G.R. No. 207682 - CONRADO B. NICART, JR., AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF LGU-EASTERN SAMAR, VS. MA. JOSEFINA C. TITONG AND JOSELITO M. ABRUGAR, SR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Ma. Josefina C. Titong and Joselito M. Abrugar, Sr., both Provincial Government Department Heads (Human Resource [M]anagement Office and [P]rovincial Planning and Development Office, respectively), Provincial Government of Eastern Samar, is GRANTED . Accordingly, the Order No. 100360 dated July 26, 2010 of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. VIII, Palo, Leyte, disapproving the appointment of [93] employees, including the appointments of petitioners, for failure to pay the appeal fee, and violation of CSC Memorandum Circular Nos. 3, s. 2011 and 16, s. 2007 is MODIFIED insofar as the appointment of Ma. Josefina C. Titong and Joselito M. Abrugar, Sr. which are APPROVED . Petitioner moved for reconsideration of said Decision, but it wasdenied by the CSC, through Resolution No. 1100653 [3] dated May 27, 2011, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Governor Conrado B. Nicart, Jr., Provincial Government of Eastern Samar, is DENIED . Accordingly, CSC Decision No. 10-0242 dated December 13, 2010 which approved the appointments of Ma. Josefina C. Titong and Joselito M. Abrugar, Sr. as Provincial Government Department Heads (Human Resource Management Office and Planning and Development Office, respectively), STANDS . The Provincial Government of Eastern Samar is directed to pay the salaries and benefits of Titong and Abrugar from the time that they have assumed their respective positions. Undaunted, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals (CA)a petition for review of the above CSC Decision and Resolution, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 119975, entitled Conrado B. Nicart, Jr. v. Ma. Josefina C. Titong and Joselito M. Abrugar, Sr. , presenting the sole issue of whether or not the appointments of herein respondents are valid. There, petitioner, in the main, argues that the appointments were in violation ofsaid Section 21 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 16, s. 2007 and that the exemptions laid down in Nazareno v City of Dumaguete [4] were not met for the following reasons: (a) there was no need to fill up the vacancies immediately; and (b) the appointments were made en masse . Respondents, for their part, maintain that their appointments were a valid exercise by Evardone of his power of appointment. Pending resolution thereof by the CA, the CSC, upon respondents motion, issued a writ of execution under CSC Resolution No. 1101319 dated October 6, 2011, ordering petitioner and the Provincial Government to pay the salaries and other emoluments due to respondents from the time of their assumption of office on June 21, 2010 up to the present. In view of petitioners continued refusal to pay their salaries, among others, despite the service of the writ of executionupon him and with CA-G.R. SP No. 119975 still pending resolution, respondents filed before the RTC a Petition for Mandamus with Unspecified Damagesagainst herein petitioner, the Vice Governor, and the m