G.R. No. 110276 - JULY 1994 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 110276July 29, 1994 Orlando G. Umoso vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 97547July 29, 1994 Rolando T. Diwa, et al vs. Arnold L. Donato, et al. G.R. No. 93028July 29, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Martin S. Simon G.R. No. 112309July 28, 1994 Napoleon V. Fernando, et al. vs. Patricia Sto. Tomas, et al. G.R. Nos. 93926-28July 28, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Segundo Manuel, et al. G.R. Nos. 85512-13July 28, 1994 Alex Jumawan, et al. vs. Diomedes M. Eviota, et al. G.R. No. 102130July 26, 1994 Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et al. G.R. No. 76452July 26, 1994 Philippine American Life Insurance Company, et al. vs. Armando Ansaldo, et al. A.M. No. 93-11-1311-RTCJuly 26, 1994 Report on the Audit and Inventory of Cases In The Regional Court, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas. G.R. No. 109645July 25, 1994 Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership, et al. vs. Tirso Velasco, et al. G.R. No. 106027July 25, 1994 BPI Credit Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 105410July 25, 1994 Pilipinas Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102308July 25, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Martin Layam, et al. G.R. No. 100910July 25, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Loreto Salangga, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-93-1082July 25, 1994 Serafin B. Castillo vs. Liberato C. Cortes A.M. No. P-94-1003July 25, 1994 Marciano T. Virola vs. Emmanuel A. Latorza A.M. No. MTJ-93-823July 25, 1994 David Ortiz vs. Lucio P. Palaypayon A.M. No. MTJ-93-762July 25, 1994 Nieves D. Ignacio vs. Judge Wilhelmina T. Melanio-Arcega G.R. No. 109644July 21, 1994 Zetino D. Cantos vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 107069July 21, 1994 Leandro Oliver, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 106611July 21, 1994 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 106097July 21, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Francisco, et al. G.R. No. 105289-90July 21, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Angelito D. Lualhati G.R. No. 103586July 21, 1994 National Federation of Labor vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 103092July 21, 1994 Bank of America NT & SA vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 113107July 20, 1994 Wilmar P. Lucero vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. 111097July 20, 1994 Pablo P. Magtajas, et al. vs. Philippine Amusement & Gaming Corp., et al. G.R. No. 109633July 20, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Normando L. Del Rosario G.R. No. 96687July 20, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Domingo S. Bongadillo A.M. No. RTJ-93-944July 20, 1994 Rizalia Capuno, et al. vs. Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr G.R. No. 112731July 18, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Caras G.R. No. 112547July 18, 1994 Dennis T. Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102553July 18, 1994 Pacific Banking Corp. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. P-93-795July 18, 1994 Maria Añonuevo vs. Rolando E. Pempeña G.R. No. 97214July 16, 1994 Ernesto Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. A.M. No. 92-10-425-OMBJuly 15, 1994 In Re: Ombudsman Case No. Omb-Adm-5-92-0100 G.R. No. 111077July 14, 1994 Virgilio B. Gesmundo, et al. vs. JRB Realty Corp. et al. G.R. No. 110042July 14, 1994 Felimon Idang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 109672July 14, 1994 Eduardo Vaca, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 108718July 14, 1994 Genaro R. Reyes Construction, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 73047July 14, 1994 Gabriel Capili, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100228July 13, 1994 De Jesus Mesina, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 108802July 12, 1994 Isagani Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 111426July 11, 1994 Norma Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 108453July 11, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Donald P. Dismuke, et al. G.R. No. 97412July 12, 1994 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 109012July 8, 1994 Aida Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-92-728July 8, 1994 Perlita Libardos vs. Abdullah M. Casar A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTCJuly 8, 1994 Atty. Artemio D. Caña vs. Belen D. Santos A.M. No. 92-12-916-RTCJuly 8, 1994 In Re: Comelec Resolution No. 2521 G.R. No. 112734July 7, 1994 Nazario P. Penas, Jr. et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 110265July 7, 1994 Freeman, Inc., Freeman Mangement & Development Corporation et al. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. G.R. Nos. 102009-10July 6, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando De Gracia, et al. G.R. Nos. 97044-46July 6, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Gener Turda G.R. No. 96510July 6, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Ramir Carizo, et al. G.R. Nos. 85248-49July 6, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Balanon G.R. No. 109703July 5, 1994 Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs. Lucina S. Sendino, et al. G.R. No. 105685July 5, 1994 Orlando T. Mendoza vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. Nos. 65957July 5, 1994 Eleazar V. Adlawan, et al. vs. Ramon Am. Torres, et al. A.M. No. P-93-935July 5, 1994 Ildefonso Ong vs. Maximo A. Meregildo G.R. No. 111179July 4, 1994 David Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 107432July 4, 1994 Erlinda B. Causapin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 103272July 4, 1994 People of the Philippines vs. Renato M. Alhambra, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Orlando G. Umoso vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. Rolando T. Diwa, et al vs. Arnold L. Donato, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Martin S. Simon Napoleon V. Fernando, et al. vs. Patricia Sto. Tomas, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Segundo Manuel, et al. Alex Jumawan, et al. vs. Diomedes M. Eviota, et al. Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et al. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, et al. vs. Armando Ansaldo, et al. Report on the Audit and Inventory of Cases In The Regional Court, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas. Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership, et al. vs. Tirso Velasco, et al. BPI Credit Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Pilipinas Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Martin Layam, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Loreto Salangga, et al. Serafin B. Castillo vs. Liberato C. Cortes Marciano T. Virola vs. Emmanuel A. Latorza David Ortiz vs. Lucio P. Palaypayon Nieves D. Ignacio vs. Judge Wilhelmina T. Melanio-Arcega Zetino D. Cantos vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Leandro Oliver, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Francisco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Angelito D. Lualhati National Federation of Labor vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Bank of America NT & SA vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Wilmar P. Lucero vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Pablo P. Magtajas, et al. vs. Philippine Amusement & Gaming Corp., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Normando L. Del Rosario People of the Philippines vs. Domingo S. Bongadillo Rizalia Capuno, et al. vs. Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Caras Dennis T. Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pacific Banking Corp. et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Maria Añonuevo vs. Rolando E. Pempeña Ernesto Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. In Re: Ombudsman Case No. Omb-Adm-5-92-0100 Virgilio B. Gesmundo, et al. vs. JRB Realty Corp. et al. Felimon Idang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Eduardo Vaca, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Genaro R. Reyes Construction, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Gabriel Capili, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. De Jesus Mesina, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Isagani Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Norma Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Donald P. Dismuke, et al. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Aida Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Perlita Libardos vs. Abdullah M. Casar Atty. Artemio D. Caña vs. Belen D. Santos In Re: Comelec Resolution No. 2521 Nazario P. Penas, Jr. et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. Freeman, Inc., Freeman Mangement & Development Corporation et al. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando De Gracia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gener Turda People of the Philippines vs. Ramir Carizo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jerry Balanon Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs. Lucina S. Sendino, et al. Orlando T. Mendoza vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. Eleazar V. Adlawan, et al. vs. Ramon Am. Torres, et al. Ildefonso Ong vs. Maximo A. Meregildo David Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Erlinda B. Causapin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Renato M. Alhambra, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 110276 July 29, 1994
ORLANDO G. UMOSO,petitioner,
vs.
HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and SEVERINO G. CARONAN,respondents.
J.P. Cortez & Associates for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
MENDOZA,J.:
This is a petition forcertiorarito set aside the Resolution1of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC), dismissing petitioner Orlando Umoso's appeal from the decision of the Merit System Protection Board2,upholding the appointment of private respondent Severino Caronan as Supervising Civil Engineer I by the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
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.3
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 letter4addressed 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.
The letter/protest of private respondent was referred to the complaints committee of the DPWH which, on May 7, 1990, issued a Memorandum5for 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.
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.
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.8
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.
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.9
Petitioner Umoso then appealed10to 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.
In its Resolution No. 93-74811dated 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.
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.
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.12
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.
We find this petition without merit.
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.13
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.14
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 ofErnesto 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 work
ELIGIBILITY — 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.
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).19
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.22
WHEREFORE, the petition forcertiorariis hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission dated February 26, 1993 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concurs.
Bellosillo, J., is on leave.
#Footnotes
1Rollo, p. 20.
2Id., p. 35.
3 Annex C, Petition;Rollo, p. 23.
4 Annex D, Private Respondent's Comment; Rollo, p. 73.
5 Annex G, Petition;Rollo, p. 31.
6 Annex H. Petition;Rollo, p. 33.
7 Annex I, Petition;Rollo,p. 34.
8Id., p. 38.
9 Annex J, Petition;Rollo, p. 39.
10 Annex N, Petition;Rollop. 45.
11 Annex B. Petition;Rollop. 20.
12Id., pp. 21-22.
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.
14 De la Cruz v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 88333, Dec. 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 419.
15 LOI No. 448, Aug. 18, 1976 as amended by LOI NO. 895, July 25, 1979 and LOI No. 1324, May 9, 1983.
16 Annex F, petition;Rollo,pp. 28-30.
17 G.R. No. 98930, Oct. 17, 1991.
18Rollo, p. 36.
19 id.
20 Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, Aug. 5, 1986, 143 SCRA 328.
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.
22 Civil Service Commission Decision,Rollo, pp. 21-22.