Mathay vs CSC the Ordinance that created the office specified a
G.R. No.130214 / Aug 9 1999 / Davide, CJ./LOCGOV-HR Development/JMQAquino
NATURE PETITION for review on certiorari of a CA decision
PETITIONERS Ismael Mathay
RESPONDENTS Civil Service Commission
SUMMARY. Mayor Mathay appointed Tabernilla for the position for
Electrical Engr. V (a new plantilla position) and this was approved by the
CSC Regional Field Office Acting Director II. However, CSC recalled the
appointment of Tabernilla for his failure to qualify because the position
requires for a BS in Engineering degree-holder, while Tabernilla was a mere
Associate Electrical Engr. Mayor Mathay challenged the jurisdiction of CSC.
SC denied the petition.
DOCTRINE. CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on all
appointments and other personnel actions and such power includes the
authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of
applicable provisions of Civil Service law and regulations.
FACTS.
QC enacted an Ordinance creating an Electrical Division under the
Engineering Dept with 36 new plantilla positions, including Electrical
Engr V, which required a Professional Electrical Engr to fill it up. This
position was the subject of a competition between the two licensed
electrical engineers, Tabernilla and Enriquez.
o Tabernilla was an Engineer II and Enriquez was an Electrical
Engineer III of the existing Electrical Division under the City Fire
Department, which was previously part of the QC Govt but
which was later transferred to the Bureau of Fire Protection, QC
Fire Station.
Conformably to the long existing city policy of providing preferential
consideration to QC residents in the filling up of positions in the city
office, the Personnel Selection Board of the city govt recommended
the appointment of Tabernilla, who had in his favor the advantage of
being a QC resident.
Subsequently, Mayor Mathay extended to Tabernilla a permanent
appointment, which was approved by the CSC Regional Field Office
Acting Director II. He took his oath of office and assumed his new
duties.
Enriquez disputed the promotional appointment to the CSC for
violation of a CSC Memorandum Circular, which prescribes a
Bachelors Degree in Engineering as the educational requirement for
the position of Engineer V. He alleged that Tabernilla is a mere
Associate Electrical Engr, not a Bachelors Degree holder in
Engineering.
o Jan 10 1995: In a Resolution, CSC recalled and revoked the
appointment of Tabernilla since there were 2 requirements for
the Electrical Engr V position: (1) Education- BS in Engineering
and (2) Experience- 4 yrs in Mgt and Supervision; Tabernilla
failed to qualify on the 1st requirement.
o Mathay filed an MR of the said resolution, arguing that:
Professional Electrical Engineer as its only
requirement
While conceding that appointment in LGUs are
subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations,
such truism cannot override the appointing power to
choose his appointee, considering that the power of
appointment is essentially discretionary
Tabernillas title to the office became complete with
the confirmation by the CSC Regional Field Office of
Tabernillas appointment and his subsequent taking
of the oath of office and assumption of duties.
Tabernilla then acquired a legal right which canno be
taken away by etiher revocation or removal except
for cause and with previous notice and hearing.
Here, Tabernilla was not notified of the protest, nor
was a hearing conducted thereon
Mathay filed a supplemental motion
arguing that as per RA 184, the
educational requirement for admission to
the Electrical Engineering Board Exams is
only two years of resident collegiate
engineering training. Since Tabernilla
completed the two-year Associate in
Electrical Engineering course and passed
the board exams, he was qualified for the
contested position
o Mar 9 1995: CSC denied the MR, holding that:
Under Secs. 76-78 of the LGC, the CSC has the
power to determine the qualification standards for
the various positions in the local govt and review
whether the appointments meet these standards.
Qualification standards for new offices must not be
lower than those prescribed by the CSC.
CSC laws and rules provide that an appointee to
Engineer V must possess a Bachelors Decree in
Engineering. Tabernilla failed to qualify therefor.
That Tabernilla met all the requirements for
admission to the Electrical Engineernig Board Exam
under RA 184 and passed the exam does not mean
compliance with the prescribed qualification
standards.
o Sept 7 1995: Tabernilla filed his own petition praying for
the review of the CSC resolutions. CSC treated it as an MR,
and denied the same because Tabernilla had no legal
personality to file such because a request for reconsideration of
an action taken by the CSC on appointments shall always be
made by the appointing officer.
o July 25 1996: Mathay filed a petition praying for the
review and reconsideration of the three resolutions. CSC
 denied on the ground that it was in the nature of a second MR
which is not allowed
Mathay filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before CA
contending that CSC committed GADATLEJ
o CA dismissed for being the wrong remedy and time-barred;
petition for certiorari filed 19 days after receipt of resolution
cannot substitute a lost appeal
o Mathay filed an MR arguing that Rule 65 applied because he
alleged an error of jurisdiction in that CSC has no jurisdiction to
revoke/cancel an approved and completed appointment to a
civil service position.CA denied.
Mathay filed this instant petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 averring that CA erred in holding that:
o His petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy and could
not be a substitute for appeal
o His petition was time-barred
o CSC had jurisdiction to recall and revoke a completed
appointment
o He did not raise thhe question of jurisdiction in the proceedings
before the CSC such that he was guilty of laches and estoppel
CSC countered that:
o It had jurisdiction because it was merely enforcing its revisory
power over a subordinate when it reversed the erroneous
determination by the CSC Regional Field Office that Tabernilla
was qualified
o The QC Ordinance was an ultra vires act because it prescribed a
qualification standard lower than that set for the position. Under
Sec. 78 of LGC, all matters pertinent to human resources and
development in LGUs are governed by civil service laws.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON CA erred in dismissing petition for being the
wrong remedy and being time-barred- NO
Before June 1 19951, judgments or final orders of the CSC were subject
only to the certiorari jurisdiction of the SC in accordance with Sec.7,
Subd. A, Art. IX of the Consti2. Mathays remedy was to file a special
civil action for certiorari within 30 days from April 4 1995 (date of
receipt of resolution), but he failed to do so; thus the challenged
resolutions became final.
1 Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 providing that judgments or final orders
of quasi-judicial agencies (like CSC) may appealed to CA within 15 days from notice
thereof
2 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court by certiorari by the
aggrieved party withinthirty days from receipt of a copy thereof
But still, Mathay fild a petition for review and resolution on July 25
1996. CSC correctly treated it as a second MR. Unde Sec. 9 of the
Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative
Investigations, Sec. 17, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of EO292, and other civil service laws, only one MR is allowed.
Also, his petition was filed more than a year after denial of the first MR.
Even granting that the resolutions were not final and the second MR
was allowed and seasonably filed, a special civil action for certiorari
will lie only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or adequate
remedy. Here, appeal to the CA was available a remedy after the denial
of the second MR as per Sec. 4 Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-
953.
2. WON CSC had jurisdiction to recall and revoke a
completed appointment.
Mathay: Thus, the said resolutions were void and were issued in
violation of due process they could never become final, and they could
be attacked directly or collaterally even after the time of appeal or
review has lapsed since CSC has no jurisdiction/authority to
revoke/cancel an appointment.
SC cited Admin Code, Omnibus Rules and Jurisprudence to prove that
CSC has jurisdiction. It held that CSC is empowered to take
appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel
actions and such power includes the authority to recall an
appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable
provisions of Civil Service law and regulations. Accordingly, it
cannot be said that the CSC did not have
jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in recalling the
appointment of TABERNILLA, which was issued in violation of existing
civil service rules prescribing a Bachelors Degree in Engineering as
one of the minimum qualifications for the questioned position.
a.Sec.12 (11) of Book V Admin Code: the CSC has the power to [h]ear
and decide administrative cases instituted before it directly or on
appeal, including contested appointments, and review decisions and
actions of its agencies and of the agencies attached to it.
b. Sec. 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V Admin
Code and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides that
notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may
be recalled for [v]iolation of other existing Civil Service laws, rules and
regulations.
3 Revised Administrative Circular No. 195, which took effect on 1 June 1995,provides
for an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgments, final orders or resolutions
of the Civil Service Commission. And Section 4 thereof mandates that the appeal be
taken within fifteen days from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration
duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo.
 c. Debulgado v. CSC, the CSC is empowered to take appropriate
action on all appointments and other personnel actions and that such
power includes the authority to recall an appointment initially
approved in disregard of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and
regulations.
As to violation of due process
First, what was lodged before CSC was not a disciplinary case
wherein petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.
As ruled in Debulgado, the CSC, in approving or disapproving an
appointment, only examines the conformity of the appointment with
applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses the
minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
Second, at any rate, petitioner was requested to comment on the
protest; and he did file comment and, later, an MR of the revocation of the
initially approved appointment.
As to Mathays argument that it would throw out of job a civil service
employee who had rendered more than forty years of satisfactory service
for the Government, all because he relied on the presumption that the
Acting Regional Director regularly performed her official duty-
Sec.19, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V Admin Code, as
well as Secs. 43 and 48 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of
Administrative Investigations, specifically provides that in case the protest
is finally resolved against the protestee, his appointment shall become
ineffective and he shall be reverted to his former position.
DECISION. Petition denied