The third division of the Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed in 2001 against the Dumaguete government represented by Mayor Agustin Perdices and four other respondents, by several City Hall employees whose appointments were invalidated.

The SC posted in its website yesterday the decision in favor of the city, saying it is beyond its authority to rule on the validity of petitioners' appointment as it is now the subject of a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, in Cebu City.

The case stemmed from the questioned 15 promotional and 74 original appointments for various positions made by then outgoing Mayor Felipe Antonio Remollo.

Remollo had lost to Perdices in the May 2001 mayoralty race in Dumaguete. After the elections, but before Perdices' assumption, Remollo made the appointments, which were submitted to the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Dumaguete.

Upon his assumption of office, or on July 2, 2001, during the flag ceremony for city hall employees, Perdices announced that he was not honoring or recognizing the appointments made by Remollo.

The petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete, a petition for mandamus, injunction and damages, with an application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the city, represented by Perdices, Dominador Dumalag, Jr., Erlinda Tumongha, Josephine Mae Flores, and Araceli Campos, as respondents.

They claimed the appointments made by Remollo were valid, as they were issued pursuant to a resolution of the CSC Accreditation Program.

Director Fabio Abucejo of the CSCFO, however, invalidated and revoked the questioned appointments as they were issued in violation of the guidelines set forth by the CSC, court records showed.

On August 3, 2001, the RTC ordered the city to refrain from dismissing, terminating or demoting the petitioners either actually or constructively, pending the final adjudication of the case, which respondents moved to dismiss.

The RTC subsequently agreed with respondents that Abucejo's invalidation of appointment was final and executory.

On appeal by petitioners, however, the CA ruled against the employees, saying it was Perdices who had the legal standing to elevate the matter to the CSC.

The SC, in denying the petition and affirming the CA ruling, said, "while the appointing authority has the discretion to choose whom to appoint, the choice is subject to the caveat that the appointee possesses the required qualifications. To make it fully effective, an appointment to a civil service position must comply with all legal requirements."*GCT

back to top