Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25491. February 27, 1968.]

BIENVENIDO F. REYES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE & CASHIER AND DISBURSING OFFICER THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Respondents-Appellants.

Cecilio B. Magadia, Jr. for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Respondents-Appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL SERVICE; COMPETITIVE SERVICE; PERSON NEXT IN RANK, MEANING OF. — A person next in rank, competent and qualified to hold the position and possessing an appropriate civil service eligibility is entitled to a vacancy occurring in any competitive or classified position in the government. However, should there be two or more persons under equal circumstances, seniority must be given preference. In the instant case, both petitioner and respondent are in the ranking list, being Budget Officers III, the petitioner in the School Finance Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. But petitioner, as set forth in the stipulation of facts, was holding such office in an acting capacity, unlike respondent whose tenure had permanency. In these circumstances, petitioner was not the person next in rank.

2. ID.; ID.; PERSONS OF EQUAL CIRCUMSTANCES; SENIORITY RULE APPLIED. — Even on the assumption that both petitioner and respondent are persons of equal circumstances, still respondent’s appointment could not be declared illegal as the very same proviso makes clear that seniority shall be given preference. Respondent had been appointed in the government service on August 8, 1937, while petitioner joined the government on June 15, 1939 and assigned to the School of Finance Division on July 25, 1940. As regards the discharge of the functions of Budget Officer III, petitioner was appointed in an acting capacity on August 21, 1962 while respondent assumed such position with a permanent status earlier or on July 1, 1962. The right to the promotion then has been earned by Respondent.

3. PUBLIC OFFICERS; APPOINTMENT; DISCRETION OF APPOINTING POWER. — The appointing power enjoys sufficient discretion to select and appoint employees on the basis of their fitness to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities of the position filled. The power to appoint is in essence discretionary, and that where there is absent a showing that in the exercise of the right of choice, the appointing power abused its discretion the court will not even attempt to substitute its own discretion for that exercised by such appointing power.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; BROAD DISCRETION OF DEPARTMENT HEADS; UPHELD. — The law does not impose a rigid or mechanistic formula on the appointing power, compliance with which is inexorable and a deviation therefrom fatal. If there be adherence to the concept that public office is a public trust, the criterion should be what public welfare demands, what satisfies public interest. Public needs could best be attended to by officials about whose competency and ability there is no question. To that overmastering requirement, personal ambition must of necessity yield. Discretion, if not plenary, at least sufficient, should be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the office concerned, primarily the department heads. They are in the most favorable position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of the offices thus vacated. Unless the law speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone, there should be full recognition of the wide scope of such discretionary authority. It is worth repeating that the broad authority of a department head appears indisputable. Such is the policy of the law, a policy reflected with fidelity in the decisions of this Court.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


This petition, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila, for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, calls for the determination of who, under the Civil Service Law, 1 has the right to a promotion to fill a vacancy in a competitive or classified position in the government as the person "next in rank" likewise "competent and qualified to hold the position and possessed of an appropriate civil service eligibility . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts are not in dispute, the case having been submitted before the lower court on a stipulation of facts. Thus: "That since June 15, 1939 and continuously up to the present, the petitioner has been employed in the government, particularly, in the School Finance Division, Bureau of Public Schools, since July 25, 1940, . . ., while respondent Abeleda has been in the government service since August 16, 1937, . . .; that on August 2, 1962, the petitioner was last appointed as Acting Budget Officer III at P5,376 per annum, in the School Finance Division, Bureau of Public Schools, . . ., while respondent Abeleda was last appointed as Budget Officer III in the Medical and Dental Services Division, same Bureau, at P5,376 per annum effective July 1, 1962; that in a Memorandum dated December 10, 1962, the Director of Public Schools submitted to the Secretary of Education an assignment proposal recommending the promotion of petitioner to the position of Budget Officer IV, . . .; that in a first indorsement dated December 19, 1962 of the respondent Secretary of Education to the respondent Director of Public Schools, the former requested the latter for ‘appropriate ranking lists’ . . .; that in a 3rd indorsement dated January 7, 1964, the Secretary of Education instructed the respondent Director of Public Schools to prepare an appointment proposal in favor of respondent Romeo G. Abeleda to the position of Budget Officer IV; that in the 4th indorsement dated January 23, 1964, the petitioner was informed of the respondent Secretary’s action on the basic proposition for the promotional appointment of petitioner . . .; that on February 10, 1964, petitioner filed a formal protest with respondent Commissioner of Civil Service contesting the appointment of respondent Romeo G. Abeleda to the position of Budget Officer IV in the Bureau of Public Schools, School Finance Division, . . .; that the protest was resolved by the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service against petitioner, . . .; that respondent Romeo G. Abeleda was promoted from Budget Officer III, School Medical and Dental Services, to Budget Officer IV, School Finance Division, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

