Facts:

The case involves Alex A. Abila, the petitioner, and the Civil Service Commission, along with Florentina E. Eleria, the respondents. The events leading to this case began on September 1, 1987, when Amado Villafuerte retired as Administrative Officer IV in the Health Department of the Quezon City Government. Following his retirement, Brigido Simon Jr., the Officer-in-Charge of Quezon City, appointed Alex Abila, who had been serving as the Acting Assistant Civil Security Officer, to replace Villafuerte effective December 2, 1987. The day before Abila's appointment, Florentina Eleria, who was the Administrative Officer III in the same department, filed a protest with the Merit System Protection Board regarding Abila's appointment. The Board initially forwarded the protest to the new Officer-in-Charge, Reynaldo Bernardo, who dismissed it. Subsequently, Eleria appealed to the Board, which on October 27, 1988, ruled to revoke Abila's appointment, arguing that while both ca

...

Facts:

Appointment and Retirement of Personnel

• On September 1, 1987, Amado Villafuerte retired from his position as Administrative Officer IV in the Health Department of Quezon City.
• In response, Quezon City Officer-in-Charge Brigido R. Simon, Jr. appointed petitioner Alex Abila as Villafuerte’s successor.
• Prior to the appointment, petitioner Abila served as the Acting Assistant Civil Security Officer in the Civil Intelligence and Security Department of the City Government.

Filing and Handling of the Protest

• On December 1, 1987—one day before Abila's assumption of office—private respondent Florentina Eleria, then Administrative Officer III of the Health Department, filed a protest with the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) contesting Abila’s appointment.
• The protest was forwarded by the Board to the new Quezon City Officer-in-Charge, Reynaldo Bernardo, who initially dismissed the protest.
• Following the dismissal, respondent Eleria appealed the decision before the MSPB.

The Board’s Decision and Commission’s Affirmation

• On October 27, 1988, the MSPB issued a decision revoking petitioner Abila’s appointment and directed the appointment of respondent Eleria.
• The Board concluded that while both Abila and Eleria met the minimum eligibility and education requirements, respondent Eleria was superior in terms of rank and experience, being positioned as “next in rank.”
• Petitioner Abila subsequently appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed, in toto, the Board’s decision and resolution on November 21, 1989.
• Petitioner Abila’s motion for reconsideration before the CSC was denied.
• Concurrently, an identical petition was filed by the Quezon City Government (represented by Mayor Brigido Simon, Jr.), consolidating the cases under similar grounds.

The Central Dispute

• The recurring issue was whether the CSC had the legal authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing official (the City Mayor) in evaluating and selecting the most suitable candidate when both candidates were legally qualified.
• The CSC’s act of comparing qualifications, based on the "next-in-rank" criterion, raised concerns regarding its encroachment upon the discretionary powers vested in the head of the agency.

Issue:

Authority of the Civil Service Commission

• Does the CSC have the power to review and compare the qualifications of candidates beyond ascertaining their legal eligibility?
• Is the CSC authorized to substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing authority in matters that involve the discretionary evaluation of an appointee’s qualifications?

Appropriateness of Applying the “Next-in-Rank” Rule

• Given that both petitioner Abila and respondent Eleria satisfied the minimum qualifications, may the CSC enforce the “next-in-rank” rule to determine preference in filling the vacancy?
• Does the “next-in-rank” rule properly apply to lateral transfers, or is it limited exclusively to cases of promotions where a vertical scalar ascent is involved?

Separation of Powers in Appointment Decisions

• To what extent may the CSC interfere with the discretionary appointing power of the head of the office, here represented by the Quezon City Mayor?
• Is it constitutionally or legally acceptable for the CSC to direct the appointment of one candidate over another based on comparative evaluations, rather than leaving such determinations solely to the appointing authority?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)