Facts:

The case is Leah Y. Apurillo vs. Civil Service Commission and Virginia L. Talde, G.R. No. 105112, decided by the Supreme Court on October 13, 1993. Petitioner Leah Y. Apurillo was appointed on July 1, 1990, as the Administrative Officer III of the Region VIII branch of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) by Engr. Isidro Mariano, who was acting as Officer-in-Charge (OIC). Upon learning of her appointment, private respondent Virginia L. Talde filed a protest with the DPWH Complaints Committee against Apurillo’s promotion. On September 25, 1990, the Committee recommended upholding Talde’s protest, which was subsequently approved by then-DPWH Secretary Fiorello R. Estuar. In November 1990, Apurillo filed a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary's decision but it was denied by Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion in March 1991. Following this, Apurillo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), only for her appeal to be dismissed due to lack of me

...

Facts:

Appointment and Initial Protest

• On July 1, 1990, Engr. Isidro Mariano, acting as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Region VIII, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), appointed petitioner Leah Y. Apurillo to the position of Administrative Officer III.
• Private respondent Virginia L. Talde, who was a competing candidate for the same position, filed a letter-protest with the DPWH Complaints Committee upon learning of the petitioner’s appointment.

Review and Reversion of Appointment

• The DPWH Complaints Committee, after a detailed review of both candidates’ qualifications and career records, submitted a memorandum on 25 September 1990 recommending that the protest by Talde be upheld.
• The Committee’s finding included a comparative evaluation of the qualifications and work records of both Apurillo and Talde, noting that Talde was the candidate next-in-rank and had held relevant positions longer, thereby making her more qualified per the applicable rules.
• Acting on this recommendation, Secretary Fiorello R. Estuar approved the reversion of petitioner Apurillo to her previous position as Public Relations Officer.

Petitioner’s Pursuit of Reconsideration

• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on 21 November 1990, seeking to reverse the decision that reverted her appointment.
• On 5 March 1991, Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion, acting as OIC of DPWH, denied the motion for reconsideration.
• Petitioner subsequently appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on 19 June 1991; however, the MSPB dismissed her appeal for lack of merit on 27 November 1991, further denying her motion for reconsideration.

Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution

• Seeking relief from the adverse decisions, petitioner elevated the matter to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
• On 10 April 1992, the CSC issued Resolution No. 92-555, which dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
• The resolution affirmed that Talde was the lawful and qualified candidate for the contested position.
• It held that petitioner’s appointment was voidable because the OIC Regional Director did not have the authority to appoint without the express approval of the DPWH Secretary.
• The CSC further upheld that, under the Administrative Code of 1987, the ultimate power to appoint for positions in the second level in regional offices resides with the Secretary.

Contentions Raised by the Petitioner

• Petitioner disputed several aspects of the CSC’s action:
• She challenged the rating system used, alleging that Talde was erroneously rated higher than her.
• She contended that an appointment properly extended to a candidate meeting all the qualifications should not be nullified merely on the basis that another candidate might be viewed as better qualified.
• She argued that the delegation contained in Department Order No. 10—apparently empowering the OIC Regional Director to appoint personnel—meant that the OIC was the proper appointing authority, not the DPWH Secretary.
• Petitioner further asserted that her appointment had been effectively approved by the CSC, and that she had already assumed the duties of Administrative Officer III, thereby invoking the security of tenure clause of the Constitution.

Issue:

• Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 92-555.
• Determination of the proper appointing authority for a second-level appointment under the Administrative Code of 1987.
• Whether the reversion of the petitioner’s appointment was justified given the comparative qualifications and eligibility of the parties involved.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)