04/02/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
petition (G.R. No. 192987) instead.
G.R. No. 212030
Atty. Tamondong was removed from the SBMA Board of Directors on 30 July 2010.
He filed a petition for prohibition, declaratory relief and preliminary injunction with
prayer for temporary restraining order (G.R. No. 192987) before this Court on 9
August 2010. The petition prayed for the prohibition of the implementation of EO 2,
the declaration of his appointment as legal, and the declaration of EO 2 as
unconstitutional.[30]
Referral to CA
There were several petitions[31] and motions for intervention[32] that challenged the
constitutionality of EO 2.
On 31 January 2012, this Court issued a Resolution referring the petitions, motions
for intervention, as well as various letters, to the CA for further proceedings,
including the reception and assessment of the evidence from all parties. We defined
the issues as follows:
1. Whether the appointments of the petitioners and intervenors were
midnight appointments within the coverage of EO 2;
2. Whether all midnight appointments, including those of petitioners and
intervenors, were invalid;
3. Whether the appointments of the petitioners and intervenors were
made with undue haste, hurried maneuvers, for partisan reasons, and not
in accordance with good faith; and
4. Whether EO 2 violated the Civil Service Rules on Appointment.[33]
This Court gave the CA the authority to resolve all pending matters and applications,
and to decide the issues as if these cases were originally filed with the CA.
Rulings of the CA
Even though the same issues were raised in the different petitions, the CA
promulgated separate Decisions for the petitions. The CA consistently ruled that EO
2 is constitutional. The CA, however, issued different rulings as to the evaluation of
the circumstances of petitioners’ appointments. In the cases of Attys. VelicariaGarafil and Venturanza, the CA stated that the OP should consider the circumstances
of their appointments. In the cases of Villanueva, Rosquita, and Atty. Tamondong,
the CA explicitly stated that the revocation of their appointments was proper
because they were midnight appointees.
G.R. No. 203372 (CA-G.R. SP No. 123662)
The CA promulgated its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 123662 on 31 August 2012. The
CA ruled that EO 2 is not unconstitutional. However, the CA relied on Sales v.
Carreon[34] in ruling that the OP should evaluate whether Atty. Velicaria-Garafil’s
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717
8/75