Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • De Rama Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ylainedv
    33 views1 page
    The petitioner sought to recall 14 municipal employees appointed by the previous mayor two months before the expiration of his term, arguing this violated the constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments". However, the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the prohibition only applies to presidential appointments, not those of local officials. Unless irregularities were shown, appointments made by the former mayor four months before the end of his term and approved by the CSC remained valid.

    Original Description:

    Law on Public Officers

    Original Title

    De Rama vs CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner sought to recall 14 municipal employees appointed by the previous mayor two months before the expiration of his term, arguing this violated the constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments". However, the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the prohibition only applies to presidential appointments, not those of local officials. Unless irregularities were shown, appointments made by the former mayor four months before the end of his term and approved by the CSC remained valid.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    De Rama Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ylainedv
    The petitioner sought to recall 14 municipal employees appointed by the previous mayor two months before the expiration of his term, arguing this violated the constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments". However, the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the prohibition only applies to presidential appointments, not those of local officials. Unless irregularities were shown, appointments made by the former mayor four months before the end of his term and approved by the CSC remained valid.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    De Rama vs.

    CA Facts: Two months after the assumption of office of the new mayor, Petitioner De Rama sought the recall of 14 municipal employees of Pagbilao, Quezon for being contrary to constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments. CSC denied petition as only the President is covered by the assailed prohibition. Appeal to CA was likewise denied.

    Issue: Whether or not prohibition on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of 1987 Constitution applies to local elective officials.

    Ruling: No. The prohibition applies only to presidential appointments. There is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure. In the case at bar, the appointments by former mayor four months before the expiration of his term and approved by CSC, unless tainted with irregularities or anomalies, remain valid. There is no cogent reason to recall their appointments. Wherefore, petition is denied.

    You might also like