Arlin B. Obiasca vs. Jeane O.

Basallote: A Dispute Over Civil Service Appointment

**Facts:**

Jeane O. Basallote (respondent) was appointed as Administrative Officer II by the City Schools
Division Superintendent, Nelly B. Beloso, in May 2003.
Following a change in leadership, Ma. Amy O. Oyardo, the new Superintendent, ordered a
reevaluation of the appointment, effectively putting Basallote’s appointment in limbo.
Despite this, Basallote assumed office in June 2003. Obstacles followed when Human Resource
Management Officer I, Ma. Teresa U. Diaz, refused to forward Basallote’s appointment to the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to an unsubmitted PDF form. Basallote was then advised
to return to her previous teaching position.
In August 2003, Arlin B. Obiasca was appointed to the same position, which was attested by the
CSC.
Basallote filed a complaint against the SFs’ actions with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon, resulting in their suspension for withholding information regarding her appointment
status.
Basallote also sought recourse through the CSC, which eventually approved her appointment and
recalled Obiasca’s appointment.
Obiasca contested this CSC resolution through a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals
(CA), which was denied, leading to the escalation of the matter to the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**

1. Whether the non-submission of Basallote’s appointment to the CSC within 30 days rendered
her appointment ineffective.
2. Whether Basallote’s appointment ceased to be effective, thereby allowing Obiasca’s
appointment to the same position.
3. Whether the CSC acted within its authority in recalling Obiasca’s appointment and reinstating
Basallote.
**Court’s Decision:**

The decision of the [CSC] is final and executory if no petition for reconsideration is filed
within fifteen days from receipt thereof.1avvphi1
Note that the foregoing provision is a specific remedy as against CSC decisions involving
its administrative function, that is, on matters involving "appointments, whether original or
promotional, to positions in the civil service,"20 as opposed to its quasi-judicial function where it
adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law. 21

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that, for reasons of law, comity and
convenience, where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and
provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case
unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities
have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative
forum.22 In Orosa v. Roa,23 the Court ruled that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within
the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the
courts.24 While the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to certain
exceptions,25 these are not present in this case.

Thus, absent any definitive ruling that the second paragraph of Section 16 is not mandatory and the
filing of a petition for reconsideration may be dispensed with, then the Court must adhere to the
dictates of Section 16 of the Omnibus Rules.

The Supreme Court denied Obiasca’s petition. It ruled that Basallote’s appointment was
immediate and remained effective until disapproved by the CSC, which never happened.
Furthermore, the failure to submit Basallote’s appointment within 30 days did not render it
ineffective due to bad faith actions by the appointing authority and HR officer, preventing its
submission. The CA’s decision upholding Basallote’s appointment was affirmed.
**Doctrine:**
This case reiterates that an appointment in the civil service becomes effective immediately upon
issuance by the appointing authority and remains effective until disapproved by the CSC. The
failure to submit the appointment to the CSC within 30 days, especially if due to actions beyond
the control of the appointee, does not automatically render the appointment ineffective.
**Class Notes:**
– An appointment in the civil service is effective upon its issuance and assumption of office by
the appointee.
– The CSC has the authority to recall an appointment that it initially approved if said
appointment and its approval were in disregard of applicable civil service laws and regulations.
– Bad faith actions or negligence by officials other than the appointee that prevent the
submission of an appointment to the CSC within prescribed deadlines do not invalidate the
appointment.
**Historical Background:**
This case represents the tension that can arise within the appointment process in the Philippine
civil service, highlighting the critical role of the Civil Service Commission in upholding merit
and fitness in government positions. It emphasizes the CSC’s protective jurisdiction over
appointees subjected to administrative lapses or bad faith actions by other officials, ensuring that
meritocracy and legal standards guide civil service appointments.