ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 141672.April 4, 2000]

EVANGELISTA vs. CSC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2000.

G.R. No. 141672(Angeles M. Evangelista vs. The Civil Service Commission and Salud Vitug.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Civil Service Commission which in turn reversed the resolution of its regional office in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, thus declaring that while a qualified "next-in-rank" employee, as in the case of petitioner, is entitled to preferential consideration in promotion, it does not necessarily follow that said "next-in-rank" employee and no other else can be so promoted.

The present controversy stemmed from the appointment of private respondent as Supervising Tourism Operations Officer SG 22 which was protested by petitioner, alleging before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office that she was by-passed.

As a result of the protest, the CSC regional office disapproved the appointment and further furnished the Office of the Governor with a list of employees who may be considered for appointment to the subject position.

Upon failure of the motion for reconsideration, a petition was filed by private respondent with the Civil Service Commission which set aside the decision of its regional office and approved the appointment of private respondent.

Displeased, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but to no. avail. Hence, a petition was filed with the Court of Appeals, wherein it was claimed that petitioner was denied due process of law when the Civil Service Commission failed to give her a chance to comment on private respondent's petition earlier mentioned. But the same likewise failed.

Thus, the instant petition which we find to be bereft of merit.

At the outset, petitioner herself admits that she filed a motion to reconsider the CSC decision. In administrative proceedings, due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (Padilla vs. Sto. Tomas, 243 SCRA 155 1995). Hence, in the case at bar, any assertion of denial of due process must fail as the same was cured by the filing of the motion for reconsideration (Cordenillo vs. Executive Secretary, 276 SCRA 652 1997).

More importantly, it is beyond dispute that private respondent possesses the necessary qualifications for the contested position. While petitioner alleges that she is better qualified than private respondent, this allegation offers no relief as private respondent is likewise qualified. Basic it is that appointment is essentially a discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in whom it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess minimum qualification requirements prescribed by law for the position (Lapinid vs., Civil Service Commission, 197 SCRA .288 [1991]).

The Civil Service Commission, under Presidential Decree No. 807, may only approve or disapprove an appointment after determining whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility and the required qualifications. The Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person has better qualifications for a particular position.

Even if petitioner occupies a "next-in-rank" position, that fact alone does not impose on the appointing authority the duty to appoint her. 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 (Umoso vs. Civil Service, 234 SCRA 617 [1994]).

When the appointing authority has already exercised his power of appointment, the Civil Service Commission cannot revoke the same on the ground that another employee is better qualified, for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority. The Commission may not and should not substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority (Aquino vs. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240 1992).

WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED clue course.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE