Quirog vs. Aumentado

An appointee whose appointment is disapproved by the Civil Service Commission is a real party in interest with legal standing to seek reconsideration or appeal, and a CSC resolution issued after the appointment cannot be applied retroactively to invalidate it; the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments, moreover, applies only to the President or Acting President.

Liza M. Quirog was appointed by then Bohol Governor Rene L. Relampagos as Provincial Government Department Head of the Office of the Bohol Provincial Agriculture, also called Provincial Agriculturist. The appointment was made under the Civil Service Commission's rules on appointments issued after elections, including CSC Resolution No. 010988 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998, and against the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments. The CSC's authority to promulgate rules on appointments derives from PD 807 and EO 292.

On May 28, 2001, then Bohol Provincial Governor Rene L. Relampagos permanently appointed Liza M. Quirog as Provincial Government Department Head of the Office of the Bohol Provincial Agriculture (PGDH-OPA), also called Provincial Agriculturist. Before the appointment, the Personnel Selection Board (PSB) of the Human Resource Management and Development Office of Bohol certified that Quirog was one of two candidates qualified for the position. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan confirmed the appointment in Resolution No. 2001-199 on June 1, 2001, and Quirog took her oath of office on the same date. A copy of the Monthly Report on Personnel Actions for May and June 2001 was submitted to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII (CSCROVII), Cebu City.

In an Order dated June 28, 2001, the CSCROVII invalidated Quirog's appointment as PGDH-OPA, finding it part of the bulk appointments issued by Relampagos after the May 14, 2001 elections in alleged violation of Item No. 3(d) of CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001. The Order noted that the prohibition against midnight appointments had been laid down as early as February 29, 2000 in CSC Resolution No. 000550. Relampagos and Quirog moved for reconsideration, arguing that when Quirog took her oath on June 1, 2001, CSC Resolution No. 010988 was not yet effective because it took effect only on June 4, 2001; that the appointment was not a midnight appointment because it was made days before Relampagos' term expired; and that Quirog had been acting Provincial Agriculturist since June 19, 2000. They also asserted that because Quirog had taken her oath, assumed her duties, and collected her salary for June 2001, she had acquired a legal right to the position that could not be taken away except for cause and with previous notice and hearing.

In a Decision dated July 23, 2001, the CSCROVII denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of legal personality, citing Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998. The CSCROVII explained that only the appointing officer may request reconsideration of the disapproval of an appointment by the Civil Service Commission, and that even Relampagos could not file the motion because his term as governor had expired. Quirog and Relampagos appealed to the Civil Service Commission, where their joint appeal was docketed as Adm. NDC No. 01-88.

On November 20, 2001, the CSC issued Resolution No. 011812, granting the joint appeal and setting aside the CSCROVII Order and Decision. The CSC held that because Relampagos had ceased to be the appointing authority upon the expiration of his term and incumbent Governor Erico B. Aumentado was not the official who made the appointment, equity dictated that Quirog be allowed to question the decision to avoid damage or injury to public service. The CSC also declared that Quirog's appointment was not a midnight appointment because it was not hurriedly issued and did not subvert the policies of the incoming administration. It relaxed the application of Item No. 3(a) of CSC Resolution No. 010988, which required appointments to have gone through regular PSB screening before the election ban or the prohibited period from March 30, 2001 to May 14, 2001, noting that the selection board had deliberated on Quirog's qualifications only on May 24, 2001, after the election ban. The CSC reasoned that the spirit rather than the letter of the rule should prevail as long as the case did not involve a midnight appointment proscribed by Aytona vs. Castillo. It also justified the appointment despite its inclusion among 46 post-election appointments because of the need to immediately fill the vacant position of Provincial Agriculturist and because Aumentado had expressed trust and confidence in Quirog in his Memorandum No. 1 dated July 2, 2001.

