Certiorari_csc.doc

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Cebu City ENRIQUE GIL, Petitioner, -v e r s u s –

C.A. G.R. No. ____________ CSRO#8 Adm. Non-Disciplinary Case No. 07-145

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-xThe Commission in Resolution No. Jonathan R. Re: Recall of Approval (Appeal) dated March 15, 2005, ruled that: x-x-xConcededly, mere deferment of members of the SP on the concurrence of of Hijada for more than fifteen (15) days inaction. x x x

05-0309 (Hijada of Appointment action by the the appointment is construed as

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 CSCFOLeyte 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

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

5

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

30 August 2005 letter of SB Secretary Pedrosa to CSC Director Taldo 13 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to SB Secretary Pedrosa Certification from SB Secretary dated 13 September 2005 13 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to HRMO Chavero, Reply of HRMO Chavero to Mayor Sevilla 20 September 2005 letter of Mayor Sevilla to CSC Regional Director Encajonado, and 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. 1000181, 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-xThe Commission in Resolution No. 05-0309 (Hijada Jonathan R. Re: Recall of Approval of Appointment (Appeal) dated March 15, 2005, ruled that: x-x-xConcededly, 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