THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA vs. HILARIO M. MARCO

Summary: The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives.

FACTS: Marco was permanently appointed as Corporate Development Specialist II by Gov. Ong 5 days before the end of her term in June 30, 2004. His appointment, along with 25 other appointments, was accompanied by a certification stating that funds were available for the position. When the new Gov took over, the appointments made by Gov Ong were revoked based on the recall made by Budget Officer regarding the availability of funds for the position. Marcos sought reconsideration from the CSC Regional Office but was denied. On appeal, the CSC through a resolution dated Apr 14 held the validity of the appointment on the ground that it complied with the CSC rules and that the recall of the certification did not affect its validity because evidence was not presented.

Instead of filing an MR, the Province filed a petition for relief. It was denied by the CSC because it was not allowed by the rules. Meanwhile, Marco filed a motion to implement the Apr 14 Resolution, which was granted. The Province filed an MR of the Apr 14 Resolution but was again denied because it was not filed within the 15-day reglementary period. Finally, the Province filed before the CA a petition for certiorari via Rule 43 against the CSC’s second order implementing the Apr 14 resolution, invoking the constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments. 

The CA denied the petition and upheld the CSC decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prohibition on midnight appointments apply to appointments made by local executives.

HELD: No. The prohibition under Article VII, Sec 15 applies only to presidential appointments, and not to those made by local executives. In this case, the appointment is valid because there is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his/her tenure.