Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

JOSE P.

LAUREL V, in his official capacity as Provincial Governor of Batangas


vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LORENZO SANGALANG

FACTS:
The Governor of Batangas appointed his brother, Benjamin, as Senior Executive Assistant, a non-career service
position which belongs to the personal and confidential staff of an elective official. He appointed his again as Acting
Provincial Administrator when the incumbent resigned- for alleged lack of qualified applicants and so as not to
prejudice the operation of the Provincial Government. Consequently, Jose issued Benjamin Laurel a promotional
appointment as Civil Security Officer classified as primarily confidential by PD 868.

Respondent assails the appointment saying that: (1) the position in question is a career position, (2) the appointment
violates civil service rules, and (3) since the Governor authorized said appointee to receive representation allowance,
he violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Governor asserts that the appointment did not violate the provision prohibiting nepotism under Section 49 of
P.D. No. 807 because both the positions of Senior Executive Assistant and Civil Security Officer, are primarily
confidential in nature. Neither was there a violation of P.D. 807 Sec 49 1 because what the latter proscribes is the
appointment of a relative to career service position and since Laurel was only designated as Acting Provincial
Administrator, the prohibition doesn’t apply.

The CSC revoked the designation of Benjamin as Acting Provincial Administrator for being nepotic.for although
dubbed a designation, was still illegal because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Failing his
“designation defense”, he now insists that the duties, functions and responsibilities of the Provincial Administrator
make them primarily confidential in nature.

The SolGen argues that the doctrines in the cases cited by Laurel were already superseded by PD 807, Sec 6 and PD
868 which repealed any provision of law authorizing any official, other than the President, to declare positions policy-
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical

ISSUES:
1. WON Benjamin can be validly appointed to the position of Provincial Administrator, the latter being a primarily
confidential position.
2.WON the rule on nepotism applies to designation
3. WON the doctrines in Pinero and Salazar were superseded by PD 868

HELD:
1. No
2. Yes
3. No

RATIO:
1. If the position is primarily confidential, the prohibition in PD 807 will not apply. Firstly, it must be noted that the
prior admission of the petitioner to the position being a career position amounts to estoppel. Even barring estoppel,
the position cannot be claimed as primarily confidential. Benjamin cannot be appointed.

The position of Provincial Administrator is embraced within the Career Service under Section 5 2 of P.D. No. 807 as

1
SECTION 49. Nepotism. — (a) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in
any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a
relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons
exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.

As used in this Section, the word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those related within the third
degree either of consanguinity or affinity.

(b) The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism: (1) persons employed in a confidential
capacity, (2) teachers, (3) physicians, and (4) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
2
Education : Bachelor's degree preferably in Law/Public or Business Administration.

Experience : Six years of progressively responsible experience in planning, directing and administration of provincial
government operations. Experience in private agencies considered are those that have been more or less familiar level
evidenced by the qualifications prescribed for it in the Manual of Position Descriptions.

Judging from the above-cited description, the position is in the career service which, is characterized by (a) entrance
based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly
technical qualifications, (b) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions, and (c) security of tenure. More
specifically, it is an open career position, for appointment to it requires prior qualification in an appropriate
examination. As such, it cannot be a primarily confidential position.

Another obstacle to Benjamin’s appointment as Provincial Administrator is contained in Section 24(f) of R.A. No.
2260 which provides that no person appointed to a position in the non-competitive service (now non-career) shall
perform the duties properly belonging to any position in the competitive service (now career service).. At the time he
was designated as Acting Provincial Administrator, he was holding the position of Senior Executive Assistant in the
Office of the Governor, a primarily confidential position. He was thereafter promoted as Civil Security Officer, also a
primarily confidential position. Both positions belong to the non-career service under Section 6 of P.D. No. 807.

2. Designation is also defined as "an appointment or assignment.”Section 49 of P.D. No. 807 does not suggest that
designation should be differentiated from appointment. Reading this section with Section 25 of said decree, career
service positions may be filled up only by appointment, either permanent or temporary; hence a designation of a
person to fill it up because it is vacant, is necessarily included in the term appointment, for it precisely accomplishes
the same purpose. Moreover, if a designation is not to be deemed included in the term appointment under Section 49
of P.D. No. 807, then the prohibition on nepotism would be meaningless and toothless. Any appointing authority may
circumvent it by merely designating, and not appointing, a relative within the prohibited degree to a vacant position
in the career service.

3. PD 868 vesting in the President the exclusive authority to declare a position policy-determining, highly technical or
primarily confidential latter merely refers to the initial determination of the Executive, which in no case forecloses
judicial review. A rule that exclusively vests upon the Executive the power to declare what position may be considered
policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical would subvert the provision on the civil service.

HONORABLE SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, SIXTO P. DEMAISIP, SANTOS B. AGUADERA, MANUEL B.


TRAVIÑA and MANUEL M. CASUMPANG vs. CSC, TEOTIMO ARANDELA, CIRILO GELVEZON,

of administrative proficiency.

Eligibility : RA 1080 (BAR)/Personnel Management Officer/Career Service (Professional)/First Grade/Supervisor).

DEFINITION: Under the direction of the Provincial Governor, responsible for the overall coordination of the
activities of the various national and local agencies in the province; and general planning, direction and control of the
personnel functions and the administrative services of the Governor's Office.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: This is the class for top professional level management, administrative and
organizational work in the operation of provincial government with highly complex, involved relationships with
considerable delegation of authority and responsibility and a high degree of public contact.
TEODULFO DATO-ON, and NELSON GEDUSPAN

FACTS: Sixto Demaisip was the Provincial Attorney of Iloilo. Upon the latter’s recommendation, Senior Legal Officer
Teotimo Arandela as promoted to Provincial Attorney. Respondent Cirilo Gelvezon, on the other hand, was promoted
from Legal Officer II to Senior Legal Officer. Respondents Teodolfo Dato-on and Nelson Geduspan were appointed to
the position of Legal Officer II.
The newly-elected Governor Grino however terminated the services of Arandela, Gelvezon, Dato-on and Geduspan in
relation to an article pertaining to the Iloilo office of the Provincial Attorney which appeared in the Panay News and
which and which undermined that trust and confidence" that he reposed on them ". Petitioner Demaisip was
reappointed by Governor Griño as the Provincial Attorney.

The respondents appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board of the CSC which declared their termination illegal
and ordered their reinstatement. The CSC denied their MR. Hence the petition to the SC. Respondents argue that the
CSC had already classified the questioned positions as career positions.

ISSUE:
1. WON the position of a provincial attorney is primarily confidential in nature so that his services of can be
terminated upon loss of confidence
2. WON the position of the legal subordinates are confidential in nature

HELD:
1.Yes, 2. No

RATIO:
1. A city legal officer appointed by the mayor to work for the city has for its counterpart in the province a provincial
attorney appointed by the governor. The positions of city legal officer and provincial attorney were created under Sec
193 of Republic Act No. 5185 which categorized them as positions of "trust". By virtue of R.A. 5185, both the provincial
attorney and city legal officer serve as the legal adviser and legal officer for the civil cases of the province and the city
that they work for. Their services are precisely categorized by law to be "trusted services."

Cadiente vs. Santos held that the position of a City Legal Officer is one requiring that utmost confidence on the part of
the mayor. The relationship existing between a lawyer and his client, whether a private individual or a public officer,
is one that depends on the highest degree of trust for the counsel selected.

The attorney-client relationship is strictly personal because it involves mutual trust and confidence of the highest
degree, irrespective of whether the client is a private person or a government functionary. 7 The personal character of
the relationship prohibits its delegation in favor of another attorney without the client's consent. However, the legal
work involved, as distinguished from the relationship, can be delegated.

2. It is possible to distinguish between positions lawyers in confidential and non-confidential positions by looking at
the proximity of to that of the appointing authority. Occupants of such positions would be considered confidential
employees if the predominant reason they were chosen by the appointing authority is the belief that he can share a
close intimate relationship with the occupant which measures freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment
or misgivings of possible betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of state. There is no need to extend the
professional relationship to the legal staff who assist the confidential employer. Since the positions occupied by these
subordinates are remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer
predominant. At this level, impairment of the appointing power’s interests thru the acts of the lower in rank may be
prevented by the confidential employee.

With respect to the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorney namely, Cirilo Gelvezon, Teodolfo Dato-
on and Nelson Geduspan, the Cadiente and Besa rulings cannot apply. They have been employed due to their
technical qualifications. Their positions are highly technical in character and not confidential, so they are permanent
employees, and they belong to the category of classified employees under the Civil Service Law.
PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the majority opinion in its classification of the positions of legal assistants or subordinates of the
Provincial Attorney as highly technical in character, falling under the category of permanent employees, with security
3
Sec. 19. Creation of positions of Provincial Attorney and City Legal officer. — To enable the provincial and city
governments to avail themselves of the full time and trusted services of legal officers, the positions of provincial
attorney and city legal officer may be created and such officials shall be appointed in such manner as is provided for
under Section four of this Act. For this purpose the functions hitherto performed by the provincial and city fiscals in
serving as legal adviser and legal officer for civil cases of the province and city shall be transferred to the provincial
attorney and city legal officer, respectively.
of tenure under the civil service system. I dissent, however, from the majority opinion in its treatment of the position
of Provincial Attorney.

Although the power to appoint the Provincial Attorney is vested in the Governor, however, the said local public officer
is an employee of the provincial government to which he owes his loyalty, and not to the elected Governor, for he is
not part of the latter's personal or confidential staff. As a provincial public officer, the Provincial Attorney's
suspension, removal or transfer is subject to the provisions of the civil service law, rules and regulations. He may be
removed from office for incompetence, dishonesty, or other misconduct but not for the Governor's loss of confidence
in him.

Abuse of power in the termination and/or suspension of an appointee to the position of Provincial Attorney or of a
similar position on the basis of "loss of confidence" which is not duly substantiated should not be allowed.

