Case Summary (A.C. No. 5050)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- Feb 16–Jun 18, 1984: Aquino designated Property Inspector and in-charge of Supply Office.
- Jul 20, 1984: Aquino designated Officer-in-Charge of Division Supply Office.
- Sep 19, 1986: De la Paz issued a promotional appointment as Supply Officer I (effective Sep 30, 1986) and assumed duties; appointment approved by CSC Regional Office IV subject to conditions.
- Oct 20, 1986: Aquino filed a protest with the DECS Secretary contesting de la Paz’s qualification.
- May 4, 1987: DECS Secretary Quisumbing sustained Aquino’s protest and revoked de la Paz’s appointment, ruling Aquino preferred for the post.
- Aug 11, 1987: DECS denied de la Paz’s motion for reconsideration; same date petitioner Aquino was issued a permanent appointment (effective Oct 26, 1987).
- Oct 16–18, 1987: De la Paz filed notice of appeal to MSPB (and motion to maintain status quo).
- Oct 27, 1987: Civil Service Regional Office IV approved Aquino’s appointment.
- Feb 5, 1988: MSPB upheld Aquino’s appointment.
- Nov 7, 1988: CSC (Resolution No. 88-820) reversed MSPB and DECS, revoked Aquino’s appointment, and restored de la Paz to her previously approved appointment.
- Feb 27, 1990: CSC (Resolution No. 90-224) denied Aquino’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court disposition: petition for certiorari was denied; CSC’s action affirmed and DECS directed to restore de la Paz.
Applicable Law and Controlling Rules
- Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article IX-B, Section 2, paragraph (3)) — protection of security of tenure for career civil servants.
- Civil Service Law: P.D. No. 807, Section 19, paragraph (6) — grounds for protest (appointee not qualified; appointee not next-in-rank; in transfers/reinstatements/original appointments, dissatisfaction with written special reasons).
- CSC Resolution No. 83-343 — procedural rule prohibiting issuance of appointment to a protestant where the position is not vacant pending final resolution of the protest; an appointment that is issued while a protest is unresolved may be ineffective if the protest is finally resolved in favor of the protestant.
- Controlling jurisprudence cited: Santiago v. Civil Service Commission; Galura v. Civil Service Commission; Luego v. CSC; Central Bank v. CSC; Patagoc v. CSC; Villanueva v. Balallo; Favis v. Rupisan; Mitra v. Subido; De los Santos v. Mallare; Costin v. Quimbo; Morata (Court of Appeals rulings) — as relied upon and discussed by the Court.
Central Issues Presented
- Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking petitioner Aquino’s appointment as Supply Officer I and restoring de la Paz.
- Whether the CSC exceeded its authority by revoking an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified, thereby encroaching on the discretion of the appointing authority.
Procedural and Factual Findings Relevant to the Decision
- De la Paz’s September 19, 1986 appointment was approved by the Civil Service Regional Office IV with the explicit condition that there be no pending administrative cases, protests, or decisions that would adversely affect the approval. De la Paz assumed and performed the duties and received compensation under that appointment.
- Aquino filed a timely protest (Oct 20, 1986). DECS Secretary Quisumbing sustained the protest on May 4, 1987, finding Aquino better qualified and revoking de la Paz’s appointment; DECS denied reconsideration on Aug 11, 1987.
- Despite continuing appeals, an appointment was issued to Aquino (dated Aug 11, 1987, effective Oct 26, 1987) and approved by the Civil Service Regional Office IV on Oct 27, 1987. MSPB later upheld Aquino on Feb 5, 1988, but CSC reversed on Nov 7, 1988.
Majority’s Reasoning and Legal Holding
- The Court denied Aquino’s petition and affirmed the CSC resolutions that revoked Aquino’s appointment and restored de la Paz. The majority distinguished prior holdings that limit CSC’s authority to revoke appointments merely because someone else appears more qualified. Those precedents protect the appointing authority’s discretion not to have CSC substitute its judgment.
