Title
Apurillo vs. Civil Service Commission
Case
G.R. No. 105112
Decision Date
Oct 13, 1993
Petitioner's appointment as Administrative Officer III by DPWH OIC was nullified by the Secretary; CSC upheld reversion, citing lack of authority and irregularity.
appointing authority
career service
grave abuse of discretion
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105112)

Factual Background

On 1 July 1990, the OIC of DPWH Region VIII, Engr. Isidro Mariano, appointed petitioner to the second-level position of Administrative Officer III. Upon notification, private respondent Virginia L. Talde—who asserted that she was qualified and next-in-rank—submitted a letter-protest to the DPWH Complaints Committee. The Committee, through a memorandum submitted to Secretary Fiorello R. Estuar on 25 September 1990, recommended that the protest be granted and petitioner be reverted to her earlier position as Public Relations Officer.

Secretary Estuar approved the recommendation. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion on 5 March 1991. Petitioner appealed to the MSPB on 19 June 1991, but the MSPB dismissed the appeal on 27 November 1991 for lack of merit and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

From the CSC’s resolution, the core premise for Talde’s successful protest was that she was fully qualified for the position, and that petitioner’s appointment was voidable due to alleged lack of appointing authority in the OIC regional director who issued it without authority of the DPWH Secretary. The CSC further concluded that under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Secretary had authority to nullify the appointment issued by the OIC regional director.

CSC Resolution and the Assigned Grounds

In CSC Resolution No. 92-555, the CSC rejected petitioner’s appeal and sustained the reversion ordered by the DPWH Secretary. The CSC ruled, in substance, that Talde was fully qualified for the Administrative Officer III position, and that petitioner’s appointment was voidable because the OIC DPWH Regional Director lacked power to appoint her without the DPWH Secretary’s authority. The CSC also held that pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987, the Secretary could nullify such an appointment.

Petitioner challenged the CSC on several fronts. She invoked errors allegedly committed by the CSC in (1) rating private respondent higher than herself; (2) holding that an appointment validly extended to one qualified could be nullified merely because another was allegedly better qualified; and (3) holding that her appointment was voidable.

Issues in the Present Petition for Certiorari

Given the nature of the proceeding as a petition for certiorari, the Court treated the only resolvable issue as whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing its resolution. The contested position remained Administrative Officer III, Region VIII, DPWH, expressly described as a second-level position in the career service.

The Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner argued that CSC erred in holding that the DPWH Secretary, rather than the OIC Regional Director, was the proper appointing authority. She contended that on 5 January 1990 the DPWH Secretary issued Department Order No. 10, delegating the power to appoint second-level personnel in DPWH Region VIII to the then OIC, Regional Director. She further maintained that if the OIC Regional Director was not the real appointing authority, the delegation would be meaningless.

Petitioner also argued on merits and qualifications. She insisted that she was better qualified than private respondent and that CSC’s assessment effectively substituted a preference based on another’s alleged superiority even though she met minimum requirements. She additionally invoked restrictions on substitution. She referred to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 42, Series of 1991, which, effective 1 January 1993, prohibited substitution for education and experience requirements of specific positions in government. She claimed that such disallowance should have controlled the contest, although she did not succeed before the Court.

Finally, petitioner asserted that her appointment had already been approved by the CSC, that she had assumed office, and that to disturb the appointment would violate security of tenure. She implied that CSC could no longer disturb the appointment once she had assumed the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Legal Basis Relied Upon by the Court: Appointing Authority and Review

The Court anchored the appointing-authority issue on Sec. 7, par. (6) of the Administrative Code of 1987, which grants the Department Secretary power to appoint employees to positions in the second level in the regional offices of the Department. On that basis, the Court held that the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in concluding that the DPWH Secretary, not the OIC Regional Director, was the appointing authority for a second-level position.

The Court rejected petitioner’s reliance on Department Order No. 10. It quoted the text of the Order, which designated Engr. Isidro Mariano as Officer-in-Charge Regional Director of Region VIII, and authorized him to perform the duties and assume responsibilities appurtenant to the position of Regional Director. The Court stated that nowhere in the quoted provisions supported petitioner’s allegation that the delegation extended as she claimed. It further explained that while the law granted authority to the Regional Director to appoint personnel in the Regional Office, that power covered only positions in the first level and casual and seasonal employees. Even assuming that delegation for first-level appointments existed, the Court emphasized that it was not absolute. Promotional appointments made under such authority remained subject to review by the DPWH Secretary.

The Court then relied on Sec. 28 of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that nothing in the preceding section limited the Secretary’s power to review and modify, alter, or reverse actions of the Regional Director, or to initiate promotions and transfers from one region to another. It reasoned that the statutory language underscored the Secretary’s supervision and control, and it explained that the term control carried the power to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate officer had done and to substitute the judgment of the superior.

The Court also connected this control to the constitutional structure of executive supervision. It stated that the Secretary’s power derived not only from the Administrative Code but also from the Constitution’s explicit ordination that the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. As alter egos of the President, department secretaries exercised direct control and supervision over offices under their jurisdiction.

Evaluation of the DPWH Secretary’s Action and the Qualifications Evidence

The Court found support in the records for how the DPWH Secretary treated petitioner’s appointment. The Court observed that the DPWH Secretary treated the appointment issued by the OIC Regional Director as a recommendatory indorsement of petitioner for the contested position. Upon private respondent’s protest, the Secretary, through the DPWH Complaints Committee, undertook a meticulous review of the qualifications of both parties, as they were next-in-rank employees to the Administrative Officer III position.

The Court recited, from the Committee’s memorandum dated 25 September 1990, private respondent’s service history and qualifications, including her education (degrees in BSSW and LLB and a graduate degree in BSE) and her training and examination credentials. The Court also recited petitioner’s profile, including her years of service and academic accomplishments, and her performance ratings under the applicable evaluation system. The Committee’s assessment also addressed their relative positioning for purposes of selection on an agency-wide basis for second-level positions and quoted the applicable CSC rule on preference where two or more employees were next-in-rank and met the requisites.

The Committee concluded that since both contestants were qualified and competent next-in-rank employees, preference should be given to the employee with the better claim under the CSC rule. On that basis, it recommended that the protest be sustained and petitioner be reverted. When petitioner moved for reconsideration, the Committee re-rated the contenders using a personnel evaluation and rating system under Department Order No. 30, s. 1987. The re-rating yielded slightly differing percentages, but the Committee still maintained the outcome adverse to petitioner, noting that private respondent, being next-in-rank, could claim preference for appointment pursuant to the CS Law and Rules.

The Court held that it saw no evidence of irregularity or arbitrariness in the action taken by the DPWH Secretary. It emphasized that the head of an agency—acting as the appointing power—is the officer most knowledgeable to decide who can best perform the functions of the office. Thus, the Secretary’s decision must be respected.

Substitution of Education and Experience Not Controlling in 1990 Appointment

Petitioner insisted that she was better qualified without resorting to substitution and invoked the prohibition in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 42, Series of 1991 effective 1 January 1993. The Court observed that the effectivity of the Circular was 1 January 1993, while the case events took place in 1990. It therefore held that the rule on substitution could still b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms