G.R. No. 93064 - Gayatao vs. Civil Service Commission

Private respondent Bayani I. Fernandez had been holding a permanent position as Customs Operations Chief I (COC) in the Bureau of Customs since March 5, 1984. He was assigned to the Aircraft Operations Division.
On October 15, 1987, via Customs Personnel Order (CPO) No. C-152-87 issued by Commissioner Salvador M. Mison, Fernandez was reassigned as Acting Chief of the Export Division at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Customhouse.
On February 15, 1988, petitioner Agustina G. Gayatao, then a Supervising Customs Trade Examiner, was appointed by Commissioner Mison as Customs Operations Chief (COC) at the NAIA Customhouse, effective March 1, 1988.
On March 3, 1988, through CPO No. B-27-88, petitioner was designated as COC of the Export Division at NAIA, while Fernandez was designated as Customs Operations Assistant Chief (COAC) of the Aircraft Operations Division. Both designations were effective March 1, 1988.

Fernandez filed a letter of protest on May 18, 1988, before the Merit System Protection Board of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) challenging petitioner’s appointment as COC and his own demotion to COAC.
Fernandez argued that he was unjustly demoted as he held the position prior to the reorganization and that he was more qualified than petitioner.
The Commissioner of Customs claimed the appointment of petitioner was “non-protestable” since it was pursuant to Executive Order No. 127 implementing the Department of Finance’s Bureau of Customs reorganization.
On October 5, 1989, the CSC promulgated a resolution revoking petitioner’s appointment as COC and directed the Commissioner of Customs to appoint Fernandez instead.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 30, 1987 (date likely typographical, probably meant 1989 or 1990), which the CSC denied on April 10, 1990.
Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari questioning the CSC’s resolutions.

The Solicitor General filed a manifestation recommending the grant of petition and annulment of the challenged CSC resolutions.
CSC filed its comments, including supplemental comments, maintaining its position.
The Court gave due course to the petition and the parties submitted their respective memoranda.

Petitioner argued that CSC had no authority to revoke her appointment on the ground that another person was more qualified, asserting this was a discretion vested to the appointing authority alone.
Petitioner relied on the case Central Bank of the Philippines vs. CSC, which limits the CSC’s authority to approving or renewing appointments based on legal requisites but prohibits revocation solely for qualifications.

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking petitioner’s appointment as Customs Operations Chief and directing the appointment of private respondent Fernandez in her stead.