Title
Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission
Case
G.R. No. 92403
Decision Date
Apr 22, 1992
Dispute over Supply Officer I appointment; CSC upheld de la Paz's completed appointment, granting her security of tenure, despite Aquino's protest claiming superior qualifications.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211850)

Key Dates

• February 16–June 18, 1984: Aquino serves as Property Inspector and in-charge of Supply Office.
• July 20, 1984: Aquino designated Officer-in-Charge, Supply Office.
• September 19, 1986: De la Paz appointed Supply Officer I.
• October 20, 1986: Aquino files protest against de la Paz’s appointment.
• May 4, 1987: DECS Secretary sustains protest; revokes de la Paz’s appointment and directs appointment of Aquino.
• August 11, 1987: DECS denies reconsideration; Aquino receives permanent appointment.
• February 5, 1988: Merit Systems Protection Board upholds Aquino’s appointment.
• November 7, 1988: CSC Resolution No. 88-820 reverses MSPB and reinstates de la Paz.
• February 27, 1990: CSC Resolution No. 90-224 denies Aquino’s motion for reconsideration.
• April 22, 1992: Supreme Court issues decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 2(3) – Security of tenure for civil servants.
• Civil Service Law (P.D. 807), Section 9(h) – Rights and tenure upon appointment.
• Civil Service Law, Section 19(6) – Grounds for protest of appointments.
• CSC Resolution No. 83-343 – Effectivity and contest of appointments.
• Jurisprudence on CSC’s authority versus appointing power (e.g., Santiago v. CSC; Central Bank v. CSC; Villanueva v. Balallo; Favis v. Rupisan).

Factual Background

Aquino, as Clerk II, performed Supply Officer I duties from February to June 1984 and was OIC from July 1984 after the retirement of the incumbent. Two years later, Division Superintendent Tagle appointed de la Paz, then Clerk II and former Assistant to the Supply Officer, to the same position. Aquino protested de la Paz’s qualifications, alleging superior education, experience, and training.

Procedural History

DECS Secretary Quisumbing, in May 1987, found Aquino more qualified and revoked de la Paz’s appointment, issuing Aquino a permanent appointment in August 1987, effective October 1987. De la Paz appealed to the MSPB, which in February 1988 upheld Aquino. De la Paz then appealed to the CSC, which in November 1988 reversed all prior decisions, restored de la Paz, and revoked Aquino’s appointment. A motion for reconsideration by Aquino was denied in February 1990.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether CSC gravely abused its discretion in revoking Aquino’s appointment on the ground that de la Paz was better qualified.
  2. Whether de la Paz’s earlier appointment had become complete, thereby entitling her to security of tenure.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

• Authority of CSC: The Court acknowledges that CSC cannot ordinarily substitute its judgment for the appointing authority’s choice based solely on relative qualifications (citing Santiago v. CSC and related cases).
• Security of Tenure: CSC did not impose its own appointee but reinstated de la Paz, whose permanent appointment (approved September 1986) was deemed complete under Villanueva v. Balallo and Favis v. Rupisan. Once an appointee assumes office under a completed appointment, a legal right to tenure attaches, protected by Article IX-B, Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution.
• Validity of Aquino’s Appointment: His appointment in August 1987 preceded the final resolution of de la Paz’s protest, violating CSC Resolution No. 83-343 and resulting in an appointment to a non-vacant p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.