View full case

CONRADO L. DE RAMA v. CA

FACTS:

In the first case, Petitioner Conrado L. de Rama, the Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, sought the recall of the appointments of fourteen municipal employees, alleging that these appointments were made by the former mayor and were considered "midnight" appointments in violation of the Constitution. While the matter was pending, three of the employees filed a claim for payment of their salaries, claiming that the petitioner withheld their salaries and benefits. The CSC ruled that the employees are entitled to their salaries and benefits as they had assumed their positions and performed their duties based on their valid appointments. The CSC also denied the petitioner's request for recall of the appointments, upholding their validity. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CSC.

In the second case, the petitioner was appointed as City Attorney of Lucena City, but his appointment was later revoked by the new mayor without cause, prior notice, and hearing. The petitioner argued that this revocation violated his rights. He filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, presenting evidence of fraud in the appointments of certain individuals. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of power in the appointments made by the outgoing mayor, ruling that the timing of the appointments did not violate any laws or regulations. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was correct in not upholding the petitioner's recall of the appointments of the private respondents.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the grounds for recall of the appointments were not new issues.

  3. Whether the grounds for recall of the appointments raised by the petitioner in his supplemental pleading constitute "new evidence".

  4. Whether the petitioner can raise the alleged irregularities in the appointments for the first time on appeal.

  5. Whether the appointments of the private respondents can be recalled solely on the ground that they were "midnight appointments."

RULING:

  1. The CSC was correct in not upholding the petitioner's recall of the appointments. The petitioner's sole reason for recalling the appointments was that they were "midnight appointments," which refers to appointments made by a president during the last days of their tenure. However, the prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments, and there is no law prohibiting local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. The petitioner did not raise any other grounds or prove that the appointments were tainted by irregularities or violations of laws and regulations governing appointments.

  2. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the grounds for recall of the appointments were not new issues. While the petitioner filed a supplemental pleading alleging fraud and irregularities in the appointments, such allegations should have been raised earlier and not in a supplemental pleading. Additionally, the CSC had the discretion to admit or consider the supplemental pleading, and it was not under any obligation to do so.

  3. The allegations in the petitioner's supplemental pleading do not constitute "new evidence" that can be the subject of a supplemental pleading. The alleged irregularities were old facts and issues that the petitioner failed to raise earlier.

  4. The alleged irregularities in the appointments were considered as new issues raised for the first time on appeal. It is too late for the petitioner to raise these issues on appeal. Matters, theories, or arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on review or appeal where they are raised for the first time.

  5. The appointments of the private respondents cannot be recalled solely on the ground that they were "midnight appointments." The constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" applies only to the President or Acting President. The appointments may only be recalled on the grounds provided in Section 20 of Rule VI, such as non-compliance with the agency's Merit Promotion Plan or violation of other civil service laws, rules, and regulations. If there were any procedural or legal requirements violated in implementing the appointments, they should have been raised before the Civil Service Commission and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prohibition on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution applies only to presidential appointments. There is no law prohibiting local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure.

  • Supplemental pleadings must state transactions, occurrences, or events that took place since the filing of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The court or tribunal has the discretion to allow or deny supplemental pleadings, and they should not entirely substitute the original pleading.

  • The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings challenged by the petitioner lack support by the evidence on record or are based on a misapprehension of facts.

  • Once an appointee assumes the position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal right to the position that cannot be taken away by revocation or removal unless there is valid cause and with previous notice and hearing.

  • An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force until disapproved by the Commission on Civil Service.

  • The Civil Service Commission has the authority to recall an appointment initially approved, but only when such appointment and approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the civil service law and regulations.

  • The constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" only applies to the President or Acting President.

  • Appointments may only be recalled on the grounds provided in Section 20 of Rule VI.

  • Procedural or legal requirements violated in implementing appointments should be raised before the Civil Service Commission.