G.R. No. 94284 - Silverio vs. Court of Appeals

On November 20, 1997, petitioner Dr. Eleanor A. Osea filed Protest Case No. 91120-004 with the Civil Service Commission contesting the appointment process.
Petitioner asserted that she was previously appointed as Officer-in-Charge, Assistant Schools Division Superintendent of Camarines Sur by then-Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria, following an endorsement by the Provincial School Board of Camarines Sur.
Despite her eligibility and recommendation, President Fidel V. Ramos later appointed respondent Dr. Corazon E. Malaya as Schools Division Superintendent of Camarines Sur without consulting the local school board as mandated by the applicable law.

Section 99 of the Local Government Code of 1991 mandates that the Department of Education, Culture and Sports consult local school boards when appointing school officials such as division superintendents.
Petitioner argued that respondent’s appointment by the President, rather than by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, violated the statutory requirement of prior consultation with the local school board.

On March 31, 1998, the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 980699 dismissing petitioner’s protest complaint, holding that the respondent’s appointment executed by the President fell outside the purview of Section 99.
The Commission noted that respondent had been initially appointed on September 13, 1996, to a position without a specific geographic assignment, and later, on November 3, 1997, a memorandum by Secretary Gloria explicitly re-designated respondent to Camarines Sur and petitioner to Iriga City.
The re-designation was characterized as a reassignment rather than a fresh appointment, thereby not triggering the consultation requirement.

Following the dismissal of her protest, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on August 3, 1998, by Resolution No. 982058.
Thereafter, she elevated the matter by filing a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 49204).
Petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals erred by treating the respondent’s move as a mere reassignment—thus avoiding the necessity of consultation—and by failing to recognize any violation when the President appointed respondent without local school board input.

Does Section 99 of the Local Government Code of 1991 apply to appointments made by the President, or is it limited only to those made by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports?
Should the consultation mandate extend to cases involving the reassignment or designation of officials, as opposed to a formal appointment?

Is there a legally significant distinction between an appointment (which confers tenure and requires prior consultation) and a reassignment or designation (an administrative movement without the same procedural safeguards)?
Can petitioner’s claim of a vested right to the position of Schools Division Superintendent be sustained given that her endorsement by the local school board did not culminate in an actual appointment?