Case Digest (G.R. No. 71228)
Facts:
This is Meram v. Edralin, G.R. No. 71228, September 24, 1987, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Erlinda P. Meram (Administrative Officer III, R-70) sought review of a decision of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs that permanently enjoined the Minister of Natural Resources and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) from enforcing orders of the Merit Systems Board (MSB) and resolutions of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which had directed Meram's appointment as Administrative Officer V (R-73).On July 29, 1982 the BFD proposed the appointment of Filipina V. Edralin (Training Officer, R-60) to Administrative Officer V; Meram and Hermecio M. Agravio protested. The BFD Director’s memorandum identified four employees “next-in-rank” to the vacancy (including Meram and Agravio) and indicated Edralin was not next-in-rank. The CSC received the protests on August 10, 1982; the Minister transmitted Edralin’s permanent appointment to the CSC on August 12, 1982, and the CSC approved the appointment “subject to the final outcome of the protests.”
The Minister dismissed Meram’s and Agravio’s protests by letters dated September 1, 1982. Pursuant to P.D. No. 1409, Meram and Agravio appealed to the MSB. On January 13, 1983 the MSB initially awarded the post to Agravio, but on May 16, 1983 the MSB modified its decision and appointed Meram after finding Agravio had been ineffective when designated Assistant OIC. Edralin appealed to the CSC; the CSC dismissed her appeal on October 5, 1983 and denied reconsideration on May 3, 1984.
On May 18, 1984 Edralin wrote to the Office of the President invoking P.D. No. 807, Sec. 19(6), which permits a next-in-rank employee to appeal to the department head and finally to the Office of the President in specified cases. The Confidential Legal Assistant in the President’s Office requested the CSC records; the CSC refused, citing P.D. No. 1409, Sec. 8 that CSC decisions are reviewable only by the courts. The Minister nevertheless instructed enforcement of the CSC orders on October 9, 1984, and Meram’s appointment was issued October 15, 1984.
Subsequently a Presidential marginal note (purportedly by President Marcos) and other communications culminated in a May 27, 1985 decision of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs (Laz...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the President (through the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs) have jurisdiction to take cognizance of Edralin’s letter and set aside the MSB and CSC decisions?
- On the merits, was the appointment of Filipina V. Edralin proper despite the MSB’s finding that she was not next-in-rank and that Erlinda P. Meram was a more ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)