ChanRobles Virtual law Library

GO TO FULL LIST OF DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS

OCCIDENTAL MINDORO NATIONAL COLLEGE
(OMNC)AND OFELIA A. REBONG,
                      Petitioners,

G.R. No. 152017
January 15, 2004

-versus-

QUISUMBING, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners who assail the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, dated August 17, 1999, and its Resolution[2] dated February 4, 2002, in CA-G.R. CV No. 47760. The appellate court affirmed the decision[3] dated August 3, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in Civil Case No. R-793, which found the appointment of herein respondent Virginia Macaraig valid and ordered petitioner College (OMNC) to pay her the total amount of P692,189.73 representing unpaid salaries, vacation, sick and study leave benefits and other emoluments under existing circulars, laws and regulations, with legal interest of six (6%) percent computed from the time of the filing of the complaint until respondent’s reinstatement at the rate of P82,788.00 per annum. In its order[4] of September 7, 1994, the trial court awarded respondent P150,000.00 for attorney’s fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

From the records, it appears that the present controversy is an offshoot of a long-settled case which the Court resolved way back on December 3, 1984.[5] For a full and proper appreciation of how the instant petition came about, we have to go back to the case of Virginia Sicat v. Hon. Juan L. Manuel, et. al. (G.R. No. L-48781), wherein respondent Macaraig was also a respondent. Thus for background, we quote the Court’s resolution in L-48781:

G.R. No. L-48781 (Virginia A. Sicat vs. Hon. Juan L. Manuel, as Secretary of Education and Culture, Superintendent Purificacion Abeleda, Principal Bernabe Macaraig, et al.) – Petition for mandamus, etc. to compel respondents to recall the appointment of Virginia Macaraig as Assistant Principal of San Jose National High School, to reinstate petitioner Virginia Sicat in said position to which she was originally appointed in March 1975; to cause the payment to petitioner of back salaries due her "since May 7, 1976".cralaw:red

Virginia Sicat was appointed Secondary Assistant Principal of San Jose National High School upon recommendation of the Division Superintendent of Schools for Occidental Mindoro. This was duly approved by the Secretary of Education and Culture and attested to by the Civil Service Commission on April 3, 1976 as a regular (permanent) appointment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

On May 13, 1975, respondent Virginia Macaraig and four others contested the said appointment on the ground that as next in rank they had a preferential right to be appointed to the vacancy.cralaw:red

However, the Department of Education and Culture (DEC) held that "all the protestants are not employees next-in-rank and therefore cannot claim promotional preference to the contested vacancy." On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in its Resolution No. 38 dated February 5, 1976, dismissed all the protests and gave due course to petitioner’s appointment. Virginia Macaraig appealed the said resolution to the Office of the President on February 12, 1976.cralaw:red

On May 7, 1976, petitioner assumed the position of Assistant Principal of San Jose National High School. But School Principal Bernabe Macaraig, Virginia Macaraig’s husband, refused to honor Sicat’s appointment and sought its revocation by citing irregularities which allegedly attended the appointment.cralaw:red

While the aforementioned appeal was still pending resolution, on August 24, 1976, appellant was recommended by DEC for appointment to the contested position allegedly because Virginia Sicat’s appointment was "erroneous due to distorted facts and circumstances". By 1st indorsement dated April 13, 1977, the then Secretary Juan L. Manuel recommended to the CSC the revocation of Sicat’s appointment, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

In view of the apparent irregularities committed in the preparation of the appointment of Mrs. Virginia Sicat and considering the fact that the original copy thereof is nowhere to be found, it is hereby recommended that such questionable appointment be revoked, so that the position of Assistant Principal in the San Jose National High School may be validly filled up by a regular appointment of whoever may be the ranking employee in the said school in the interest of the service.cralaw:red

Thus, in its 2nd indorsement to the DEC dated April 20, 1977, the CSC cancelled Sicat’s appointment. Thereafter, a permanent appointment was extended to Virginia Macaraig who assumed and began discharging the duties and functions of Assistant Principal on May 23, 1977.cralaw:red

Sicat moved for reconsideration. Resolving the controversy, the Office of the President ruled in its decision of February 10, 1978, in favor of Sicat, to wit:

Furthermore, the alleged irregularities are merely formal in character and …never shown to have been caused by the appointee’s (Sicat’s) fault. Hence, the cancellation of said appointment should have been done only for the purpose of rectifying these formal errors, and not for reopening subject position for another appointment.cralaw:red

