Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

ENRIQUE GIL, C.A. G.R. No. ____________

Petitioner, CSRO#8 Adm. Non-Disciplinary
Case No. 07-145
-v e r s u s –

CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

with Application for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petition is a special civil action for certiorari under the

provisions of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It seeks to nullify, on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, the 6 October 2010 Resolution No. 10-00181 1 of the
Honorable Civil Service Commission, hereinafter referred as the public
respondent, in CSRO #8 Non-Disciplinary Case No. 07-145 entitled
“Elago, Evelyn M. / Protest on Appointment,” which denied the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 2 of the assailed December
2, 2009 Resolution No. 09-1641 3, which reversed and set aside the
5 March 2009 Order No. 090077 4 of the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office (CSCRO) No. VIII, which affirmed the appointments of
Federico M. Lago as Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator and Enrique Gil as Municipal Assessor.

The CSCRO8 5 March 2009 Order No. 090077 ruled that:

“Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the

appointments of Gil and Lago were approved for having
substantially complied with the requirements for
concurrence, under Section 443 (d) of the Local
Government Code of 1991, which provides, thus:
“Unless otherwise provided herein, heads of
departments and offices shall be appointed by the
1
Annex A - 6 October 2010 Resolution No. 10-00181 of CSC
2
Annex B – Motion for Reconsideration
3
Annex C - December 2, 2009 Resolution No. 09-1641 of CSC
4
Annex D - 5 March 2009 Order No. 090077 of CSCRO8
 2

municipal mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all

the sangguniang bayan members, subject to civil service
law, rules and regulations. The sangguniang bayan shall
act on the appointment within fifteen (15) days from the
date of its submission; otherwise, the same shall be
deemed confirmed.” (underscoring supplied).

x-x-x-

The Commission in Resolution No. 05-0309 (Hijada

Jonathan R. Re: Recall of Approval of Appointment
(Appeal) dated March 15, 2005, ruled that:
x-x-x-
Concededly, mere deferment of action by the
members of the SP on the concurrence of the appointment
of Hijada for more than fifteen (15) days is construed as
inaction. x x x

In this regard, the Commission has the occasion to

rule, as follows:

“It should be noted that the Sangguniang Bayan must

either concur in or reject an appointment to department
head positions within fifteen (15) days from the date of
submission, otherwise the same shall be deemed
confirmed. However, if the Sangguniang Bayan returns an
appointment to the appointing authority without final action
within the 15-day period with an explanation of its reason/s
the 15-day period will stop running. The period will run
again only upon the resubmission of said appointment.
(CSC Resolution No. 97-3353 dated July 7, 1997 re:
MERTO, Beau Henry).”

In fine, this Office finds the appeal devoid of merit.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, the approval of the appointments of Federico
M. Lago and Enrique Gil as Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator and Municipal assessor,
respectively, is hereby affirmed. Said appointments,
therefore, stand.

x-x-x

On appeal by Evelyn Lago by petition for review, respondent

Civil Service Commission promulgated December 2, 2009
Resolution No. 09-1641, which ruled that:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal

(petition for review) of Evelyn M. Lago is DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the assailed Order dated March 5, 2009 of the
Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VIII which
affirmed the Order dated May 13, 2008 dismissing the
protest is hereby AFFIRMED.

However, the approval of the appointments of

Federico M. Lago and Enrique Gil as Municipal Planning
 3

and Development Coordinator and Municipal Assessor,

respectively, is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Thus, the
appointments of Lgo and Gil are DISAPPROVED for lack of
concurrence by the Sangguniang Bayan.”

The reason for its decision is stated in said assailed

Resolution No. 09-1641, p. o8, to wit:

“Consequently, the appointments of Lago and Gil

were not concurred. The Commission rules that CSCFO-
Leyte erred in declaring that the subject appointments were
impliedly confirmed by the Sangguniang Bayan. It cannot
be said that the Sanggunian Bayan failed to act on the
appointments of Lago and Gil within the prescribed period
of fifteen (15) days. It is noted that the special session on
July 25, 2005, fourteen days after the appointments were
submitted by Mayor Sevilla, was held specifically for the
purpose of determing the concurrence on the subject
appointments. Thereafter, on the same date, July 25, 2009,
Hon. Jonathan P. Chiquillo, the Presiding Officer, advised
Mayor Sevilla of the result of the special session.

Accordingly, the Commission rules that the dismissal

of the protest was in order, but the appointments of Lago as
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator and Gil
as Municipal Assessor must still be disapproved for failure
to comply with the confirmation requirement as mandated
by Section 443 (d) of RA 7160.”

As such, herein petitioner and Federico Lago filed their 29

December 2009 Motion for Reconsideration, which reads as
follows:
x-x-x

The bone of contention of this motion is contained in page 8 of the

assailed Resolution No. 091641, which is quoted herein, to wit:
x-x-x
Records show that the subject appointments were
submitted by Mayor Sevilla for concurrence by the Sangguniang
Bayan on July 11, 2005 and the same were deliberated upon on
July 25, 2005 through a special session. Notably, the subject
appointments were timely acted upon by the Sangguniang Bayan
pursuant to Section 443 (d), Republic Act 7160 which provides as
follows:

Section 443. Officials of the Municipal Government. – x x x

(d) Unless otherwise provided herein, heads

of departments and offices shall be appointed by
the municipal mayor with the concurrence of the
majority of all the sangguniang bayan members,
subject to civil service law, rules and regulations.
The sangguniang bayan shall act on the
appointment within fifteen (15) days from the date
of its submission; otherwise, the same shall be
deemed confirmed.” (underscoring supplied)
 4

Records show that the subject appointments of Lago and

Gil were not concurred by the Sangguniang Bayan after it failed
to muster the required majority votes to concur on appointments.
The minutes of the aforesaid session show that four (4) SB
members voted against the concurrence while five (5) abstained.

Consequently, the appointments of Lago and Gil were not

concurred. The Commission rules that CSCFO-Leyte erred in
declaring that the subject appointments were impliedly confirmed
by the Sangguniang Bayan. It cannot be said that the
Sanggunian Bayan failed to act on the appointments of Lago and
Gil within the prescribed period of fifteen (15) days. It is noted
that the special session on July 25, 2005, fourteen days after the
appointments were submitted by Mayor Sevilla, was held
specifically for the purpose of determining the concurrence on
the subject appointments. Thereafter, on the same date, July 25,
2009, Hon. Jonathan P. Chiquillo, the Presiding Officer, advised
Mayor Sevilla of the result of the special session.

Accordingly, the Commission rules that the dismissal of

the protest was in order but the appointments of Lago as
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator and Gil as
Municipal Assessor must still be disapproved for failure to comply
with the confirmation requirement as mandated by Section
443(d) of RA 7160.

x-x-x

Considered as very important relevant records in the

deliberation of this case are the following Annexes which speaks for
themselves, to wit:

1. 11 July 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to the

Sanggunian Bayan certifying as urgent matter to
resolve the appointments of Lago & Gil
2. Transcript of the special session of the Sangguniang
Bayan held on 25 July 2005,
3. 25 July 2005 letter of SB Presiding Officer Chiquillo
4. 28 July 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to HRMO
Chavero
5. 29 July 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to SB Member
Chiquillo
6. 29 July 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to SB Secretary
Pedrosa
7. 1 August 2005 letter of HRMO Chavero to Mayor
Sevilla
8. 2 August 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to SB Member
Chiquillo
9. Minutes of the Regular Session on 3 August 2005
10. 23 August 2005 letter of CSC Director Taldo to SB
Secretary Pedrosa
 5

11. 30 August 2005 letter of SB Secretary Pedrosa to

CSC Director Taldo
12. 13 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to SB
Secretary Pedrosa
13. Certification from SB Secretary dated 13 September
2005
14. 13 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to HRMO
Chavero,
15. Reply of HRMO Chavero to Mayor Sevilla
16. 20 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to CSC
Regional Director Encajonado, and
17. the Legal Opinion No. 059066 dated 21 October 2005
of CSC Director Marilyn Taldo,

Under the approved Internal Rules of Procedures of the

Sangguniang Bayan, Rule XII, Section 8 (f), it so provides that “a
majority votes of the members of the sanggunian is required x x x in
the adoption of resolution concurring with the appointments issued
by the Mayor to heads of departments and offices as required
under RA 7160.”

The minutes of the regular session on 25 July 2005 on the

deliberation is hereto quoted en toto in pp. 4-6:

x-x-x

Hon. Reposar: Point of order Mr. Chairman, I think we can only give
manifestation after we have moved. Because the issue
now is the concurrence. So we cannot discuss, before
any motion. The proper is to have a motion.

Temporary Presiding: Hon. Militante

Hon. Militante: I moved therefore, that we act on this matter of

concurrence as requested by the Mayor, and as stated
in our agenda for this Special Session.

Hon. Yu: Second.

Temporary Presiding: The motion is carried.

Hon. Ilagan: Is that a motion for concurrence?

Temporary Presiding: No, the motion was for the matter to be acted upon.

I think that is a motion, a motion which is undebatable

which is to act the matter. It is now for each SB Member
to express his manifestations for any observations to
that effect.

Hon. Jusay: Mr. Chairman, why hurry the ruling? The issue, the
motion has not yet been clarified to all.

Temporary Presiding: The motion Hon. Jusay was to act on the matter, was to
act on the request of the LCE, to start for the discussion.
 6

Hon. Militante: The request of concurrence and what is clearest and

there’s only one matter. I think there should be proper
time given to all members, because there was a motion
and the presiding officer cannot assume that everybody
is in conformity to the motion. Why bang the gavel so
soon? So in that case, I’m raising this point of order to
the decision of the Chair.

Hon. Reposar: Mr. Chairman, but the subject matter of which is the
concurrence.

Temporary Presiding: Yes

Hon. Reposar: So, we have to have a motion to that effect. May I know
what page is that.

Temporary Presiding: page 89.

Recess

Resume

Temporary Presiding: Yes, Hon. Militante.

Hon. Militante: Mr. Chairman, I think I expressly said it, that I moved
that we act on this matter of concurrence as requested
by the Mayor, and as stated in our single agenda in this
Special Session. I mentioned concurrence what else for
a self-explanatory.

Hon. Reposar: Actually, the motion is for the concurrence of the

proposal.

Hon. Militante: It’s there.

Hon. Reposar: So, it is very clear.

Temporary Presiding: Is that the essence?

Hon. Militante: That is.

Hon. Jusay: If the wisdom of the motion is for the concurrence of the
two appointees as reflected on the letter of Mayor
Sevilla, then, I asked for the motion. And it is properly
seconded. So, I think there is no objection. So, the
request of the Mayor is carried.

Temporary Presiding: The chair request a recess.

Session resume 11:05

Temporary Presiding: Would anybody what would be the pleasure of the

body? Anybody who would sacrifice to move.

Hon. Jusay: I moved for adjournment Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Ilagan: I second

Hon. Jusay: Kay during the recess waray man na reach nga ano.

Temporary Presiding: Ayaw bangin pala mag bag-o iton huna-huna.

Temporary Presiding: Recess for 1 minute.

 7

Session resume.

What will be the pleasure of the body?

Hon. Yu: Mr. Chairman, I move for the division of the house, as to
Request of the Local Chief Executive.

Hon. Parado: Second

Hon. Ilagan, Jusay

& Reposar: Point of Order.

Temporary Presiding: That is the motion. The question before as to whether or

not to concur as to the request of the Local Chief
Executive. Those who are in favor for the concurrence
of Mr. Enriqueto Portula and Mr. Federico Lago, Please
raise your right hand.

Hon. Jusay: Diri

Hon. Reposar: No. no. Point of order.

Temporary Presiding: Those who are not please raise your right hand. (Hons.
Yu, Parado, Militante & Nalda raised their right hand)

Hon. Reposar: Point of Order Mr. Chairman, there is no motion yet.

Temporary Presiding: Mr. Secretary, those who wants to abstain.

Secretary There is a point of order which is being raised.

Temporary Presiding: The result therefore, not concurrence, 5 abstained the

request of the Local Chief Executive is defeated, is lost

Hon. Reposar No, that is ano….

