Under Section 443(a) and (d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160 or the Local Government Code, the head of a department or office in the municipal government, such as the Municipal Budget Officer, shall be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all Sangguniang Bayan members subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.

 Hence, the instant Petition raising the sole issue of whether the appointment of petitioner as Municipal Budget Officer, without the written concurrence of the Sanggunian, but duly approved by the CSC and after the appointee had served as such for almost ten years without interruption, can still be revoked by the Commission.

We resolve to deny the Petition.

The law is clear. Under Section 443(a) and (d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160[5] or the Local Government Code, the head of a department or office in the municipal government,  such  as  the  Municipal  Budget  Officer,  shall be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all  Sangguniang Bayan members[6] subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.  Per records, the appointment of petitioner was never submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for its concurrence or, even if so submitted, no such concurrence was obtained. Such factual finding of quasi-judicial agencies, especially if adopted and affirmed by the CA, is deemed final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court. This Court is not a trier of facts and generally, does not weigh anew evidence already passed upon by the CA. Absent a showing that this case falls under any of the exceptions to this general rule, this Court will refrain from disturbing the findings of fact of the tribunals below.

Moreover, we agree with the ruling of the CA that the verbal concurrence allegedly given by the Sanggunian, as postulated by the petitioner, is not the concurrence required and envisioned under R.A. No. 7160.  The Sanggunian, as a body, acts through a resolution or an ordinance. Absent such resolution of concurrence, the appointment of petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 443(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 7160. Without a valid appointment, petitioner acquired no legal title to the Office of Municipal Budget Officer, even if she had served as such for ten years.

 Accordingly, the CSC has the authority to recall the appointment of the petitioner.[7]

 All told, we find no reversible error on the part of the CA.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/177736.htm

About these ads

About Erineus

Ernesto O. Bendita. Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Civil Service Commision, Civil Service Law, LGU, Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s