In view of the foregoing, a new appointment should now be issued in favor of the original appointee, Virginia Sicat, after rectifying the errors found in the original appointment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

School Principal Bernabe Macaraig then requested for a clarification and/or legal opinion from the DEC inasmuch as Virginia Macaraig had been discharging the duties of the contested position as stated, supra. And the herein respondent DEC officials refused to implement the directive contained in the February 10, 1978 decision of the Office of the President.cralaw:red

Hence, the filing of the instant petition against then Secretary Juan L. Manuel, DEC, Division Superintendent Purificacion Abeleda, Principal Bernabe Macaraig, and Virginia Macaraig.cralaw:red

On July 12, 1979, the Office of the President, acting on the request for clarification/legal opinion, promulgated another decision reversing its previous stand in favor of herein petitioner Sicat, and allowing protestant Virginia Macaraig to remain as Assistant Principal.cralaw:red

On December 4, 1981, however, said Office reversed itself anew. Acting on the motion for reconsideration, it declared the original appointment of Virginia Sicat as "valid and effective". That last decision of the Office of the President pointed out and decreed the following:

1. All the acts necessary to make the appointment of Sicat complete had been performed. Sicat’s appointment became final and complete after it had been attested by the Commissioner of Civil Service on April 3, 1975. The moment the appointee assumes a position under a complete appointment, his right is protected by the civil service law and by the Constitution; and it cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment or by removal, except for cause and with previous notice and hearing.cralaw:red

2. Petitioner’s qualifications are more than sufficient to meet the standards required by law for appointment to the position of Assistant Secondary School Principal. She holds a BSE degree from the University of the Philippines and an MA in Education. She is a senior teacher eligible with 23 years of service as of August 1974 and has a satisfactory performance rating.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

3. The alleged irregularities in the original appointment were merely formal in character and were never shown to be attributable to petitioner’s fault. On the other hand, the appointment of Virginia Macaraig in 1977 was illegal as the subject position was no longer vacant. Moreover, in her data sheet accompanying her application, Virginia Macaraig made it appear that she was not related to the recommending authority when in truth she was the wife of the school principal, who recommended her. She was given by her husband high ratings for the school years 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 although she was at the time actually studying at the Manuel L. Quezon University in Manila.cralaw:red

We concur in these observations of the Office of the President in its final resolution of the controversy. Petitioner Sicat is entitled to relief prayed for.cralaw:red

It appears that on January 5, 1982, Deputy Minister Dumlao, Ministry of Education and Culture, directed the Regional Director to implement the aforesaid decision; and that said official in turn indorsed the same to the Provincial Schools Superintendent, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. Also, on March 3, 1982, Minister Onofre Corpuz himself ordered the Regional Office to issue a new appointment in favor of petitioner. And an appointment dated March 11, 1982, but "effective May 7, 1976", was issued by the Acting Regional Director, RO IV, MEC, in favor of herein petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

Notwithstanding the foregoing decision and implementing directives, petitioner has alleged that she has not been allowed to draw the salary corresponding to her appointment.cralaw:red

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVED to grant the instant petition; the respondents Secretary (now Minister) of Education & Culture, Division Superintendent of Schools and School Principal are hereby ordered, without further delay, (a) to reinstate petitioner Virginia A. Sicat as Secondary School Assistant Principal of San Jose National High School in accordance with the terms of her aforementioned appointment, and (b) to cause payment to said petitioner of the salaries or salary differentials that should have been paid to her as Assistant Principal but which she failed to receive as a consequence of the illegal revocation/cancellation of her original appointment, including salary adjustments which accrued to that position since May 7, 1976. This resolution is immediately executory.cralaw:red

SO ORDERED.[6]

Evidently, respondent herein was separated from the service as Asst. General Secondary Principal by virtue of the aforequoted resolution of December 3, 1984 which reinstated Virginia A. Sicat to the said position and ordered the payment to the latter of her salaries and salary differentials which she should have received were it not for the illegal cancellation of her original appointment.cralaw:red

On October 7, 1991, respondent filed a complaint[7] dated October 3, 1991 against petitioners OMNC and its President, Dr. Ofelia Rebong, for unpaid salaries, benefits and damages before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.cralaw:red

From the trial court’s adverse decision, petitioners (then defendants) appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court sustained the subject decision and eventually denied petitioners’ (then appellants’) motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

Hence, this petition.cralaw:red

Petitioners anchor their petition on the following grounds:

We find merit in petitioners’ submission.cralaw:red

It appears that respondent Macaraig has forgotten or totally ignored the aforequoted Resolution[9] of the Court in L-48781 handed down on December 3, 1984, which explicitly declared then petitioner’s (Virginia Sicat) appointment valid and ordered her reinstatement, and the consequent nullification of herein respondent Virginia Macaraig’s occupancy of the position of Secondary Assistant Principal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

Notably, per resolution[10] of the Office of the President on December 4, 1981, it was finally ruled that the original appointment of Sicat was "valid and effective". Hence, as of May 23, 1977 when respondent Macaraig was allegedly given a permanent appointment, there was no vacant position to which said respondent could be validly appointed. The Court unmistakably sustained the aforesaid ruling in its resolution of December 3, 1984.[11]

As aptly contended by petitioners, respondent’s service with the OMNC from May 23, 1977 to December 3, 1984 could be considered as de facto. On December 3, 1984, respondent was divested of the position as de facto Secondary Assistant Principal.[12]

Even assuming that respondent could continue occupying the contested position, she would still be disqualified for promotion because in the interim, she was administratively charged (MSPB Case No. 1574) with Unauthorized Solicitation, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interests of the Service and Dishonesty on July 27, 1982.cralaw:red

Sec. 14, Rule VI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations provides thus:

SEC. 14. When an employee has a pending administrative case, he shall be disqualified for promotion during the pendency thereof. If he is found guilty, he shall be disqualified for promotion for a period based on the penalty imposed as prescribed by the Commission.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

While it might be argued that the subject position of Associate Professor was merely a conversion of the position of Asst. General Secondary Principal, said converted position should have been given to Sicat as the prevailing party in L-48781.cralaw:red

Whether the appointment involved would have been a promotional one or an appointment to a converted/reclassified position would not have really mattered because in either situation, respondent would not have qualified. In both cases, respondent’s employment with OMNC was severed; or putting it mildly, she was separated from the service.cralaw:red

Granting again, for the sake of argument, that the January 1, 1984 "appointment" was a regular and valid one, the same fell short of a substantive requirement under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations[13] before it could become valid and effective. Notably, while the alleged appointment was issued on January 1, 1984, the same was submitted to the Civil Service Commission only on January 12, 1986, or after two (2) years and 12 days after its issuance. The much-delayed submission to the Civil Service Commission was a blatant violation of the mandatory provision of Sec. 11, Rule V of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which clearly provides:

Sec. 11. An appointment not submitted to the Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of issuance which shall be the date appearing on the face of the appointment, shall be ineffective. The appointing authority shall be liable for the salaries of the appointee whose appointment became ineffective. The appointing authority shall likewise be liable for the payment of the salary of the appointee if the appointment is disapproved because the appointing authority has issued it in violation of existing laws or rules, making the appointment unlawful. (Underscoring supplied.)

Verily, the failure to submit the alleged appointment of respondent to the Civil Service Commission way beyond the 30-day prescribed period was a patent violation of the aforequoted provision. Over two years had actually elapsed already. The appointment became stale, ineffective. It died a natural death, so to speak, from sheer delay and neglect. In fact, the Civil Service Commission returned the questioned appointment without action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

From the very beginning, respondent’s alleged appointment was made under anomalous and suspicious circumstances. When respondent’s husband, Mr. Bernabe Macaraig (then President of OMNC), issued the alleged appointment in favor of his respondent-wife on January 1, 1984, the former had no authority whatsoever to make such appointment for, it was only on November 20, 1984 when the OMNC Board of Trustees came out with a resolution[14] authorizing the issuance of the said appointment to his wife. Thus, too, while the other employees-appointees were able to comply with the CSC mandatory requirement for an appointment to become valid and effective, only respondent Virginia Macaraig failed to do so.cralaw:red

Indubitably, respondent’s separation from the service had long been resolved by reason of the following:

First: In Sicat v. Manuel, the Court’s Resolution[15] dated December 3, 1984, declared Sicat as the rightful occupant of the contested position and correspondingly dislodged herein respondent from the said position.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

Second: The alleged appointment was illegally issued on January 1, 1984 or ten (10) months before the Board of Trustees of OMNC issued an authority[16] to appoint on November 20, 1984. The alleged appointment was spurious since there was no authority for its issuance.cralaw:red

Third: The questioned appointment was submitted to the Civil Service Commission way beyond the 30-day required mandatory period prescribed under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations for approval and effectivity of the same. It took respondent two (2) years and 12 days before her alleged appointment was submitted to the Commission.cralaw:red

Fourth: The administrative case against respondent (MSPB Case No. 1574 (1651)[17] was still pending when the questioned appointment was issued on January 1, 1984. It should be emphasized that the above case was initially decided by the MSP Board only on June 3, 1988. And after two motions for reconsideration, the Board in an Order dated July 6, 1990 ruled with finality on the illegality of respondent’s appointment. We quote the pertinent portions of the final Order[18], thus:

The Board noted that the questioned phrase. "may now be reappointed subject to the discretion of the appointing authority" in its decision dated June 3, 1988, was prompted by the fact that Mrs. Macaraig, at the time of the promulgation of the subject decision, had no valid appointment, and therefore no position to which she could be reinstated after service of her penalty of one (1) year suspension.cralaw:red

Moreover, the same matter had been the subject of Ms. Macaraig’s motion for reconsideration dated June 8, 1988 which the Board denied in its decision dated November 16, 1988, citing Section 11, Rule III of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies.cralaw:red

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the principle of Res Judicata, the instant request of Ms. Virginia P. Macaraig cannot be given due course. Thus, if she is not issued a new appointment, she stands separated from the services.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

For having been issued an unauthorized appointment, for having been divested of a position which the Court had ruled legally belonged to Sicat (the protestee in L-48781), for having possessed an appointment which never became effective for non-compliance with a mandatory requirement, and for having been issued an appointment during the pendency of an administrative case against her, respondent cannot now claim nor can she become entitled to back salaries, benefits and other money claims. (Parenthetically, the only person from whom she can demand accountability for or payment of all money claims is her husband who, as the President of OMNC, illegally appointed her. To reiterate, Sec. 11, Rule V provides that the appointing authority shall likewise be liable for the payment of the salary of the appointee if the appointment is disapproved because the appointing authority has issued it in violation of existing laws or rules, making the appointment unlawful. If there is anybody to blame for creating legal complications for respondent, it should be her husband, the OMNC President.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

Finally, herein respondent’s claim for attorney’s fees is baseless. Well-entrenched is the rule that costs of suit are not recoverable against government entities and officers when they are sued purely in their official capacity as petitioners were in this case.[20] More so if the party claiming attorney’s fees has lost her case, which utterly lacks merit. As the Court of Appeals and the trial court found, this case does not fall within any of the exceptions that would justify the award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners’ case against respondent is not unfounded, nor instituted with gross and evident bad faith. Petitioners pursued this case not for their personal gain but for public interest, in order to right an apparent wrong.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 17, 1999 and Resolution dated February 4, 2002, both of the Court of Appeals, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The complaint a quo is ordered DISMISSED. Costs against respondent.cralaw:red

SO ORDERED.cralaw:red

Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
 

____________________________

Endnotes:
 

[1]  Rollo, (G.R. No. 152017), pp. 52-60. Penned by Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah V. Magtolis and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.
[2]  Id. at 75. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (vice Justice Demetrio G. Demetria), with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, concurring.
[3]  Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-575.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]  Id. at 584.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]  Rollo (G.R. No. L-48781), p. 168.
[6]  Rollo (G.R. No. L-48781), pp. 168-171.
[7]  Rollo (G.R. No. 152017), pp. 76-82.
[8]  Id. at 20-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]  Rollo (G.R. No. L-48781), pp. 168-172.
[10]  Id. at 133-139.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]  Supra, note 9.
[12]  Rollo (G.R. No. 152017), p. 28.
[13]  Sec. 14, Rule VI.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]  Records, Vol. 1, p. 9.
[15]  Supra, note 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]  Supra, note 14.
[17]  Rollo (G.R. No. 152017), pp. 28-29.
[18]  Records, Vol. I, pp. 158-159.
[19]  Id. at 158.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]  Phil. Veterans Affairs Office v. Anover, No. L-39835, 27 October 1983, 125 SCRA 354.