SARMIENTO, J., concurring & dissenting:


I can not agree with the second part of the decision when it refused to apply the same aforementioned ruling to the
case of legal assistants or subordinate lawyers on the justification that the earlier cases of Cadiente and Besa only
specifically dealt with the positions of city legal officer and PNB chief legal counsel, respectively, and that the
positions of legal assistants or subordinate lawyers are highly technical in character and not confidential.
Anent the claim that the positions of assistant legal officers or subordinate lawyers is highly technical and not
confidential, this contention is not supported by any evidence on record or any basis in law. On the contrary, the
function of an assistant or a subordinate legal officer, as can be gleaned from the Local Government Code, is to "assist
the chief officer and perform such duties as the latter may assign him." Absent any showing of substantial distinctions
between the nature of the work or function of the provincial attorney and that of the legal assistants or subordinate
lawyers, it is logical to presume that both public officers handle confidential matters relating to the legal aspect of
provincial administration and that their relationship with their appointing power is that of a lawyer and his client
requiring utmost confidence and the highest degree of trust. Both should be primarily confidential.

CSC and PAGCOR vs. RAFAEL M. SALAS

FACTS: Salas was appointed by the PAGCOR Chairman as Internal Security Staff (ISS) member and assigned to the
casino at the Manila Pavilion Hotel. His employment was terminated by the PAGCOR Board for loss of confidence,
after a covert investigation yielded an alleged involvement of Salas in proxy betting.

Salas requested reinvestigation from the PACGOR Board, which was denied. Appeals to the MPSB and CSC were
denied saying that being a confidential employee by operation of law (PD1869) his term only in fact expired upon loss
of confidence by the appointing power. The CA however reversed the mentioned rulings and adjudged Salas to not be
a confidential employee after applying the “proximity rule”.

Petitioners raise 4 grounds: (1) Sec 16. PD. 1869 creating the PACGOR expressly provides that all employees of the
casinos and related services shall be classified as confidential appointees; (2) PAGCOR vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
which classified PAGCOR employees as confidential appointees; (3) CSC Resolution No. 91-830 declared employees
in casinos and related service as confidential appointees by operation of law; and (4) His functions as a member of the
ISS

ISSUE: WON Salas, a member of the PACGOR’s Internal Security Staff is a confidential employee

HELD: No

RATIO: "Section 164 of PD 1869 insofar as it exempts PAGCOR positions from the provisions of Civil Service Law
and Rules has been modified by the 1987 Constitution and EO 292. However, the same cannot be said with respect to
the last portion of Section 16, which provides that "all employees of the casino and related services shall be classified
as 'confidential' appointees."

There were two instances when a position may be considered primarily confidential: First, when the President, upon
recommendation of the CSC Commissioner has declared the position to be primarily confidential; and, second, when
by the nature of the functions of the office there exists "close intimacy" between the appointee and appointing power
which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal
trust or confidential matters of state. At first glance, it would seem that the instant case falls under the first category
by virtue of the express mandate under Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869.

“In Nature”
The Court explicitly decreed that executive pronouncements, such as Presidential Decree No. 1869, can be no more
than initial determinations that are not conclusive in case of conflict. According to the transcripts in the passage of the
bill, it is the nature of the position that determines whether it is policy-determining or primarily confidential." The
matter should be left to the "proper implementation of the laws, depending upon the nature of the position to be
filled", and if the position is "highly confidential" then the President and the CSC Commissioner must implement the
law. The words “in nature” is used in Section 2, Article XII- of the old Constitutions, Section 5 of Republic Act No.
2260 and Section 1 of the General Rules in the implementing rules of P.D. 807. Despite the deletion of the phrase “in
nature” in the 1987 Constitution and the RAC, the Pinero doctrine still applies, as can be gleaned from the
deliberations by the Constitutional Commission. The CSC itself ascribes to this view as may be gleaned from its
resolution which stated that "the declaration of a position as primarily confidential if at all, merely exempts the
position from the civil service eligibility requirement.

Proximity Rule
Where the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no
longer predominant. The functions of Salas: to prevent irregularities, misbehavior, illegal transactions and other
anomalous activities; report unusual incidents and related observations in accordance with established procedures;
prevention, documentation or suppression of any unwanted incidents at the gaming and non-gaming areas etc do not
involve "such close intimacy" between him and the appointing authority – the Chairman of PAGCOR, as would insure
"freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust, albeit requiring honesty and integrity in their exercise. The
fact that, sometimes, private respondent may handle ordinarily "confidential matters" or papers which are somewhat
confidential in nature does not suffice to characterize his position as primarily confidential. The case of PAGCOR vs.
CA upheld the dismissal of PAGCOR employees declared to be confidential simply because the validity of the PD 1869
was not questioned therein.

4
All positions in the corporation, whether technical, administrative, professional or managerial are exempt from the
provisions of the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and shall be governed only by the personnel management
policies set by the Board of Directors. All employees of the casinos and related services shall be classified as
"confidential" appointees.
Although appointed by the Chairman, ISS members do not directly report to the Office of the Chairman in the
performance of their official duties. An ISS member is subject to the control and supervision of an Area Supervisor
who, in turn, only implements the directives of the Branch Chief Security Officer. The latter is himself answerable to
the Chairman and the Board of Directors. The position of an ISS member belongs to the bottom level of the salary
scale of the corporation, being in Pay Class 2 level only, whereas the highest level is Pay Class 12.

VITUG, J., concurring:


I agree with the thorough and exhaustive ponencia of Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado supporting the theory of the
appellate court that Salas, not being a confidential employee, may not dismissed for mere lack of trust or confidence;
nevertheless, I should like to bring into focus the phrase, "without prejudice to the filing of administrative charges
against Salas if warranted."

JESUS ARMANDO TARROSA vs. GABRIEL C. SINGSON and HON. SALVADOR M. ENRIQUEZ III

FACTS: Respondent Singson was appointed Governor of the Bangko Sentral by President Fidel V. Ramos on July 2,
1993, effective on July 6, 1993. Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto, The petition seeks to enjoin respondent
Singson from the performance of his functions as such official until his appointment is confirmed by the Commission
on Appointments and respondent Salvador M. Enriquez, Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing
public funds in payment of the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson. The petition is anchored on the
provisions of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, establishing the Bangko Sentral as the Central Monetary Authority of the
Philippines which provides that “the Governor of the Bangko Sentral shall be head of a department and his
appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.”

Respondents allege that the Congress exceeded its legislative power in requiring COA confirmation of the BSP
Governor, the latter not being among those enumerated in Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution. They also aver
that the Bangko Sentral has its own budget and accordingly, its budgetary requirements are not subject to the
provisions of the General Appropriations Act.

ISSUE: WON a petition for quo warranto is the proper remedy by a taxpayer to seek ouster of Singson

HELD: No.

RATIO: Such a special civil action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be
entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another and since Tarrosa is not lawfully entitled
to the same, he cannot avail of the said remedy.

In Greene v. Knox, 175 N.Y. 432 (1903), 67 N.E. 910, it was held that the question of title to an office, which must be
resolved in a quo warranto proceeding, may not be determined in a suit to restrain the payment of salary to the
person holding such office, brought by someone who does not claim to be the one entitled to occupy the said office. To
uphold the action would encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable
mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery

While the Court refused to rule on the Constitutionality of R.A. 7653, it called attention to the ruling in Calderon vs.
Carale that Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of COA and require confirmation of appointment
of other government officials not mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution.

PADILLA, J., concurring:


I concur in the result. Instead, however, of basing the petition's dismissal mainly on technicality, I would anchor said
dismissal squarely on the ruling laid down by the Court in Calderon vs. Carale

PEDRO MENDOZA vs. RAY ALLAS and GODOFREDO OLORES

FACTS: Petitioner Mendoza joined the Bureau of Customs in 1972. He held various positions until he was appointed
as Customs Servcie Chief of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service in 1989, such position consequently
categorized as Director III, CIIS. Petitioner was temporarily designated as Acting District Collector, Collection District
X, Cagayan de Oro City. In his place, respondent Ray Allas was appointed as "Acting Director III" of the CIIS. Allas
was appointed by President Ramos as Director II of CIIS, the position previously held by Mendoza while the latter
was altogether terminated from the Bureau of Customs.

Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto against Salas which was granted by the RTC finding that 1) the petitioner
was illegally terminated and deemed not to have vacated his office, 2) the appointment of Salas was void ab initio.
While the appeal by Allas was pending, President Ramos appointed him to the position of Deputy Commissioner of
Customs for Assessment and Operations, causing Mendoza to ask for the dismissal of the appeal since the issue had
become moot. It was dismissed.

Mendoza asked for an execution of the decision but the Court denied it due to the fact that Godofredo Olores, who
was not party to the quo warranto proceeding was already holding the contested position. He alleges that he should
have been reinstated despite respondent Olores' appointment because the subject position was never vacant to begin
with. Furthermore, he claims that the nullity of Allas’ appointment extended to his successor Olores.

ISSUE: WON the favorable ruling in the quo warranto proceeding can be executed against the subsequent appointee
to the office who was not party thereto

HELD: No.

RATIO: Under Rule 66, Quo warranto is a demand made by the state upon some individual or corporation to show
by what right they exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, according to the Constitution
and laws of the land, they cannot legally exercise except by virtue of a grant or authority from the state. In other
words, a petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a
franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his
right to enjoy the privilege. It may be commenced for the Government by the Solicitor general against individuals who
usuro public office. It may also be instituted by an individual in his own name who claims to be entitled to the public
office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another.

Where the action is filed by a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise
respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office. The character of the judgment to be rendered in
quo warranto rests to some extent in the discretion of the court and on the relief sought. In the present case, the
court found that Allas usurped the position of Director II and ordered that Allas be ousted from the position and
Mendoza reinstated to the same.

A judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not
applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's successor in office,
even though such successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo
warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person — to determine whether he is
constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays
claim.

CONCHITA ROMUALDEZ-YAP vs.THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and PNB

FACTS: Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working with the PNB on 20 September 1972 as special assistant with the
rank of Second Assistant Manager assigned to the office of the PNB President. After several promotions, she was
appointed in 1983 as Senior Vice President assigned to the Fund Transfer Department.
Petitioner filed several applications for leave of absence which were duly approved. While she was on leave, Executive
Order No. 80 (Revised Charter of the PNB) was approved authorizing the reorganization and rehabilitation of PNB.
Pursuant to the reorganization plan, the Fund Transfer Department was abolished and its functions transferred to the
International Department. Conchita was notified of her separation from service thru a letter. Conchita seeks
immediate reinstatement to her former position as senior vice president and head of the Fund Transfer Department,
or reappointment to a position of comparable or equivalent rank without loss of seniority rights and pay, etc., under
the bank's new staffing pattern.

She appealed to the CSC which upheld her separation. Hence the petition.

ISSUES:
1. WON there was bad faith on the PNB’s part
2. WON the doctrine in Dario vs. Mison was incorrectly applied.
3. WON the 1 year prescriptive period for quo warranto proceedings should apply in this case.

HELD:
1. No
2. No
3. Yes

RATIO:
1&2
As held in Dario vs. Mison, reorganizations are regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. As a general
rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more
efficient.

PNB's reorganization, to repeat, was by virtue of a valid law. At the time of reorganization, due to the critical financial
situation of the bank, departments, positions and functions were abolished or merged. The abolition of the Fund
Transfer Department (FTD) was deemed necessary. This, to the Court's mind, was a management prerogative
exercised pursuant to a business judgment. The foregoing rebut the allegation of bad faith.

3. The prayer in the petition at bar seeks petitioner's immediate reinstatement to her former position as senior vice
president and head of the Fund Transfer Department, or reappointment to a position of comparable or equivalent
rank without loss of seniority rights and pay, etc., under the bank's new staffing pattern.

An action for quo warranto should be brought within one (1) year after ouster from office. The failure to institute the
same within the reglementary period constitutes more than a sufficient basis for its dismissal , since it is not proper
that the title to a public office be subjected to continued with uncertainty. An exception to this prescriptive period lies
only if the failure to file the action can be attributed to the acts of a responsible government officer and not of the
dismissed employee. Based on her allegations, the action is one for quo warranto which prescribes after 1 year from
the ouster. She claims that the action is one for separation from service without just cause with a prescriptive period
of 4 years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code and that there is no claim of usurpation. This cannot be upheld because
her separation from service was due to the abolition of her office in implementation of a valid reorganization. This is
not the unjustifiable cause whichresults in injury to the rights of a person contemplated by Article 1146.

Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (Laws come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleeping)

Restoring petitioner to her previous position with backwages would be unjust enrichment to her, considering that she
had abandoned or showed lack of interest in reclaiming the same position when the bank was not yet fully
rehabilitated and she only insisted on reinstatement in August 1989 or two (2) years after her alleged unjustified
separation.

PETITION DISMISSED.

JAIME T. PANIS vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BELLA V. VELOSO

FACTS: The CCMC, formerly known as the Cebu City Hospital, is operated and maintained by the local government
of Cebu City. Petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer of the Hospital, while private respondent was
Administrative Officer of the City Health Department detailed at the said hospital.

Ordinance No. 1216 amending the Charter of Cebu changed the name of the hospital to CCMC and under such
ordinance, the City Mayor appointed respondent Veloso as of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration. Panis
assails this appointment saying that: 1) 1) the position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration was not
legally created; (2) assuming that it was, there was no qualification standard nor valid screening procedure; and (3)
the seniority and next-in-rank rules were disregarded.

Panis protested the appointment which was however denied at all levels.

ISSUES;
1. WON the office was validly created
2. WON Veloso was validly appointed to the position taking into consideration qualifications

HELD:
1. Yes
2. Yes

RATIO:
1. Ordinance No. 1216 for the purpose of correcting the deficiencies and improving the performance of said institution
amending the Charter of Cebu provided for an Office of Hospital Administrator, granted such powers as were deemed
in line with the objectives of the Ordinance. The title of Hospital Administrator was later found to be a misnomer and
thus was properly classified by the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration as one of
Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration. This classification was subsequently approved by the Department of
Budget Management. The position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration is the very same position of
Hospital Administrator created by Ordinance No. 1216. The Office of Hospital Administrator was not extinguished,
the designation thereof was merely corrected to reflect the proper classification of the position under existing rules.

2. Both candidates possess the minimum qualifications for the position. The determination of among the qualified
candidates should be preferred belongs to the appointing authority. The "next in rank" rule specifically applies only in
cases of promotion. This case however involves a new office and a position created in the course of a valid
reorganization. Under the law, a vacancy not filled by promotion may be filled by transfer of present employees in the
government service, by reinstatement, by reemployment of those separated from the service, and appointment of
outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility, but not necessarily in this order. It cannot be said that private
respondent was an outsider. Although directly employed by the City Health Department, she actually worked at the
CCMC prior to her appointment to the subject position. Besides, even, if she was an outsider, the law does not
prohibit the employment of persons from the private sector so long as they have the appropriate civil service
eligibility.

The concept of "next in rank" does not impose any mandatory or peremptory requirement to appoint the person
occupying the next lower position in the occupational group of the office. What the Civil Service Law and the
Administrative Code of 1987 provide is that if a vacancy is filled up by the promotion, the person holding the position
next in rank thereto "shall be considered for promotion. One who is "next in rank" to a vacancy is given preferential
consideration for promotion to the vacant position, but it does nor necessarily follow that he alone and no one else
can be appointed. There is no vested right granted the next in rank nor a ministerial duty imposed on the appointing
authority to promote the holder to the vacant position

An appointment, whether to a vacancy or to a newly created position, is essentially within the discretionary power of
whomsoever it is vested. Once a candidate possesses the minimum qualities required by law, sufficient discretion, if
not plenary, is granted to the appointing authority. whom to appoint among those qualified is an administrative
question involving considerations of wisdom for the best interest of the service which only the appointing authority
can decide.

DELFIN N. DIVINAGRACIA, JR., AND ALEXIS D. SAN LUIS vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS,
RAMON P. ERENETA, JR., and PRESCILLA B. NACARIO
FACTS: Mancita was appointed Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC) of Pili, Camarines Sur, in a permanent
capacity. When the old LGC took effect in 1983, the office was renamed as Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator, to which position, then Municipal Budget Officer Prescilla B. Nacario was appointed and Mancita
relieved from service by Gov. Prila. The local Budget Office, was nationalized and placed under the DBMand Alexis D.
San Luis was temporarily appointed Municipal Budget Officer of Pili by DBM Secretary Carague and was
subsequently appointed to said position in a permanent capacity, by petitioner Delfin N. Divinagracia, Mayor of Pili.

On appeal to the MPSB, Mancita received judgment ordering her reinstatement after finding her removal to be illegal.
The decision was appealed by Divinagracia to the CSC but was denied. As a result of the denial, Nacario was
terminated from office in order to effect the reinstatement of Mancita. CSC held that the reinstatement of Mancita
was not a valid cause for the removal of Nacario, and since she was the former Municipal Budget Officer she had the
right to return to that position. Sto Tomas denied a request for reconsideration by Divinagracia.

Private respondent claims that she did not voluntarily apply for transfer from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC
but was constrained to "accept" the new position because of her deference to then Mayor Prila. In fact, according to
her, she applied for the position of Budget Officer with the Department of Budget and Management while she was
MPDC indicating that she did not abandon or relinquish her former position.

ISSUES:
1. WON Sec 13 Rule VI of the IRR of Bk 5 EO 232 is applicable
2. WON the lateral transfer of Nacario was validly made

HELD:
1. No, 2. No

RATIO:
1. Sec. 13 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 has the ff requisites: 1 st: before a public official or
employee can be automatically restored to her former position, there must first be a series of promotions; 2nd all
appointments are simultaneously submitted to the CSC for approval; and 3rd the CSC disapproves the appointment of
a person proposed to a higher position. The essential requisites under Sec. 13 do not avail in the case. The movement
of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC cannot be considered a promotion for the term connotes an
increase in duties and responsibilities as well as a corresponding increase in salary. It was movement of a lateral
transfer.

2. The unconsented lateral transfer of Nacario from the Budget Office to the Office of MPDC was arbitrary, amounting
to removal without cause, invalid as it is anathema to security of tenure. When Nacario was extended a permanent
appointment and she assumed the position, she acquired a legal, not merely an equitable right. Such right to security
of tenure is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution and cannot be taken away from her either by
removal, transfer or by revocation of appointment, except for cause, and after prior notice.

Sec. 5, par. 3, Rule VII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 provides that transfer shall not be
considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service, in which case, the employee concerned shall be
informed of the reasons therefor. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal
his case to the commission. A transfer is a "movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level
and salary, without break in service." Promotion is the "advancement from one position to another with an increase in
duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and is usually accompanied by an increase in salary". A transfer that
results in promotion or demotion, advancement or reduction or a transfer that aims to "lure the employee away from
his permanent position," cannot be done without the employees' consent. That would constitute removal from office.
No permanent transfer can take place unless the officer or employee is first removed from the position held, and then
appointed to another position.

It could not be said that Nacario vacated her former position as Budget Officer or abdicated her right to hold the office
when she accepted the position of MPDC. The principle of estoppel cannot bar her from returning to her former
position because of the fact that she reluctantly accepted the second office.

The appointment of San Luis is is with a condition: Sa kondisyon nasa ayos ang pagkakatiwalag sa tungkulin ng
dating nanunungkulan, which when translated means "Provided that the separation of the former incumbent is in
order." Considering that the separation of Nacario who was the former incumbent was not in order, San Luis should
relinquish his position in favor of private respondent Nacario. This is, of course, without prejudice to San Luis' right
to be reinstated to his former position as Cashier II of the DENR, he being also a permanent appointee equally
guaranteed security of tenure.

DAVIDE, Jr., J., dissenting:

It is private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario who should bear the prejudicial consequence of the reinstatement of
Filomena R. Mancita to the position of Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC). From the
foregoing facts, it is clear that private respondent Nacario voluntarily accepted her appointment as MPDC, thereby
effectively relinquishing and abandoning her position as MBO. She held the new position continuously and
uninterruptedly, even peacefully, until, at the earliest, 15 October 1990 when she was told to vacate it to comply with
the decision of the MSPB reinstating Mancita. She was, as well, fully aware of the fact that several persons had
succeeded her as MBO.

I find, as well, the conclusion in the majority opinion that her transfer to the position of MPDC was an "unconsented
lateral transfer" to be without factual basis. It should be noted that there was no reception of evidence before the CSC.
As earlier stated, Nacario merely sent to the CSC a letter-query during the pendency of Mancita's petition in this
Court. Nacario must further be barred on the ground of estoppel.

NARCISO Y. SANTIAGO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LEONARDO A. JOSE

FACTS: Santiago held the position of Customs Collector before he was extended a permanent promotional
appointment by then Customs Commissioner Wigberto Tanada to the rank of Customs Collector III. Leonardo Jose
opposed the appointment before the MPSBsaying that he was next-in-rank, being a Customs Collector II.

MPSB referred the protest to Tanada who upheld the appointment saying that: (1) the next-in-rank rule is no longer
mandatory; (2) the protestee is competent and qualified for the position (3) existing law and jurisprudence give wide
latitude of discretion to the appointing authority. The MPSB however ruled differently and revoked the appointment
of Santiago, directing that Jose be appointed in his stead.

The CSC invoked its power to enforce the merit system under the Constitution and held Jose to be better qualified for
his educational attainment, civil service eligibilities, relevant seminars and training courses taken, and holding as he
does by permanent appointment a position which is higher in rank and salary range.

Hence the petition by Santiago.

ISSUE: WON Jose being next-in-rank should be appointed to the contested position

HELD: NO

RATIO: In Taduran vs. Civil Service Commission it was held that there is "no mandatory nor peremptory
requirement in the (Civil Service Law) that persons next-in-rank are entitled to preference in appointment. What it
does provide is that they would be among the first to be considered for the vacancy, if qualified, and if the vacancy is
not filled by promotion, the same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of appointment. One who is next-in-rank
is entitled to preferential consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy but it does not necessarily follow that he
and no one else can be appointed. The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty
on the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position.

CSC Resolution No. 83- 343 Sec 4 provides An employee who holds a next-in- rank position who is deemed the most
competent and qualified, possesses an appropriate civil service eligibility, and meets the other conditions for
promotion shall be promoted to the higher position when it becomes vacant. However, the appointing authority may
promote an employee who is not next-in-rank but who possesses superior qualifications and competence compared to
a next-in-rank employee who merely meets the minimum requirements for the position.

Tanada justified the appointment he made by comparing the credentials and work experience of the two. While Jose
was a Customs cCollector, there was no official record of activity recommending him for promotion. On the other
hand, after the February revolution, the Protestee was immediately designated by the undersigned as Chief of a task
force which has been credited with the seizure of millions of pesos worth of smuggled shipments. Each one was duly
recorded, not only in the official files, but also in the media. Protestee has been the recipient of citations awarded by
the Customs Commissioner for the two consecutive years 1984 and 1985, for exemplary performance of official duties,
particularly investigation and prosecution. More specifically, the latest citation commends the Protestee for his
pivotal role in the seizure and forfeiture of an ocean-going vessel upheld by the Supreme Court, which constituted a
first in the history of this Bureau.

The power to appoint is a matter of discretion. The appointing power has a wide latitude of choice as to who is best
qualified for the position. To apply the next-in-rank rule peremptorily would impose a rigid formula on the
appointing power contrary to the policy of the law that among those qualified and eligible, the appointing authority is
granted discretion and prerogative of choice of the one he deems fit for appointment.

The Commission is empowered to approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil
service and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualification.
However, "all the commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the
appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. it has no authority to revoke the said appointment
simply because it believed that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an
encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority."

G.R. No. 92573 ALEX A. ABILA vs. CSC and FLORENTINA E. ELERIA
G.R. No. 92867 QUEZON CITY vs. CSC and FLORENTINA E. ELERIA

FACTS: When the incumbent Administrative IV Officer of the Health Department retired, Abila was appointed by
QC OIC Brigido Simon to the position. Before that, Abila occupied the positions of Acting Assistant Civil Security
Officer, Civil Intelligence and Security Department of the Quezon City Government. Respondent Eleria,
Administrative Officer III filed a protest with MPSB which the latter decided in Eleria’s favor- revoking Abila’s
appointment and directing the Mayor to appoint Santiago. The Board sustained Eleria for 1) having higher rank and
better experience than Santiago, 2) being next-in-rank to the vacancy which gave her promotional priority over Abila.

Abila appealed to the CSC but the latter affirmed the MPSB’s ruling. Hence the petition. The City Government of QC
filed an identical petition, seeking annulment of respondent Commission's resolution and upholding the validity of
the appointment of petitioner Abila.

ISSUES:
1.WON CSC has authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the official authorized by law to make an
appointment
2.WON the next-in-rank rule principle applies in this case

HELD:
1. No, 2. No.

RATIO:
1. The CSC itself acknowledged that both petitioner Abila and respondent Eleria are legally qualified for the position.
Having made the determination, the CSC may not act any further except to affirm the validity of petitioner's
appointment. The CSC had no authority to revoke petitioner's appointment because it believed Eleria to be better
qualified for the position. the Commission's acts in this respect constituted an encroachment upon a discretionary
authority vested by law in the Quezon City Mayor..

2. A vacant position in the Civil Service may be filled by promotion, transfer of present employees, reinstatement and
re-employment or appointment of outsiders who have the necessary eligibility. The next-in-rank rule invoked by
respondent Commission applies only where a vacancy is filled by promotion, a process which denotes a scalar ascent
of an officer to another position higher either in rank or salary. A promotion involves a situation quite different from
the situation in the case at bar where the appointment of petitioner Abila was effected through lateral transfer from a
position in one department of the city government to a position of greater responsibility in another department of the
same government. Also, even if the vacancy here had been filled by promotion rather than by lateral transfer, the
concept of "next in rank" is not mandatory or peremptory. What Section 19 (3) of P.D. No. 807 provides is that if a
vacancy is filled by a promotion, the person holding the position next in rank thereto "shall be considered for
promotion.”

Sec 4 of CSC Resolution 83-3435 was superseded by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the respondent Commission's subsequent
Resolution No. 89-779 providing that when a vacancy occurs in the second level of the career service as herein
defined, the employees in the department who occupy the next lower positions in the occupational group under which
the vacant position is classified, and in other functionally related occupational groups, who are competent and
qualified and with appropriate civil service eligibility shall be considered for appointment to the vacancy.
CSC will find no comfort in Meram v. Edralin 13 which it cites. In that case, the Court affirmed the appointment of the
next in rank "because the original appointee's appointment was made in consideration of the political, ethnic,
religious or blood ties totally against the very purpose behind the establishment of professionalism in the civil
service." In the case at bar, respondents have not asserted the existence of any circumstances which would have
warranted intervention by the Commission to correct an arbitrary and merely capricious exercise of power by the
appointing authority.

ARDELIZA MEDENILLA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AMPARO DELLOSA, ROSALINDA JURIA
and MARITA BURDEOS

FACTS: Petitioner Ardeliza Medenilla was a contractual employee of the DPWH occupying the position of PRO II.
He was detailed as Technical Assistant in the Office of Secretary for Administration and Manpower Management .
Pursuant to E.O. 124, a reorganization ensued within the DPWH and all the positions were abolished. He was
appointed to the position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer.

5
Section 4. An employee who holds a next in rank position who is competent and qualified, possesses an appropriate
civil service eligibility and meets the other conditions for promotion shall be promoted to the higher position, when it
becomes vacant. (Emphasis supplied)
Respondents who are employees in the Human Resource Training and Material Development Division contested the
appointment saying that being next-in-rank employees, one of them should’ve been appointed to the position. The
CSC sustained the protest saying that the next in rank should as far as practicable be appointed. It also noted that
while Medenilla is a contractual employee, the others are permanent. The MR by Medenilla was denied.

ISSUES:
1. WON Medenilla was denied due process when CSC did not inform her of the appeal before it
2. WON CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving appointment of Medenilla
3. WON Medenilla was validly appointed by the appointing authority based on qualifications

HELD:
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes

RATIO:
1. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of
due process. In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

2. When the appointee is qualified, CSC has no choice but to attest to the appointment. It is not within its prerogative
to revoke an appointee on the ground that another person is better qualified for the job. Once the function is
discharged, the CSC’s participation in the appointment process ceases.

3. Petitioner wasn’t only a cum laude graduate from the UP, she has also acquired plenty of experience in the field of
HRD. She was ranked No.1 in the Trainor's Training Program, was a recipient of a special commendationgiven by
Executive Director of the National Commission in the Role of Filipino Woman, She obtained in her on-going MBA
studies at the DLUS, which she pursued as an entrance scholar. CSC failed to consider that the petitioner, in her 1 year
7 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. The disputed position
requires of the holder of the office, skills in human resource developmental planning, research and statistics. The
petitioner possesses these skills in more than appropriate quantities.

Old employees should be considered first but it doesn’t follow that they should automatically be appointed. 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
does not preclude the infusion of new blood, younger dynamism, or necessary talents into the government service. If,
after considering all the current employees, the Department Secretary cannot find among them the person he needs,
there’s nothing in the Civil Service Law to prevent him from reaching out to other Departments or to the private
sector provided all his acts are bona fide for the best interest of the public service and the person chosen has the
needed qualifications.

The reason behind P.D. No. 907 of attracting honor graduates into the public service would be negated if they always
have to start as Clerk I and wait for hundreds of deadwood above them to first go into retirement before they can hope
for significant and fulfilling assignments.

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, as earlier stated, 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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen