ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Search for www.chanrobles.comPLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
EN BANC
G.R. No. 110276 July 29, 1994
ORLANDO G. UMOSO, Petitioner, v. HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and SEVERINO G. CARONAN, Respondents.
J.P. Cortez & Associates for petitioner.chanrobles virtual law library
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolution 1of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC), dismissing petitioner Orlando Umoso's appeal from the decision of the Merit System Protection Board 2, upholding the appointment of private respondent Severino Caronan as Supervising Civil Engineer I by the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner is a Senior Civil Engineer who was promoted to the position of Supervising Civil Engineer I in the office of the District Engineer, Cagayan South Engineering District, of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) by the Regional Director, DPWH Regional Office No. 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. 3chanrobles virtual law library
Private respondent Severino G. Caronan, Senior Civil Engineer in the Design and Planning section of the Cagayan South Engineering District, protested the appointment in a letter 4addressed to the Regional Director of the DPWH, in which he complained that the candidates for promotion had not been fairly evaluated by the DPWH Central Review Board as their direct supervisors were never consulted. Private respondent claimed that he was entitled to preferential consideration, being the employee next in rank in the Planning and Design Section where the contested position belongs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The letter/protest of private respondent was referred to the complaints committee of the DPWH which, on May 7, 1990, issued a Memorandum 5for the DPWH Department Secretary, recommending that Caronan's protest be upheld and petitioner Umoso be appointed to the position of Senior Civil Engineer to be vacated by the respondent Caronan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The Secretary of DPWH approved the recommendation. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but his motion was denied in a resolution dated October 5, 1990. Petitioner then appealed to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service. He alleged that the complaints committee of the DPWH erred in (1) its interpretation of the next-in-rank principle, in considering protestant/private respondent as more senior than the protestee/petitioner in the service and (2) in failing to give due consideration to the recommendation of the District Engineer's placement and evaluation committee.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
The MSPB made a comparative study of the qualifications of Umoso and Caronan, on the basis of which it rendered a decision on June 28, 1991, 7dismissing the appeal of petitioner Umoso for lack of merit. In its decision it stated:
Considering, therefore, that Caronan is the choice of the Secretary, DPWH, having taken cognizance of Caronan's nine (9) years of direct exposure/experience in the Planning and Design Section where the contested position is located, the appointment of Caronan as Supervising Civil Engineer I must be upheld. 8chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner Umoso moved a second time for reconsideration of the MSPB decision. He alleged that the appointing authority in the regional sector is lodged in the Regional Director and not in the Department Head/Secretary; therefore his appointment by the Regional Director should be upheld.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
On January 31, 1992, the MSPB denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit and sustained the appointment of private respondent Caronan to the position of Supervising District Engineer. It held that the Secretary has administrative supervision and control over the entire department including the power to review appointments issued by the DPWH Regional Director. 9chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner Umoso then appealed 10to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), raising as sole issue whether or not the DPWH Secretary has the authority to set aside an appointment made by the Regional Director of an appointee who meets the qualifications required by the position.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
In its Resolution No. 93-748 11dated February 26, 1993, the CSC ruled that the Secretary of Public Works and Highways has ultimate power to appoint:
The power of the Secretary to appoint can however be delegated to the Regional Directors. The authority of the Regional Director to appoint is merely a delegated function. As such, the action of the Regional Director can be reviewed and set aside by the Secretary who is the source of the delegated power. To hold the view that the Secretary has no authority to review the appointment issued by a Regional Director to second level position in a Department would create a false impression that the Secretary and the Regional Director are of the same rank.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Thus, when Caronan protested the appointment of Umoso to the position of SCE I issued by the Regional Director and the DPWH Secretary gave due course to the protest by ordering the appointment of protestant Caronan in lieu of Umoso, the Secretary of DPWH is merely exercising his power and authority as Head of the Department. Inherent in his position is the power, among others, of administrative control and supervision over the personnel thereat including appointment. Contrary to the allegation of Umoso, the approval of his appointment to the said position has not reached a semblance of finality which may vest in him the right to a security of tenure, in view of the timely protest of Caronan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
As protestant Caronan, who is the choice of the Secretary of DPWH, clearly meets the requirements for permanent appointment to the contested position, his appointment to said contested position should not be disturbed. This is in line with a number of Supreme Court decisions upholding the discretion of the appointing authority on matters of appointment. 12chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner alleges grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Civil Service Commission. He claims that he is qualified and that he is the "next-in-rank." Above all he contends that in fact his appointment was endorsed by the Selection and Placement Committee and the Central Review Board, whose recommendations were approved by the Regional Director.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
We find this petition without merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
First of all, it has been declared time and again that even if petitioner occupies a "next-in-rank" position, that fact alone does not impose on the appointing authority the duty to appoint petitioner. 13chanrobles virtual law library
While preferential consideration is accorded the "next-in-rank" employee in the event of a vacancy for a higher position, such consideration does not serve to ensure appointment in his favor. The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty on the part of the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position. 14chanrobles virtual law library
Secondly, the appointing power is vested in the Department Head/Secretary. Such power, however, may be delegated to the regional director subject, however, to the approval, revision, modification and reversal of the Department Secretary. 15Thus, even if petitioner was recommended to the contested position by the Selection and Placement Committee and the Central Review Board, which recommendations were upheld by the Regional Director, such recommendation was nonetheless subject to review and approval by the Department Secretary. Indeed, the DPWH Review Board, pursuant to the Reorganization Guidelines, prepared a manning list of recommendees for the positions in the Regional Offices of Region II and had to submit the list to the DPWH Secretary for approval. 16In the analogous case of Ernesto Perez v. Merit System Protection Board, 17this Court stated:
The determination of the DPWH Regional Office in Sorsogon that petitioner was qualified for the contested position did not preclude the Committee from overturning the same. The determinations of both bodies as delegates of the DPWH Secretary in the matter of personnel actions are tentative in nature. It is the Secretary's adoption of the Committee's endorsement in favor of private respondent which constituted the authoritative determination or choice of the employee who will occupy the contested position.
