View full case

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. FELICISIMO O. JOSON

FACTS:

On July 1, 1995, Priscilla Ong was appointed as Executive Assistant IV by Felicisimo O. Joson, Jr., the Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). This appointment was approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under a contractual status. However, Director Nelson Acebedo of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) National Capital Region (NCR) later invalidated Ong's appointment and changed its effectivity date to November 2, 1995.

Joson requested for the payment of Ong's salary for the period of July 1, 1995, to October 31, 1995. The CSC denied the request, citing the Attrition Law and stating that the authority to fill the position was granted only on November 2, 1995. Ong filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that her appointment was to a newly-created position and thus did not require authority from the CSC. The motion was denied, and the CSC upheld their ruling that Ong's appointment's effectivity date should be November 2, 1995, not July 1, 1995.

The case was brought to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Ong and ordered the payment of her salary from July to October 1995. The CSC then filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning whether Ong was entitled to payment as a de facto officer.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue in this case is whether Priscilla Ong is entitled to payment of her salaries as a de facto officer.

  2. Whether the appointment of Ong as Executive Assistant IV in the Office of the respondent is valid despite the lack of "authority to fill" as mandated by Rep. Act No. 7430.

  3. Whether Ong's appointment is covered by Rep. Act No. 7430's provision on attrition.

  4. Whether or not petitioner Ong is entitled to receive her salary as Executive Assistant IV from the date she assumed the position, despite the disapproval of her appointment by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled in favor of Priscilla Ong, holding that she is entitled to payment of her salaries as a de facto officer.

  2. The appointment of Ong as Executive Assistant IV in the Office of the respondent is valid even without the "authority to fill" as mandated by Rep. Act No. 7430. The provision of Rep. Act No. 7430 applies only to appointments to fill vacant positions in a government office as a result of resignation, retirement, dismissal, death, or transfer of an officer or employee. Ong was appointed to a newly-created position and the appointment was approved by the DBM. Thus, the appointment is not covered by the Attrition Law.

  3. Ong's appointment is not covered by the provision on attrition in Rep. Act No. 7430. The position to which Ong was appointed was not rendered vacant as a result of the resignation, retirement, dismissal, death, or transfer of an employee to another office. Therefore, the respondent did not violate the Attrition Law in appointing Ong.

  4. Yes, Ong is entitled to receive her salary from the date she assumed the position. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules takes effect immediately upon its issuance, and if the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he/she is entitled to receive their salary at once, without waiting for the approval of the appointment by the Commission. Furthermore, CSC Resolution No. 953263 states that if the appointment was disapproved on grounds which do not constitute a violation of the civil service law, such as the failure to meet the Qualification Standards (QS) prescribed for the position, the appointment is considered effective until disapproved by the Commission, and the appointee is entitled to payment of salaries from the government.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appointment to a position may be approved even if the appointee does not possess all the necessary qualifications, provided that the appointment is temporary and for a limited period of time.

  • An appointee without the necessary civil service eligibility may be appointed, but the appointment shall be temporary and the appointee may be replaced at any time with someone who has the appropriate eligibility.

  • The urgency and exigency in filling up a vacancy may be considered by the appointing authority in approving an appointment and granting exemptions from certain requirements.

  • An appointee may be considered a de facto officer if they are acting under color of an office, have a colorable right to the office, and exercise the duties of the office in good faith.

  • The provisions of a law must not be read in a truncated manner but should be construed in relation to the whole law in order to produce a harmonious interpretation.

  • An officer de facto is one who is in possession of the office and discharging its duties under color of authority, even if the appointment is irregular or informal. The basis of authority for a de facto officer is reputation, whereas a de jure officer's authority rests on right.

  • An appointment takes effect immediately upon its issuance, and the appointee is entitled to receive their salary if they have assumed the duties of the position.

  • An appointment remains effective until disapproved by the Civil Service Commission, and disapproval becomes final only after it is affirmed by the Commission.

  • If an appointment was disapproved on grounds that do not constitute a violation of the civil service law, the appointment is still considered effective until disapproved by the Commission, and the appointee is entitled to payment of salaries from the government.