Temporary Presiding: Session adjourned 11:00 am

Hon. Reposar: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman

Hon. Jusay: Point of Order Mr. Chairman

x-x-x

On 25 July 2005, Temporary Presiding Officer Chiquillo wrote

a self-serving letter to Mayor Sevilla claiming that 4 were against
concurrence and 5 abstained. However, as clearly reflected in the
minutes, there was even no such abstention. Rather, Mr. Chiquillo
railroaded the proceedings despite the privilege motion raised by
several SB Members for a point of order.

Apparently, it cannot be said that there is no rejection or

disapproval of the appointment.

Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 06-2262, Section 1 (par. 2),

Rule IV of CSC MC No. 40, s. 1998 (Revised Rules on
Appointments and other Personnel Actions) as amended, provides:
 8

“In the case of local government units, the

appointment of a department head requiring the
concurrence of the local sanggunian shall be effective on
the date of its issuance by the appointing authority;
provided that the effectivity of the said appointment shall
end the moment the local sanggunian rejects or
disapproves it.”

Considering, therefore, that there was no such rejection or

approval, and neither can it be considered that there is no
concurrence of the sanggunian, the appointments of the herein
movants remain effective on the date of their issuance by Mayor
Sevilla. In the foregoing annexes showing exchanges of
communications of the Mayor to the different offices, no resolution
was ever submitted to prove rejection or disapproval of the
appointments.

Furthermore, we reiterate the legal opinion 059066 of CSC

Director Taldo dated 21 October 2005, when she recommended
that the appointments of herein movants be approved as proposed
and made effective upon assumption to duty but not earlier than
July 27, 2005, or fifteen days after the said appointments were
deemed concurred following its submission to the Sangguniang
Bayan of Palo, Leyte n July 11, 2005.

Finally, it is worth to note that Section 443 (d) of RA 7160

clearly provides that “sangguniang bayan shall act on the
appointment within fifteen (15) days from the date of its submission;
otherwise, the same shall be deemed confirmed.”

We join the manifestation of CSCRO 8 in their comment to

the appeal of Lago on 20 March 2009 (cf: Res. No. 091641, p.5)
that “non-concurrence means failure to approve or express
agreement while rejection refers to the action or state of being
repelled or disapproved. Concurrence or rejection as an official
action of the SB must be in the prescribed form and approved
by the majority of all the members of the legislative body .”
(underscore supplied)

Further, the CSCRO8 stated that “the law prescribes the

form wherein official actions of the legislative body concerned
should be contained. This may either be in the form of a
resolution or ordinance and not through a mere affidavit or
oral affirmation. This finds basis in Article 107 (Ordinances
and Resolutions, Rule XVI of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 7160.”

The self-serving letter of Chiquillo cannot be considered as

one of those prescribed forms --- approved by the majority of all the
members of the legislative body.
 9

From the foregoing facts and circumstances of the evidences

presented and the assailed Orders of this Honorable Office, it is
manifestly clear that a serious irregularity and grave abuse of
discretion was committed by this Honorable Commission in issuing
the assailed Order No. 09-1641.

x-x-x

Respondent Civil Service Commission promulgated its 6

October 2010 Resolution No. 10-00181, DENYING the motion
for reconsideration for the following reason:

“Perusal of the evidence by the movants would

clearly show that indeed no Sanggunian Bayan resolution
was passed and adopted as regards the non-concurrence
of the appointments of Lago and Gil. However, the
Commission is of the opinion that the appointments of Lago
and Gil could not be approved considering the absence of
the appropriate concurrence by the Sanggunian. To the
mind of the Commission, the rule under Section 443 (d),
Local Government Code that the appointment is deemed
approved after 15 days is not applicable in the instant case.
It is noted that the Sanggunian Bayan acted on the said
appointments of Lago and Portula within fifteen (15) days .
(underscoring supplied)

Since the petitioner received the 6 October 2010

Resolution No. 10-00181of the public respondent on 28 October
2010, he has sixty (60) days from receipt of such order or until 28
December 2010 within which to file this instant petition.

This petition is filed because there is no appeal, or any plain,

speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from
the aforementioned 6 October 2010 Resolution No. 10-00181
and 2 December 2009 Resolution No. 09-641 of the public
respondent, except this petition for certiorari.

The petitioner also applies for the issuance of a temporary

restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending resolution of this
petition for certiorari.

