Raul Macalino vs Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 253199 – 949 Phil. 517 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Constitutional Commissions – Civil Service Commission

Law on Public Officers – Civil Service Law – Prohibition Against Appointments of Losing Candidates – Prohibition Applies in Contracts of Services

Legal Ethics – Legal Profession – Lawyer’s Fees; Quantum Meruit – Exception

Atty. Raul Macalino was a candidate for the vice-mayor position in Mexico, Pampanga, in the May 2013 Elections. He lost. In July 2013, his services were contracted by the City of San Fernando, Pampanga. He was contracted as a Legal Officer. The Commission on Audit issued a disallowance against Macalino and his salary in light of the prohibition in Sec. 6, Art. IX-B which provides that no candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government.

Macalino argued that the prohibition does not apply to contracts of service like him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Macalino is correct.

HELD: No. The Constitution made no distinction hence the prohibition applies to COS. The prohibition applies to all losing candidates, except those in barangay elections, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office in which they will be appointed.

What is the rationale of the prohibition?

It is a recognition of political will—it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid.

But he ran in Mexico, Pampanga, and his services were contracted by San Fernando, Pampanga, is this not allowed?

No. The losing candidate cannot be appointed within one year after losing an election in any office of the government regardless of place.

The contract between Macalino and San Fernando, Pampanga, also violated COA Rules against LGUs using public funds to contract lawyers without the written consent of the Solicitor General / the Government Corporate Counsel and the COA.

May the disallowance be reversed on the ground of quantum meruit?

No. The principle of quantum meruit cannot be applied to reduce his liability as his appointment indicates a “blatant circumvention of a basic constitutional prohibition which any lawyer should know.”

Read full text.