to civil personnel during elections, including a prohibition on transfer or detail of personnel from January 2, 2001 until June 13, 2001, and a prohibition on new appointments, promotions, or increases in salary from March 30, 2001 to May 14, 2001. Cited as the source of the "prohibited period" referred to in CSC Resolution No. 010988.

• Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice (On official leave)
• Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Associate Justice (On official leave)
• Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice
• Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice
• Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice
• Conchita Carpio Morales, Associate Justice
• Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Associate Justice (On leave)
• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice
• Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Associate Justice
• Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice
• Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice
• Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice
• Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice
• Roberto A. Abad, Associate Justice