MONTUERTO V. TY AND SANGGUNIAN BAYAN (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

The law is clear. Under Section 443(a) and (d) of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code, the head of the department or office in the municipal government such as the Municipal Budget Officer, shall be appointed by the Mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all Sanggunian Bayan members, subject to civil service law, rules, and regulations.

Per records, the appointment was never submitted to the Sanggunian Bayan for its concurrence or even if so submitted, no such concurrence was obtained. such factual finding of quasi-judicial agencies, especially if adopted and affirmed by the CA, is deemed FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE and may not be reviewed on appeal by the SC. This Court is not a trier of facts and generally, does not weigh anew evidence already passed upon by the CA. Absent a showing that this case falls under any of the exceptions to this general rule, this Court will refrain from disturbing the findings of fact of the tribunals below.

Moreover, we agree with the ruling of the CA that the verbal concurrence given by the Sanggunian as postulated by the petitioner is not the concurrence required and envisioned under RA 7160. The Sanggunian, as a body, acts through a resolution or an ordinance. Absent such resolution of concurrence, the appointment of petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 443 (a) and (d) of RA 7160. Without a valid appointment, petitioner acquired no legal title to the office of the Municipal budget Officer, even if she had served as such for 10 years.

Accordingly, the CSC has the authority to recall the appointment of the petitioner.