De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
EVB
Were the “midnight” Petitioner’s solitary reason for recalling these appointments was
appointments violated the that they were, to his personal belief, “midnight appointments”
Constitution? which the outgoing mayor had no authority to make. The CSC
NO, the said prohibition applies correctly ruled that the constitutional prohibition on so-called
only to presidential “midnight appointments,” specifically those made within 2 months
appointments. In truth and in immediately prior to the next presidential elections, applies only to
fact, there is no law that the President or Acting President.
prohibits local elective officials
from making appointments If ever there were other procedural or legal requirements that
during the last days of his or her were violated in implementing the appointments of the private
tenure. respondents, the same were not seasonably brought before the Civil
Service Commission. These cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
It has been held that upon the issuance of an appointment and the
appointee’s assumption of the position in the civil service, “he
acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by
revocation of the appointment or by removal except for cause and
with previous notice and hearing.” Moreover, it is well-settled that
the person assuming a position in the civil service under a
completed
appointment acquires a legal, not just an equitable, right to the
position. This right is protected not only by statute, but by the
Constitution as well, which right cannot be taken away by either
revocation of the appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid
cause to do so, provided that there is previous notice and hearing.
Petitioner admits that his very first official act upon assuming the
position of town mayor was to issue Office Order No. 95-01 which
recalled the appointments of the private respondents. There was no
previous notice, much less a hearing accorded to the latter. Clearly,
it
was petitioner who acted in undue haste to remove the private
respondents without regard for the simple requirements of due
process of law. In doing so, he overstepped the bounds of his
authority. While he argues that the appointing power has the sole
authority to revoke said appointments, there is no debate that he
does not have blanket authority to do so. Neither can he question
the
CSC’s jurisdiction to affirm or revoke the recall
regulations.
RULING
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42896
affirming CSC Resolutions Nos. 96-2828 and 96-7527 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.