On December 10, 2001, Aumentado filed an amended Motion for Reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 011812. He insisted that Quirog and Relampagos had no legal personality to file a motion for reconsideration or to appeal; that Quirog's appointment was a midnight appointment; that the selection board which screened Quirog's qualifications was not validly constituted; and that the appointment was made more than six months from its publication on July 23, 2000 in violation of CSC Resolution No. 010114 dated January 10, 2001. He also claimed that Relampagos made 97, not 46, mass appointments on the eve of his term, 95 of which were invalidated by the CSC Bohol Field Office and two, including Quirog's, by the CSCROVII. In Resolution No. 020271 dated February 22, 2002, the CSC denied Aumentado's motion for reconsideration. Aumentado then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70255. On March 31, 2003, the CA rendered its Decision granting Aumentado's petition, reversing and setting aside CSC Resolution No. 011812, and ruling that Quirog's appeal should have been dismissed outright for lack of legal personality; it reinstated the CSCROVII's June 28, 2001 Order and July 23, 2001 Decision. On April 12, 2004, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration. From the adverse CA decision, the CSC and Relampagos and Quirog filed separate petitions for review on certiorari, which the Supreme Court consolidated.

• Legal Standing: Petitioners Quirog and Relampagos argued that the word "may" in Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 means that a request for reconsideration or appeal from a disapproved appointment is not vested exclusively in the appointing authority; Quirog was the real party in interest because she was the one aggrieved by the disapproval. They contended that their appeal before the CA should not have been dismissed on a mere technicality such as lack of legal personality, and that litigants must be afforded full opportunity for adjudication on the merits.
• CSC Practice: Petitioner Civil Service Commission pointed out that in previously decided cases, it allowed appointees to take relief from the disapproval of their appointments as an exception to the rule on legal standing.
• Retroactivity and Validity: Petitioners Relampagos and Quirog alleged that when Quirog took her oath on June 1, 2001, CSC Resolution No. 010988 was not yet effective because it took effect only on June 4, 2001; that the appointment was not a midnight appointment because it was made days before the expiration of Relampagos' term; and that Quirog had been acting Provincial Agriculturist since June 19, 2000. They asserted that Quirog had acquired a legal right to the position after taking her oath, assuming her duties, and collecting her salary for June 2001, which could not be taken away except for cause and with previous notice and hearing.
• Midnight Appointment: The CSC justified the appointment despite its inclusion among 46 post-election appointments because of the need to immediately fill the vacant position of Provincial Agriculturist and because Governor Aumentado had expressed trust and confidence in Quirog in his Memorandum No. 1 dated July 2, 2001.

• Legal Standing: Aumentado maintained that the controlling rule is Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998, and anchored his argument in Mathay, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, where the Court ruled that only the appointing authority can request reconsideration of a CSC-disapproved appointment.
• Midnight Appointment and Mass Appointments: Aumentado insisted that Quirog's appointment was a midnight appointment and that Relampagos made 97, not 46, mass appointments on the eve of his term, 95 of which were invalidated by the CSC Bohol Field Office and two, including Quirog's, by the CSCROVII.
• Invalid Selection Process and Publication: Aumentado added that the selection board which screened Quirog's qualifications was not validly constituted and that the appointment was made more than six months from its publication on July 23, 2000 in violation of CSC Resolution No. 010114 dated January 10, 2001.
• Lack of Legal Personality: He insisted that Quirog and Relampagos had no legal personality to file a motion for reconsideration of the disapproved appointment or to appeal the same.

• Legal Standing: Whether petitioners Relampagos and Quirog have the legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of, or appeal from, the disapproval of Quirog's appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
• Compliance with CSC Resolution No. 010988: Whether Quirog's appointment violated Item 3 of CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001.
• Midnight Appointment: Whether the subject appointment was a midnight appointment.

• Legal Standing: Yes as to Quirog; No as to Relampagos. Both the appointing authority and the appointee are real parties in interest with legal standing to challenge a CSC disapproval of an appointment under Abella, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission; however, Relampagos lost legal personality because his term as governor had expired.
• Compliance with CSC Resolution No. 010988: No. CSC Resolution No. 010988 took effect on June 4, 2001, after Quirog's May 28, 2001 appointment and June 1, 2001 oath, and absent a retroactivity clause it applies prospectively only.
• Midnight Appointment: No. The constitutional prohibition applies only to the President or Acting President, and Quirog's appointment was not hurried and did not subvert the incoming administration's policies.

