Medenilla vs CSC

Facts:
- Petitioner Ardeliza Medenilla was a contractual employee of the Department
of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) occupying the position of Public
Relations Officer II.
- In 1987, Medenilla was detailed as Technical Assistant in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Manpower Management.
- Pursuant to Executive Order No. 124 dated January 30, 1987, a reorganization
ensued within the DPWH and all the positions therein were abolished. A
revised staffing pattern together with the guidelines on the selection and
placement of personnel was issued. Included in the revised staffing pattern is
the contested position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer.
On January 2, 1989, the petitioner was appointed to the disputed position.
- On January 27, 1989, respondents Amparo Dellosa, Rosalinda Juria and Marita
Burdeos together with Matilde Angeles, Catalina Espinas, Alicia Nercelles and
Ramon Racela, all of whom are employees in the Human Resource Training
and Material Development Division, Administrative and Manpower
Management Service of the DPWH, jointly lodged a protest before the DPWH
task force on reorganization contesting the appointment of the petitioner to
the position. They allege that since they are next-in-rank employees, one of
them should have been appointed to the said position.
- The task force on reorganization dismissed the protest on August 2, 1989.
The CSC reversed and held that petitioner was not qualified to the position. It
held that petitioners eligibility is based on PD 907 (cum laude), and that she
was only a contractual employee while protestants were all permanent
employees.
- The CSC also held that that in the event of there occurring a vacancy, the
officer next-in-rank must, as far as practicable and as the appointing
authority sees it in his best judgment and estimation, be promoted . . . and
that it is only in cases of promotion, where an employee other than the
ranking one is promoted, is the appointing power under duty to give "special
reason or reasons" for his action . . . .
- CSC held that petitioner was not qualified and limited the appointing
authoritys choice to the 3 protestants.
- Petitioners MR was also denied by the CSC holding that the protestants are
more experience and that her educational background is not enough to
warrant a declaration that she is more qualified.
Issues: W/N petitioner is qualified? YES
Ratio:
Re petitioners experience
- The SC found that petitioner possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility
and requisite educational background. The CSC itself even considered the
petitioner's PD No. 907 eligibility appropriate for the position.

The SC held that petitioner possesses the requisite experience for the
position. The petitioner, not only was a cum laude graduate from the
University of the Philippines, she has also acquired plenty of experience in
the field of Human Resource Development
The public respondent failed to consider that the petitioner, in her one year
and seven months experience with Guthrie-Jensen was engaged in research
relating to performance appraisal systems and merit promotion systems
which duties are all related to Human Resource Development.

Re next-in-rank rule
- CSCs contention that the petitioner must possess superior qualifications in
order to be preferred over the protestants was not considered by the SC.
(However, it still found that petitioner does indeed have superior
qualifications as she was a UP cum laude graduate, ranked #1 in a
department-wide training, was commended as a facilitator during the Second
Congress of Women in Government, got high grades in her MBA from DLSU,
highly satisfactory work with DPWH etc.
- CSC relies on Section 4 of R.A. 6656, which reads:
Sec. 4. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be
given preference for appointment to new positions in the approved staffing
pattern comparable to their former positions or if there are not enough
comparable positions, to position next lower in rank.
- According to the SC, this does not mean that old employees should
automatically be appointed in case of a vacancy. The preference given to
permanent employees assumes that employees working in a Department for
longer periods have gained not only superior skills but also greater dedication
to the public service. This is not always true and the law, moreover, does not
preclude the infusion of new blood, younger dynamism, or necessary talents
into the government service.
- The CSCs reliance on Millares vs Subido is also misplaced as it has already
been superseded by newer decisions holding that the the next-in-rank rule is
not absolute; it only applies in cases of promotion. And even in promotions, it
can be disregarded for sound reasons made known to the next-in-rank.
- In this case, the contested position was created in the course of
reorganization. The position appears to be a new one. The applicability,
therefore, of the next-in-rank rule does not come in clearly. Besides, said rule
is not absolute. There are valid exceptions.
- Granting for the sake of argument that the case involves a promotional
appointment, the next-in-rank rule must give way to the exigencies of the
public service. The intent of the Civil Service Laws not merely to bestow upon
permanent employees the advantage arising from their long employment but
most specially, it is to foster a more efficient public service. Any other factor
must, therefore, yield to the demand for an effective government, which
necessarily entails the appointment of competent, qualified and proficient
personnel.
On the CSCs authority

If the appointee is qualified, CSC has no choice but to attest the appointment.
. It is not within its prerogative to revoke an appointee on the ground that
substituting its judgment for that of the appointing power, another person
has better qualifications for the job.