Back

Conrado De Rama vs Court of Appeals (CA) [DISSENTING OPINION, MENDOZA, J.]

CONRADO L. DE RAMA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), ELADIO MARTINEZ, DIVINO DE JESUS, MORELL AYALA, ARISTEO CATALLA, DAISY PORTA, FLORDELIZA ORIASEL, GRACIELA GLORY, FELECIDAD ORINDAY, MA. PETRA MUFFET LUCE, ELSA MARINO, BERNARDITA MENDOZA, JANE MACATANGAY, ADELFO GLODOVIZA and FLORINO RAMOS, respondents.

G.R. No. 131136 | 2001-02-28

MENDOZA, J., dissenting:

By its decision in this case today, the majority sanctions the making of "midnight appointments" by local executives on the simplistic reasoning that Art. VII, §15[1] of the Constitution applies only to Presidents and Acting Presidents. What the majority overlooks is that Art. VII, §15 is simply an application of a broader principle that after the appointing authority has lost the elections, his is the duty of a prudent caretaker of the office, and, therefore, he should not fill positions in the government unless required by the imperatives of public service. This rule binds all, including...