ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 130554. April 7, 1999]
PUNDUGARANAO K. DIAMLA, vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 7, 1999.
G.R. No. 130554 (Pundugaranao K. Diamla, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, Lininding Pangandaman, cesar D. Buenaflor, Gantungan U. Kamed, Macybel Alfaro-Sahi, Leovigilda P. Cinches.)
This petition for review on certiorari assails the February 12, 1997 Decision, as well as the July 24, 1997 resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the disapproval of petitioner Pundugaranao K. Diamla's appointment to a position in the Department of Education, Culture and Sports - Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (DECS-ARMM).
On May 25, 1993, ARMM Regional Governor Liningding Pangandaman appointed petitioner Pundugaranao K. Diamla as Administrative Officer V in the DECS-ARMM.1 [Rollo, Annex C, p. 32.]
On August 6, 1993, the Civil Service Field Office (CSFO-ARMM), thru Director Gantungan Kamed, disapproved petitioner's appointment on the following grounds:
"x.] In violation of Republic Act
7041/Comelec Ban xxx Section 11,
Rule V, E.O. 292
Y.] Submit original transcript of record. 2 [Rollo, Annexes C-1, C-2 and C-3, p. 32.]"
On Septemebr 17, 1993, DECS-ARMM Secretary Abdulmajeed Ansano wrote Director Kamed seeking reconsideration of the CSFO-ARMM's disapproval of petitioner's appointment.3 [Rollo, Annex D, p. 33.]
On September 24, 1993, Director Kamed approved petitioner's appointment but only for the period from May 25, 1993 to June 25, 1993, claiming that petitioner "lacks 4 years experience in position involving management/supervision."4 [Rollo, Annex E-1, p. 34.]
In a letter dated November 25, 1993,5 [Rollo, Annex F, pp. 35-37.] DECS-ARMM Secretary Ansano appealed to Regional Governor Pangandaman for the approval of petitioner's appointment. The letter was indorsed to the CSFO-ARMM for appropriate action.6 [Rollo, Annex F-1 p. 38.]
On December 8, 1993, CSFO-ARMM Acting Director III Macybel Alfaro-Sahi disapprove petitioner's appointment for his failure to meet the qualifications for the position. Director Sahi nonetheless approved petitioner's appointment for actual services rendered from May 25 to June 25, 1993.7 [Rollo, Annex G, p. 39.]
On December 27, 1993, petitioner appealed Director Sahi's unfavorable action to the Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) No. 12, Cotabato City questioning the finding that petitioner falls short of the required qualification.8 [Rollo, Annex H, pp. 40-46.]
On January 20, 1994, CSRO Director IV Cesar Buenaflor denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit.9 [Rollo, Annex I, pp. 47-49.]
On February 11, 1994, petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission, Quezon City.10 [Rollo, Annex J-1, pp. 51-56.]
Meanwhile, per document dated February 15, 1994, regional Governor Pangandaman appointed Leovigilda P. Cinches as Administrative Officer V of DECS-ARMM.11 [Rollo, Annexes K and K-1, pp. 57-58.]
On October 13, 1995, the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 956315 dismissing petitioner's appeal.12 [Rollo, Annex Q, pp. 74-75.]
On march 28, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging CSC Resolution No. 956315.13 [Rollo, Annex S, pp. 78-88.]
On February 12, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the now-assailed Decision dated February 12, 199714 [Rollo, Annex A, pp. 25-28.] dismissing the petition. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said decision in its Resolution dated July 24, 1997.15 [Rollo, Annex B. p. 31] Hence this recourse.
The petition must fail.
Petitioner assails the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission concerning his failure to meet the qualifications for the position of Administrative Officer V. This is a factual issue that cannot be passed upon through the instant remedial measure. We have repeatedly ruled that this Court reviews only errors of law in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not factual findings.16 [Engineering & Machinery Corp. vs. CA, 252 SCRA 156, Liberty Construction and Development Corp. vs. CA, 257 SCRA 696.] The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review or revision of errors of law and not to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.17 [De la Cruz vs. 265 SCRA 299.]
Even if we disregard this procedural obstacle, the petition still will not prevail.
Petitioner points out that the Court of Appeals and Civil Service Commission gauged his qualifications or the basis of the qualification standards set in 1995 for the position of Administrative Officer V, viz:
"EDUCATION : Bachelor's degree relevant to the job (effective January 1, 1995- Masteral degree in Management or any masteral degree relevant to the job)
"EXPERIENCE : 4 YEARS IN POSITION/S INVOLVING MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
TRAINING : 24 hours of training in management and supervision
ELIGIBILITY : Career Service(Professional): Appropriate Eligibility for Second Level Position. 18 [CA Decision, p. 4 Rollo, p. 27]"
He emphasizes that at the time he applied for the position sometime in 1993, the qualification standards required for said item were those published in the November 13-18, 1992 issue of the Southern Journal which read:
"Bachelor's degree in Public Administration or any other degree including or supplemented by 12 units in Public Administration Management with 4 years of progressively responsible experience in various administrative functions which must have provided him a comprehensive knowledge of management principles, practices, methods and techniques. Career Service Professional Relevant Eligibility for 2 nd level position." (Underscoring ours). 19 [Rollo, Annex IV, p. 99.]
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission erred in disqualifying him on the basis of the 1995 qualification standards since his service record which spans thirteen (13) years will prove that he possesses the "4 years of progressively responsible experience as required under the 1993 qualification standards, viz:
"May 29, 1979 - June 27, 1982 - Accounting Clerk?Bureau of Treasury
June 28, 1982 - August 16, 1983 - CashierI/Bureau of Treasury
August 17, 1983 - October 31, 1991 - Fiscal Examiner II/Bureau of Treasury
November 1, 1991 - June 30, 1992 - Head Executive Assitant/Senate Office of Senator Mamintal Tamano" 20 [Rollo, Annex X p. 100.]
The flaw in petitioner's case lies in the fact that there is no distinction between the 1992 and 1995 qualification standards regarding the 4 year management/supervisory experience requirement. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals and the Civil service Commission in the joint Comment,21 [Rollo, pp. 160-170.] the change in phraseology in the 1992 and 1995 qualification standards did not in anyway alter the basic requirement that an appointee must possess at least 4 years experience in positions that entail management and supervisory skills. As revealed by his service record, the only position involving management and supervision that petitioner held was that of Head Executive Assistant in Senator Tamano's office which lasted for eight (8) months only. Petitioner indeed failed to meet one of the essential requirement for the position of Administrative Officer V of the DECS-ARMM.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
