Province of Aurora vs Marco

Case Digest: GR 202331 Apr 22 2015

Facts:

Marco was permanently appointed as Corporate Development Specialist II by Gov. Ong 5 days before
the end of her term in June 30, 2004.  His appointment, along with 25 other appointments, was
accompanied by a certification stating that funds were available for the position. When the new Gov
took over, the appointments made by Gov Ong were revoked based on the recall made by Budget
Officer regarding the availability of funds for the position. Marcos sought reconsideration from the CSC
Regional Office but was denied.  On appeal, the CSC through a resolution dated Apr 14 held the validity
of the appointment on the ground that it complied with the CSC rules and that the recall of the
certification did not affect its validity because evidence was not presented.

Instead of filing an MR, the Province filed a petition for relief. It was denied by the CSC because it was
not allowed by the rules. Meanwhile, Marco filed a motion to implement the Apr 14 Resolution, which
was granted. The Province filed an MR of the Apr 14 Resolution but was again denied because it was not
filed within the 15-day reglementary period. Finally, the Province filed before the CA a petition for
certiorari via Rule 43 against the CSC’s second order implementing the Apr 14 resolution, invoking the
constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments.  The CA denied the petition and upheld the
CSC decision.

Political Law

Issue:  W/N the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to appointments made by local executives

No. The prohibition under Article VII, Sec 15 applies only to presidential appointments, and not to those
made by local executives.  In this case, the appointment is valid because there is no law that prohibits
local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his/her tenure.

Remedial Law

Issue:  W/N the CA is correct in taking cognizance over the case

No.  The court should have dismissed the petition outright because no appeal may be taken over an
order of execution.

Under Rule 50, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court, the CA is allowed to dismiss an appeal where the order
appealed from is not appealable. This rule is based on the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which
states that a final and executory removes from the court which renders it the power and jurisdiction to
further alter or amend it, much less revoked it.  Thus, even if a judgment is later on discovered to be
erroneous, it remains immutable.  ##