04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [39] Rollo (G.R. No. 203372), pp. 24 and 29; rollo (G.R. No. 209138), pp. 7-8. [40] Citing In Re: Seniority Among the Four 94) Most Recent Appointments to the Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 10-4-22-SC, September 28, 2010, 631 SCRA 382, 387, citing Valencia v. Peralta, Jr., 118 Phil. 691 (1963). [41] Rollo (G.R. No. 206290), pp. 59-60. [42] Rollo (G.R. No. 209138), pp. 10-11, 13. [43] Citing Rule IV, Section 1 of 1998 Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointment and Other Personnel Actions. [44] Petitioner Garafil particularly claims that “[o]n March 5, 2010, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued the appointment letter of the petitioner… the act being prohibited is the president or acting president’s act of making appointments” (Rollo [G.R. No. 203372], p. 17). On the other hand, petitioner Venturanza claims that “an appointment is perfected upon its issuance by the appointing authority which in this case is on 23 February 2010” (Rollo [G.R. No. 206290], p. 60). Petitioners Villanueva and Rosquita claim that “Indeed, an appointment becomes complete when the last act required by law of the appointing power has been performed x x x In the [present] case, the ‘last act’ required of the appointing power – President Arroyo – was her issuance of the appointments.” (Rollo [G.R. No. 209138], p. 11). [45] Citing the legal opinion of the CSC Policies Office; rollo (G.R. No. 209138), p. 13. [46] Rollo (G.R. No. 212030), p. 20. [47] Rollo (G.R. No. 203372), p. 21; rollo (G.R. No. 206290), pp. 60-62; rollo (G.R. No. 209138), pp. 11-12. [48] Rollo (G.R. No. 203372), pp. 33-35. [49] Id. at 25-26. [50] Citing Sales v. Carreon, G.R. No. 160791, February 13, 2007, 515 SCRA 601, 603-604. [51] Rollo (G.R. No. 203372), pp. 25-26; rollo (G.R. No. 206290), pp. 59-60, 62-63, 65-67. [52] Id. at 37-39 (G.R. No. 203372); id. at 67 (G.R. No. 206290). [53] The OSG alleged that the hologram numbers imprinted on the appointment papers of the other “midnight appointees” evince irregularity such that the hologram numbers of the appointment papers supposedly signed on the same date are not in series; that more than eight hundred (800) appointments were signed by GMA in elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 62/75