II. THE PARTIES

A. The petitioner is ENRIQUE GIL, Filipino, of legal age,

married, and a resident of Palo, Leyte, where he may be served
with pleadings, orders, notices, documents, and other papers.

B. The public respondent, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

may be served with pleadings, orders, notices, documents and
 10

other papers at Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex,

Diliman, Quezon City.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

“The facts of the case were duly established beyond question

from its records as stated in the assailed CSC Resolution No.
091641 and from the CSCRO No. VIII Order 090077”. Hence, the
same are adopted and repleaded in this petition.

IV. GROUND RELIED UPON

The public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion

when it promulgated its 6 October 2010 Resolution No. 10-
00181, DENYING the motion for reconsideration for the following
reason:

“Perusal of the evidence by the movants would

clearly show that indeed no Sanggunian Bayan resolution
was passed and adopted as regards the non-concurrence
of the appointments of Lago and Gil. However, the
Commission is of the opinion that the appointments of Lago
and Gil could not be approved considering the absence of
the appropriate concurrence by the Sanggunian. To the
mind of the Commission, the rule under Section 443 (d),
Local Government Code that the appointment is deemed
approved after 15 days is not applicable in the instant case.
It is noted that the Sanggunian Bayan acted on the said
appointments of Lago and Gil within fifteen (15) days .
(underscoring supplied)

V. D I S C U S S I O N

The Honorable public respondent committed grave

abuse of discretion when it admitted (ON ONE HAND) that
there NO Sanggunian Resolution was passed and adopted as
regards the non-concurrence of the appointments of Lago and
Gil, and (ON THE OTHER HAND) it noted that the
Sanggunian Bayan acted on the said appointments of Lago
and Gil within fifteen (15) days. WHICH IS WHICH?

Contrast the reversible error of the public respondent with the

ratio decidendi of the CSCRO8 5 March 2009 Order No.
090077, which ruled not by mere OPINION but on the basis of
established jurisprudence, which we reiterated hereunder:

“Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the

appointments of Gil and Lago were approved for having
substantially complied with the requirements for
concurrence, under Section 443 (d) of the Local
Government Code of 1991, which provides, thus:
 11

“Unless otherwise provided herein, heads of

departments and offices shall be appointed by the
municipal mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all
the sangguniang bayan members, subject to civil service
law, rules and regulations. The sangguniang bayan shall
act on the appointment within fifteen (15) days from the
date of its submission; otherwise, the same shall be
deemed confirmed.” (underscoring supplied).

x-x-x-

The Commission in Resolution No. 05-0309 (Hijada

Jonathan R. Re: Recall of Approval of Appointment
(Appeal) dated March 15, 2005, ruled that:
x-x-x-

Concededly, mere deferment of action by the

members of the SP on the concurrence of the appointment
of Hijada for more than fifteen (15) days is construed as
inaction. x x x

In this regard, the Commission has the occasion to

rule, as follows:

“It should be noted that the Sangguniang Bayan must

either concur in or reject an appointment to department
head positions within fifteen (15) days from the date of
submission, otherwise the same shall be deemed
confirmed. However, if the Sangguniang Bayan returns an
appointment to the appointing authority without final action
within the 15-day period with an explanation of its reason/s
the 15-day period will stop running. The period will run
again only upon the resubmission of said appointment.
(CSC Resolution No. 97-3353 dated July 7, 1997 re:
MERTO, Beau Henry).”

In fine, this Office finds the appeal devoid of merit.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, the approval of the appointments of Federico
M. Lago and Enrique Gil as Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator and Municipal assessor,
respectively, is hereby affirmed. Said appointments,
therefore, stand.

AND IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESPECTFULLY
ALLEGE:

1. That as a result of the reversal of the CSCRO8 13 May

2008 Resolution No. 090077 by public respondent’s 2 December
2009 Resolution No. 091641 and denial of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration by public respondent’s 6 October 2010 Resolution
 12

No. 10-00181, the removal of petitioner as municipal assessor

would proceed.