- The majority found the situation here different because de la Paz’s right to security of tenure had attached: her appointment had been issued, approved by the Civil Service Regional Office, she assumed the duties, and she received compensation. Under principles developed in Villanueva v. Balallo (and as qualified in Favis v. Rupisan), an appointment is complete when the required acts of the appointing authority and the civil service authority have been performed; once an appointment is complete and the appointee has assumed office, the appointee acquires a legal right to the position protected by statute and the Constitution.
- The majority held that restoration of de la Paz to her previously approved appointment did not amount to CSC directing appointment of a substitute of its choice; rather, CSC merely reinstated the prior appointee whose completed appointment and resultant security of tenure warranted protection. The CSC’s conclusion that de la Paz met prescribed qualification standards (education, required eligibility, and absence of required experience) further supported restoration.
- The Court also held that a protest grounded solely on the contention that the protestant is more qualified does not constitute a “for cause” ground under Article IX-B, Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution nor one of the grounds for protest enumerated in Section 19(6) of P.D. No. 807; thus, it does not justify removal or revocation of the incumbent’s appointment where that appointment is valid and complete.
- Finally, the majority noted procedural irregularity in Aquino’s appointment: issuance of his appointment before finality of the DECS decision contravened CSC Resolution No. 83-343, which prohibits issuance of appointment to a protestant while a protest is unresolved because the position is not then vacant. Because an appointment to a non-vacant position is void ab initio, Aquino’s appointment was irregular. Considering these factors collectively, the CSC’s revocation and restoration were upheld; the Court directed the Secretary of DECS to restore de la Paz to her previously approved appointment.
Majority’s Application of Constitutional and Statutory Principles
- Security of tenure: once a completed appointment results in assumption of duties and receipt of compensation, the appointee acquires a legal right protected by Article IX-B, Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution; such a right cannot be taken away except for cause, with due process.
- Limits on protests: mere comparative superiority in qualifications is not a constitutionally recognized “for cause” ground for removal nor a ground enumerated in P.D. No. 807 Section 19(6) to justify revocation of the incumbent’s completed appointment.
- Administrative procedure: issuance of appointments while a protest is pending violates CSC Resolution No. 83-343 and may render the subsequent appointment null if the protest is finally resolved in favor of the protestant.
Dissenting Opinion (Melencio-Herrera, J.) — Principal Arguments
- The dissent contended that de la Paz’s CSC Regional Office approval was conditional and explicitly subject to the absence of pending protests or adverse decisions. Because Aquino filed a timely protest and DECS subsequently rendered a decision adverse to de la Paz (May 4, 1987), the conditions precedent to the permanence of de la Paz’s appointment were not satisfied. Consequently, her appointment never attained permanency or the security of tenure that would protect her against removal.
- The dissent emphasized that DECS’s final
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 5050)
Case Citation and Court
- 284 Phil. 371 EN BANC; G.R. No. 92403; April 22, 1992.
- Decision penned by Justice Medialdea for the Court en banc.
- Concurring Justices: Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Nocon.
- Dissenting: Justice Melencio-Herrera (with Justice Feliciano joining in the dissent). Justice Bellosillo did not take part.
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a restraining order.
- Seeks nullification of two Civil Service Commission (CSC) resolutions:
- Resolution No. 88-820 dated November 7, 1988 (revoking petitioner Aquino’s appointment and restoring private respondent de la Paz).
- Resolution No. 90-224 dated February 27, 1990 (denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and prayer for a temporary restraining order).
Antecedent Facts — Employment Designations and Promotions
- Victor A. Aquino:
- Held position of Clerk II, Division of City Schools of San Pablo City.
- Designated February 16, 1984 to June 18, 1984 as Property Inspector and In-Charge of the Supply Office, performing Supply Officer I duties.
- Designated July 20, 1984 as Officer-in-Charge of the Division Supply Office by DECS Regional Director Saturnino R. Magturo after retirement of Supply Officer I Jose I. Aviquivil.
- Leonarda D. de la Paz:
- Held position of Clerk II, Division of City Schools of San Pablo City prior to promotion.
- From August 25, 1976 to September 1983 designated as Assistant to the Supply Officer.
- Issued a promotional appointment as Supply Officer I on September 19, 1986 (effective September 30, 1986) and assumed duties and compensation of the position.
- Her September 19, 1986 appointment was approved by Civil Service Regional Office IV subject to conditions: (1) no pending administrative case against appointee; (2) no pending protest against the appointment; and (3) no decision by competent authority that would adversely affect approval.
Protest, Administrative Decisions and Subsequent Appointments
- Petitioner Aquino filed a protest with DECS Secretary on October 20, 1986, questioning de la Paz’s qualifications and competence for Supply Officer I.
- DECS Secretary Lourdes R. Quisumbing rendered a decision dated May 4, 1987 sustaining Aquino’s protest and revoking de la Paz’s appointment, reasoning that Aquino had a decided advantage in education, experience, and training; Secretary ruled Aquino to be appointed Supply Officer I in place of de la Paz.
- De la Paz’s motion for reconsideration before Secretary Quisumbing was denied in a Resolution dated August 11, 1987.
- On August 11, 1987 DECS Regional Director Pedro San Vicente issued a permanent appointment to Aquino as Supply Officer I effective October 26, 1987; Civil Service Regional Office IV approved Aquino’s appointment on October 27, 1987.
- De la Paz filed a notice of appeal with a motion to maintain status quo to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on October 16, 1987.
- MSPB on February 5, 1988 rendered a decision upholding Aquino’s appointment.
- De la Paz appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
- CSC in Resolution No. 88-820 dated November 7, 1988 found de la Paz’s appeal meritorious, revoked Aquino’s appointment, and restored de la Paz to her previously approved appointment.
- Aquino filed motion for reconsideration with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order; CSC denied the motion in Resolution No. 90-224 dated February 27, 1990.
Central Issues Presented
- Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking Aquino’s appointment as Supply Officer I and restoring de la Paz to the position on the ground that de la Paz was better qualified.
- Related legal question: extent of CSC authority to pass upon contested appointments and whether CSC may revoke an appointing authority’s appointment because another person is more qualified.
Arguments Advanced by Petitioner and Supporting Authorities
- Petitioner relied on Supreme Court rulings that limit CSC’s authority to revoke appointments merely because another person appears more qualified:
- Santiago v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 81467, October 27, 1989, 178 SCRA 733.
- Galura v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. 85812, June 1, 1989 (En Banc resolution).
- Cases emphasizing appointing authority discretion: Luego v. CSC, G.R. No. 69137, August 5, 1986, 143 SCRA 327; Central Bank v. CSC, G.R. No. 80455-56, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 744; Patagoc v. CSC, G.R. No. 90229, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 411.
- Solicitor General supported petitioner’s position emphasizing wide latitude of discretion of the appointing authority in selections.
CSC’s Position and Rationale Adopted by Majority
- Majority recognized prior cases but distinguished this case on a critical factual basis: CSC revoked Aquino’s appointment principally because the right to security of tenure of the prior appointee (de la Paz) to the contested position had already attached.
- Key factual and legal points relied upon by CSC and the majority:
- De la Paz was issued a permanent appointment dated September 19, 1986, effective September 30, 1986, and such appointment was approved by Civil Service Regional Office IV.
- De la Paz assumed and performed the duties and received compensation and benefits of Supply Officer I.
- Under Section 9 par. (h) of the Civil Service Law (P.D. 807, as amended), incumbents who assume positions under approved appointments are entitled to corresponding protections.
- The rule that an appointment is complete when all required acts of the appointing power have been performe