After setting forth the facts and considering the law, the conclusion reached by the lower court was set forth thus: "In view, therefore, of the foregoing, it appearing that the petitioner has the necessary qualifications to the position of the Budget Officer IV, Division of School Finance, Bureau of Public Schools; that he is the officer next in rank in said division to that vacant position; respondent Abeleda is not of equal rank in said division, he, belonging to another independent, separate division, that in point of authority, responsibility and importance, the Budget Officer III of the School Finance Division outranks and is more important than its counterpart in the Medical and Dental Services Division, the appointment and promotion, therefore, of respondent Romeo G. Abeleda, to fill the vacant position of Budget Officer IV, School Finance Division, was in error, in violation of the Civil Service Law on the point, and in excess of the exercise of legal discretion on the part of the respondent Secretary of Education and the Commissioner of Civil Service." The lower court decision was to this effect: "1. The appointment of Romeo Abeleda as Budget Officer IV, Division of School Finance, Bureau of Public Schools, is hereby declared null and void and, therefore, set aside; 2. That the respondents Secretary of Education and Commissioner of Civil Service are ordered to approve the appointment of the petitioner, Bienvenido F. Reyes, as recommended by the Director of Public Schools."cralaw virtua1aw library

Not being satisfied with the above decision, which to his mind was an erroneous interpretation of the above legal provision and a denial of his right to said position, respondent Abeleda along with the Secretary of Education, the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools and the Commissioner of Civil Service, appealed to this Court.

If the law correctly construed be applied to the above facts, the judgment of the lower court must be reversed; the appointment made in favor of respondent Abeleda by the Secretary of Education must prevail.

As noted at the outset, a person next in rank, competent and qualified to hold the position and possessing an appropriate civil service eligibility is entitled to a vacancy occurring in any competitive or classified position in the government. There is the proviso however that should there be two or more persons under equal circumstances, seniority must be given preference. 2 As between petitioner Reyes and respondent Abeleda, who is the person next in rank? Both as admitted in the Brief of petitioner are in the ranking list, being Budget Officers III, the petitioner in the School Finance Division and respondent Abeleda in the Medical Dental Services Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. Petitioner however, as was set forth in the stipulation of facts, 3 was holding such office in an acting capacity, unlike respondent Abeleda whose tenure had permanency. Under the above circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner was the person next in rank.

Even on the assumption however that both petitioner Reyes and respondent Abeleda could be considered, in the language of the law, "as persons of equal circumstances" still respondent’s appointment by the Secretary of Education could not be declared illegal as the very same proviso makes clear that seniority shall be given preference. There was no denial of the statement in the Brief of respondent Abeleda about his seniority, having been appointed in the government service on August 8, 1937 while petitioner did not join the government until June 15, 1939, having been assigned thereafter to the School Finance Division on July 25, 1940. 4

Now as to the discharge of the functions of Budget Officer III. While petitioner was appointed in an acting capacity on August 21, 1962, respondent Abeleda assumed such position with a permanent status earlier, namely, on July 1, 1962. The right to the promotion then had been earned by respondent Abeleda. There was precisely compliance with, not deviation from, the applicable statutory provision, with the appointment extended to him by respondent Secretary of Education.

There is this further point to consider. Referring to the very same section, this Court, in Pilar v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, 5 speaking through Justice Dizon, stressed that "the appointing power enjoys sufficient discretion to select and appoint employees on the basis of their fitness to perform the duties and assume the responsibilities of the position to be filled . . ." Passing on the power of the Commission on Elections to appoint election registrars, this Court in Amponin v. Commission on Elections, 6 the opinion being penned by Justice Castro, could fitly summarize the law thus: "Finally, considering that the power to appoint is in essence discretionary, and that there is here absent a showing that in the exercise of the right of choice the [Commission on Elections] abused its discretion, we will not even attempt to substitute our own discretion for that exercised by [it]."cralaw virtua1aw library

It would seem fairly obvious then that the law does not impose a rigid or mechanistic formula on the appointing power, compliance with which is inexorable and a deviation therefrom fatal. Far from it. If there be adherence to the concept that public office is a public trust, as there ought to be, the criterion should be what public welfare demands, what satisfies public interest. For it is axiomatic that public needs could best be attended to by officials, about whose competency and ability there is no question. To that overmastering requirement, personal ambition must of necessity yield. Discretion, if not plenary, at least sufficient, should thus be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the offices concerned, primarily the department heads. They are in the most favorable position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of the offices thus vacated, Unless, therefore, the law speaks in the most mandatory and peremptory tone, considering all the circumstances, there should be, as there has been, full recognition of the wide scope of such discretionary authority. Happily, there is nothing in the Civil Service Act, which is fittingly concerned with protecting the rights of those in the career service, that, rightly construed, calls for a different conclusion. It is well worth repeating that the broad authority of a department head appears indisputable. Such is the policy of the law, a policy reflected with fidelity in the decisions of this Court.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the petition for certiorari and mandamus denied. With costs against petitioner.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 2260.

2. Section 23, Republic Act No. 2260.

3. Paragraph 2, Stipulation of Facts.

4. Brief for respondents-appellants, p. 26 and stipulation of facts.

5. L-21039, February 18, 1967.

6. L-27420, September 29, 1967.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA