Facts:

The case at bar, Victor A. Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission and Leonarda D. De La Paz, was brought before the Supreme Court on April 22, 1992 (G.R. No. 92403). The petition for certiorari sought to annul two resolutions passed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against the petitioner, Victor A. Aquino. The first resolution, Resolution No. 88-820 dated November 7, 1988, overturned the decision made by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on February 5, 1988, which had upheld the decision of the Secretary of Education, Culture, and Sports made on May 4, 1987, that approved Aquino's appointment as Supply Officer I in the Division of San Pablo City. The second resolution, No. 90-224 dated February 27, 1990, denied Aquino's motion for reconsideration along with a request for a temporary restraining order due to lack of merit.

In the background of the case, Victor A. Aquino, holding the position of Clerk II, was designated as Officer-in-Charge of the Division Supply

...

Facts:

Appointment and Designation History

• Petitioner Victor A. Aquino, initially designated as Clerk II in the Division of City Schools of San Pablo City, was assigned as Officer-in-Charge of the Division Supply Office by the DECS Regional Director on July 20, 1984 following the retirement of Supply Officer I, Mr. Jose I. Aviquivil.
• Prior to his designation, from February 16, 1984 to June 18, 1984, Aquino effectively performed the duties of Supply Officer I as Property Inspector and In-Charge of the Supply Office.

Appointment of Private Respondent

• Two years later, on September 19, 1986, the Division Superintendent issued a promotional appointment to private respondent Leonarda D. de la Paz as Supply Officer I in the DECS Division of San Pablo City. At that time, she was holding the position of Clerk II and had previously served, from August 25, 1976 to September 1983, as an Assistant to the Supply Officer.
• Her appointment was further endorsed by the Civil Service Regional Office IV with the condition that there should be no pending administrative case, protest, or any adverse decision affecting the approval of the appointment.

Protest and Administrative Determination

• One month after de la Paz’s appointment, on October 20, 1986, petitioner Aquino filed a protest with the DECS Secretary, challenging her qualification and competence for the position based on a comparative evaluation of education, experience, and training.
• On May 4, 1987, DECS Secretary Lourdes R. Quisumbing sustained Aquino’s protest by revoking de la Paz’s appointment and favoring Aquino for the Supply Officer I post, noting that Aquino possessed a “decided advantage” over de la Paz.

Subsequent Appointment and Approval Processes

• Following the Secretary’s ruling, petitioner Aquino was issued a permanent appointment on August 11, 1987 by the DECS Regional Director, effective October 26, 1987, upon which Aquino assumed the duties and functions of the position.
• Aquino’s appointment was subsequently approved by the Civil Service Regional Office IV on October 27, 1987.

Appeal Process and Civil Service Commission Actions

• Private respondent de la Paz filed her appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on October 16, 1987. The MSPB, on February 5, 1988, rendered a decision upholding Aquino’s appointment.
• On appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the CSC resolved in Resolution No. 88-820 dated November 7, 1988, that de la Paz’s appeal was meritorious. The CSC revoked Aquino’s appointment and restored de la Paz to her former position as Supply Officer I.

Motion for Reconsideration and Petition for Certiorari

• Petitioner Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration with a prayer for a temporary restraining order. The CSC, however, issued Resolution No. 90-224 dated February 27, 1990, denying the motion.
• Subsequently, Aquino petitioned for certiorari seeking to nullify the CSC’s resolutions which revoked his appointment and restored private respondent’s appointment.

Issue:

Authority of the Civil Service Commission

• Whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion by revoking petitioner Aquino’s appointment in favor of private respondent de la Paz on the ground that she was “better qualified.”
• Whether the CSC, as a non-appointing authority, exceeded its power by interfering with the original appointment process made by the DECS.

Completeness and Security of Appointment

• Whether de la Paz’s appointment had already acquired security of tenure by virtue of her having assumed the duties and received the compensation attached to the position.
• Whether the procedural irregularity of issuing Aquino’s appointment before the finality of the protest resolution compromised the legal status of his appointment.

Valid Grounds for Reversal

• Whether the basis of the protest – Aquino being more qualified in terms of education, experience and training – satisfies the requirements of a “for cause” protest under Section 19 par. (6) of the Civil Service Law.
• Whether the CSC’s decision to “restore” de la Paz was justified given the conflicting administrative rulings and the inherent authority of the appointing power.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)