APPOINTMENTS

APPOINTMENTS

Doctrine: The prohibition under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, it must be noted, applies only to presidential appointments, but not to local appointments. 

It then went on to state that "the ground relied upon by [petitioner] is the mere fact that [respondents’] appointments were allegedly a ‘midnight appointments’ (sic) which the [CSC], however, ruled out to be devoid with (sic) merit. The prohibition under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, it must be noted, applies only to presidential appointments, but not to local appointments, like in this case. This is true even if the groundsrelied [upon] by [petitioner] are with respect to CSC Circulars and/or Memorandum, Resolutions, Laws, Rules, and Regulations relative to the civil service." [Nicart Jr. vs Titong, GR. No. 207682, Dec. 10, 2014.]

Furthermore, the trial court held that it is an accepted principle that "quasi-judicial bodies like the Civil Service Commission are better-equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since it is within the field of their expertise" and that "the appointments of [respondents] having been accepted by them and in fact assumed office[,] shall remain in force and in effect until disapproved by the [CSC], the only office who has the authority to recall such appointments by [respondents]. [Nicart Jr. vs Titong, GR. No. 207682, Dec. 10, 2014.]