2. That the removal of petitioner as municipal assessor

would probably work injustice to the applicant-petitioner;

3. That applicant-petitioner is entitled to the injunctive writ

restraining the public respondent during the pendency of this
petition from performing any act or acts relative to his removal as
municipal assessor, which would probably be in violation of the
rights of the applicant-petitioner respecting the subject of this
petition, and would tend to render the judgment in this petition
ineffectual;

4. That the applicant-petitioner is willing to post a bond

executed to the public respondent, in an amount to be fixed by the
court, to the effect that the applicant-petitioner will pay to the public
respondent all damages which it may sustain by reason of the
injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally
decide that the applicant-petitioner is not entitled thereto.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed during the pendency

of this petition that the public respondent be enjoined, through a
temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary injunction from
proceeding with the removal of the applicant-petitioner as municipal
assessor of Palo, Leyte, issuing orders relative thereto, or
otherwise from doing, threatening, or attempting to do, or procuring
or suffering some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant-petitioner respecting the subject of this petition, and
tending to render any judgment herein ineffectual.

It is also prayed that: the this petition be granted and that

Resolution No. 10-00181 and Resolution No. 09-1641 be
reconsidered and withdrawn, and the appealed CSCRO8 Order No.
090077 dated 5 March 2009 and CSCRO8 Order No. 080307 be
reinstated and affirmed.

Other just and equitable reliefs, as well as such incidental

reliefs, as law and justice may require are also prayed.

Tacloban City for Cebu City. 19 November 2010.

LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for the Petitioner
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
ROA # 37379 / IBP Lifetime # 00733
 13

PTR # 6741797; 1-4-10; Tacloban City

MCLE Compliance No. III-0006315; 11-23-09

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) SS

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, ENRIQUE GIL, Filipino, of legal age, married and with

postal address at Palo, Leyte, after having been duly sworn
according to law, hereby depose and say: THAT---

I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case; that I have

caused the preparation and filing of this Petition with its Annexes;
that I have read and fully understood all the allegations therein
contained; and that the same are all true and correct according to
my own personal knowledge and belief, and based on genuine and
authentic documents; and further,

I CERTIFY that I have not commenced any action against

the defendant for the same cause and over the same subject
matter, nor is there any case pending before the Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals, court or any agency or tribunal, judicial or
administrative; that I undertake to inform this Court of any action
pending or otherwise over the same cause or subject matter within
five (5) days from date of knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

19 November 2010 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

ENRIQUE GIL
Plaintiff/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19

November 2010 at Tacloban City, by ENRIQUE GIL, personally
known to me, and who exhibited to me his competent identitiy
which is his CTC No. ___________issued on __________ at Palo,
Leyte, who is the same person who personally signed before me
the foregoing verification and certificate of non-forum shopping and
acknowledged that he executed the same.

Doc. No. 367

Page No. 74
Book No. 59
SERIES OF 2010

COPY FURNISHED :

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (by registered mail)

 14

CEBU CITY

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex
Diliman, Quezon city
Public Respondent

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

A legible copy of the petition was sent to the public

respondent and the Honorable Court of Appeals Cebu City through
registered mail because of the impracticability of personal service
due to the distance between their offices and that of the
undersigned.

LEO S. GIRON

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) SS

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ENRIQUE GIL, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of

Palo, Leyte, under oath state: THAT—

1. I am the petitioner in the above entitled case; and on

November 19, 2010, I caused to be served and delivered by
registered mail requisite copies of the petition for certiorari inside
sealed envelops, postage prepaid, deposited with the TACLOBAN
CITY POSTAL OFFICE, with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered, duly
addressed to:

Hon. COURT OF APPEALS

CEBU CITY

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex
Diliman, Quezon City

2. Service by registered mail is being made to the public

respondent and the Honorable Court of Appeals, Cebu City
through registered mail because of the impracticability of personal
service due to the distance and lack of messengerial service.
 15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

19 November 2010 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

ENRIQUE GIL
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19

November 2010 at Tacloban City, by ENRIQUE GIL, personally
known to me, and who exhibited to me his competent identitiy
which is his CTC No. ___________issued on __________ at Palo,
Leyte, who is the same person who personally signed before me
the foregoing verification and certificate of non-forum shopping and
acknowledged that he executed the same.

Doc. No. 368

Page No. 74
Book No. 59
SERIES OF 2010