• Legal Standing: Under Abella, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, both the appointing authority and the appointee are equally real parties in interest with legal standing to challenge a CSC disapproval of an appointment. The CSC's disapproval challenges the appointing authority's exercise of discretion, but the appointee is also injured because she is prevented from assuming the office in a permanent capacity and would benefit from an approved appointment conferring all rights and privileges of a permanent appointee. Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 should not be interpreted to restrict solely to the appointing authority the right to move for reconsideration or appeal; PD 807 and EO 292 are silent on whether appointees have a similar right, and there is no legislative intent to bar appointees from challenging the CSC's disapproval. CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 recognizes the right of the adversely affected party to appeal, which necessarily includes the appointee. Mathay, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission did not control because the right of the appointee to seek reconsideration or appeal was not the main issue there; the statement was merely obiter, and the present case is decided en banc. Accordingly, Quirog had the right to ask for reconsideration or appeal. Relampagos, however, by reason of the expiration of his term as governor, had lost the legal personality to contest the disapproval of the appointment.
• Compliance with CSC Resolution No. 010988: The CSCROVII disapproved Quirog's appointment for non-compliance with Item No. 3 of CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001. Item No. 3 provides that appointments issued after the elections shall be disapproved unless certain requisites concur: (a) the appointment has gone through regular PSB screening before the prohibited period; (b) the appointee is qualified; (c) there is a need to fill the vacancy immediately to avoid prejudice to public service or endanger public safety; and (d) the appointment is not one of those mass appointments issued after the elections. The CSC ruled that the appointment did not violate the resolution, and the Court gave great weight and consideration to the CSC's interpretation of its own rules. The records showed that on May 28, 2001, the PSB certified Quirog as one of two qualified candidates; on the same day, Relampagos appointed her; on June 1, 2001, she took her oath; and CSC Resolution No. 010988 was issued three days later, on June 4, 2001. Because the resolution had no provision for retroactive application, it must be construed as prospective only. The CSCROVII therefore should not have subjected Quirog's appointment to the requirements of the resolution, and the appointment could not be said to have violated it.
• Midnight Appointment: The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments, specifically those made within two months immediately before the next presidential elections, applies only to the President or Acting President under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. De Rama vs. CA held that there is no law prohibiting local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. The Court added, however, that the raison d'etre behind the prohibition may apply to local chief executives because the prohibition is designed to discourage losing candidates from issuing appointments merely for partisan purposes and depriving the incoming administration of the opportunity to make appointments in line with its new policies. Aytona vs. Castillo explained that filling vacancies in important positions, if few and spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee's qualifications, may be permitted, but the issuance of 350 appointments in one night and planned induction before the new President's inauguration may be regarded as an abuse of presidential prerogatives. Quirog's appointment could not be categorized as a midnight appointment because she had been discharging and performing the duties of the subject position for a year prior to her permanent appointment, having been Acting Provincial Agriculturist since June 2000. That fact showed that the filling up of the position resulted from deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee's qualifications. The CSC also correctly found an absence of hurriedness on Relampagos' part and no subversion of the policies of the incumbent Governor Aumentado. In any event, Aumentado, in a Memorandum dated March 4, 2003, reinstated Quirog to the permanent position of PGDH-OPA, which showed his acceptance of the validity of Quirog's appointment and recognition that she was qualified.

• Legal Standing of Appointee and Appointing Authority in CSC Appointment Disapprovals — Both the appointing authority and the appointee are real parties in interest with legal standing to challenge a CSC disapproval of an appointment. The appointing authority is adversely affected because the disapproval challenges its exercise of discretion; the appointee is injured because she is prevented from assuming the office in a permanent capacity and would benefit from an approved appointment. Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 does not restrict the right exclusively to the appointing authority. Applied: Quirog had standing; Relampagos lost standing due to the expiration of his term.
• Prospective Operation of Statutes and Rules — All statutes are construed as having only prospective operation unless the purpose and intention to give retrospective effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied from the language used. Applied: CSC Resolution No. 010988, issued June 4, 2001, could not be applied to Quirog's May 28, 2001 appointment and June 1, 2001 oath.
• Midnight Appointments — The constitutional prohibition under Section 15, Article VII applies only to the President or Acting President. No law prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. However, the raison d'etre of the prohibition may apply to local chief executives; appointments characterized by hurriedness and subversion of the incoming administration's policies may be invalid. The Court in Aytona vs. Castillo stated that filling vacancies in important positions, if few and spaced as to afford deliberate action and careful consideration, may be permitted, but mass appointments in one night may be an abuse. Applied: Quirog's appointment was not a midnight appointment because she had been acting in the position for a year and the appointment was not hurried and did not subvert the incoming administration's policies.
• Interpretation of Agency Rules — The interpretation by the CSC of its own rules should be given great weight and consideration because it is the agency tasked with interpreting or applying the same. Applied: The CSC's ruling that Quirog's appointment did not violate CSC Resolution No. 010988 was respected.

• "The CSC's disapproval of an appointment is a challenge to the exercise of the appointing authority's discretion. The appointing authority must have the right to contest the disapproval. Thus, Section 2 of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998 is justified insofar as it allows the appointing authority to request reconsideration or appeal." — The Court quotes Abella, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission to explain that while the appointing authority has standing, the provision is not exclusive.
• "Although the earlier discussion demonstrates that the appointing authority is adversely affected by the CSC's Order and is a real party in interest, the appointee is rightly a real party in interest too. He is also injured by the CSC disapproval, because he is prevented from assuming the office in a permanent capacity. Moreover, he would necessarily benefit if a favorable judgment is obtained, as an approved appointment would confer on him all the rights and privileges of a permanent appointee." — This passage supplies the core rationale for holding that the appointee has legal standing to challenge the CSC's disapproval.
• "Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested, the rule in statutory construction is that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used." — The Court applies this rule to hold that CSC Resolution No. 010988 cannot retroactively invalidate Quirog's appointment.
• "The constitutional prohibition on so-called midnight appointments, specifically, those made within two (2) months immediately prior to the next presidential elections, applies only to the President or Acting President." — The Court uses this to reject the claim that Quirog's appointment was a midnight appointment under the Constitution.

• Abella, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152574, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 507 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on it to hold that both the appointing authority and the appointee are real parties in interest with legal standing to challenge a CSC disapproval of an appointment.
• Mathay, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 1320214, August 9, 1999, 312 SCRA 91 — Cited by respondent Aumentado for the proposition that only the appointing authority can request reconsideration of a CSC-disapproved appointment. The Court distinguished it, holding that the right of the appointee to seek reconsideration or appeal was not the main issue and that the statement was merely obiter.
• Aytona vs. Castillo, No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1 — Cited for the midnight appointment doctrine. The Court quoted it to explain that filling vacancies in important positions, if few and spaced as to afford deliberate action and careful consideration, may be permitted, but mass appointments in one night may be an abuse.
• De Rama vs. CA, G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 95 — Cited for the rule that the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments and that no law prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.
• Paloma vs. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 711 — Cited for the rule on prospective application of laws, which the Court applied to CSC Resolution No. 010988.

• Section 2, Rule VI, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998 — Provides that requests for reconsideration of, or appeal from, the disapproval of an appointment may be made by the appointing authority and submitted to the Commission within fifteen days from receipt of the disapproved appointment. The Court held it should not be interpreted to restrict the right solely to the appointing authority; the appointee also has standing.
• Item No. 3, CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated June 4, 2001 — Provides that appointments issued after the elections shall be disapproved unless certain requisites concur, including PSB screening before the prohibited period, qualification of the appointee, immediate need to fill the vacancy, and that the appointment is not a mass appointment. The Court held the resolution could not be applied retroactively to Quirog's appointment made on May 28, 2001 and oath on June 1, 2001.
• Section 15, Article VII, 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. The Court held the prohibition applies only to the President or Acting President.
• PD 807 and EO 292 — Cited as the sources of the CSC's authority to promulgate rules and regulations. The Court noted they are silent on whether appointees have the right to file motions for reconsideration or appeals from unfavorable decisions involving appointments.
• CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 — Cited as recognizing the right of the adversely affected party to appeal to the CSC Regional Offices prior to elevating a matter to the CSC Central Office; the adversely affected party necessarily includes the appointee.

The decision lists as concurring: Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (marked with an asterisk; footnote states "On Leave"); Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago; Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez; Justice Renato C. Corona; Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna; Justice Dante O. Tinga; Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario; Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura; Justice Ruben T. Reyes; and Justice Arturo D. Brion.