The rule in the civil service is that appointment, which is essentially within the discretionary power of whosoever it is vested, is subject only to the condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. In the case at bar, the Qualifications Standards of the DPWH prescribes the following minimum requirements for the contested position (Supervising Civil Engineer I) 18, to wit:
EDUCATION - Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering
EXPERIENCE - One (1) year of responsible experience
in professional civil engineering workELIGIBILITY - R.A. 1080 (Civil Engineer)
Based on these qualifications, the MSPB, in its decision, prepared a comparative study of the qualifications of the contestants Umoso and Caronan, showing the following:
EDUCATION:
Appellant Umoso is a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering graduate, while protestee Caronan is Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering graduate with 24 units leading to Master in Public Administration (MPA).
ELIGIBILITY:
Appellant Umoso possesses R.A. 1080 (Civil Engineer) eligibility. Appellee Caronan has R.A. 1080 (Civil Engineer) eligibility.
EXPERIENCE:
Appellant Umoso has been in the government service for eighteen (18) years, holding these positions for specified periods, to wit: Laborer (3/16/66-12/31/66), Survey Aide (1/1/67-2/15/70) at the National Irrigation Administration, Civil Engineer Aide I (9/16/74-6/30/75), Civil Engineer II (7/1/75-12/31/75), Construction Foreman (1/1/76-11/30/78), Associate Civil Engineer (12/1/78-12/31/80), Civil Engineer (1/1/81-9/30/82), and Senior Civil Engineer (10/1/82-1/1/89) at the DPWH.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Appellee Caronan, on the other hand, has been in the government service for ten (10) years during which period he held the following positions in the DPWH: Associate Civil Engineer (6/8/78-1/7/79), Civil Engineer (1/8/79-1/15/80) and Senior Civil Engineer (1/16/80-present). 19chanrobles virtual law library
It is evident that both aspirants sufficiently meet the qualification requirements for permanent appointment to the contested position. However, since between Caronan and Umoso the former was chosen by the Department Secretary of the DPWH, the Civil Service Commission has no alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law. The Commission, under P.D. No. 807, may only approve or disapprove the appointment after determining whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate Civil Service eligibility and the required qualifications. 20The Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular position. 21Correctly then did the CSC, in dismissing the appeal of petitioner Umoso, hold:
As protestant Caronan, who is the choice of the Secretary of DPWH, clearly meets the requirements for permanent appointment to the contested position should not be disturbed. This is in line with a number of Supreme Court decisions upholding the discretion of the appointing authority on matters of appointment. 22chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission dated February 26, 1993 is AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concurs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 20.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
2 Id., p. 35.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
3 Annex C, Petition; Rollo, p. 23.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
4 Annex D, Private Respondent's Comment; Rollo, p. 73.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
5 Annex G, Petition; Rollo, p. 31.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
6 Annex H. Petition; Rollo, p. 33.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
7 Annex I, Petition; Rollo, p. 34.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
8 Id., p. 38.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
9 Annex J, Petition; Rollo, p. 39.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
10 Annex N, Petition; Rollo p. 45.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
11 Annex B. Petition; Rollo p. 20.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
12 Id., pp. 21-22.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
13 Lusterio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74814, July 16, 1991, 199 SCRA 255; Abila v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92573, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 102.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
14 De la Cruz v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88333, Dec. 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 419.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
15 LOI No. 448, Aug. 18, 1976 as amended by LOI NO. 895, July 25, 1979 and LOI No. 1324, May 9, 1983.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
16 Annex F, petition; Rollo, pp. 28-30.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
17 G.R. No. 98930, Oct. 17, 1991.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
18 Rollo, p. 36.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
19 id.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
20 Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, Aug. 5, 1986, 143 SCRA 328.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
21 Petagoc v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 90229, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 411; Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 93868, Feb. 19, 1991, 194 SCRA 278; Abila v. Civil Service Commission, supra.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
22 Civil Service Commission Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-22.
