G.R. No. 101251. November 05, 1992
ELISEO A. SINON, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-REORGANIZATION APPEALS BOARD AND JUANA BANAN, RESPONDENTS.
CAMPOS, JR., J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the following
Resolutions of the public respondents Civil Service Commission (the
“CSC”)* and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Appeals Board (the “DARAB”),** to wit:
1.
Resolution No. 97
dated August 23, 1989, issued by respondent DARAB which revoked petitioner’s
permanent appointment as Municipal
Agriculture Officer (MAO) and appointed, in his stead, private respondent Juana
Banan (Rollo 17);
2.
Resolution dated February 8, 1991 issued by the respondent CSC
affirming the aforementioned Resolution of respondent DARAB (Rollo 22);
3.
Resolution dated July
11, 1991 issued by the respondent CSC which denied petitioner’s motion for the
reconsideration of the respondent Commission’s
Resolution dated February 8, 1991.[1]
The antecedent facts are as
follows:
Prior to the reorganization of the then Ministry of Agriculture
and Food (the “MAF”), the private respondent Juana Banan was the incumbent Municipal Agricultural Officer
(MAO) of the aforesaid Ministry in Region II, Cagayan, while the petitioner Eliseo
Sinon occupied the position of Fisheries Extension Specialist (FES) II in the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) in the same region.
However, the reorganization of the MAF into the Department of
Agriculture (the “DA”) with the issuance of Executive Order No. 116
dated 30 January 1987, called for the evaluation of the following employees for
the twenty nine positions of MAO in Region II, Cagayan. The list as prepared by the Placement
Committee included the herein petitioner Sinon but excluded the respondent
Banan:
1. Binoya, Vicente 76.20%
2. Cabana, Isidro S. 75.01%
3. Sebastian, Alice 74.18%
4. Zingapan, Benjamin 70.73%
5. Guzman, Wilhelmina de
la P. 70.50%
6. Gervacio, Agnes 69.86%
7. Somera, Hilario S. 68.13%
8. Tolentino, Julian R. 67.64%
9. Guillermo, Pedro 67.22%
10. Tambio, Rodolfo 67.00%
11. Aquino, Martina 66.94%
12. Bassig, Pio P. 66.84%
13. Rumpon, Danilo P. 65.61%
14. Zareno, Bernardo 65.57%
15. Madrid, Angel S. 65.57%
16. Callangan, Napoleon 65.45%
17. Fiesta, Felicisimo 65.29%
18. Alvarez, Benefranco 64.99%
19. Baggayan, Samuel 64.42%
20. Umbay, Pedro T. 64.01%
21. De la Cruz, Florencio M. 62.07%
22. Leonador, Ernesto T. 61.88%
23. Miguel, Jose 61.86%
24. Berlan, Herminia C. 61.76%
25. Soliman, Clemente 61.52%
26. Llopis, Lino 61.47%
27. Baliuag, Felicidad C. 61.39%
28. Aresta, Leticia 60.67%
29. Sinon, Eliseo
A. 60.66%[2]
(Underscoring supplied).
Thus, respondent Banan filed an appeal with the DARAB for re-evaluation of the qualifications
of all those included in the aforementioned list made by the Placement
Committee.
On August 23, 1989, the DARAB released Resolution No. 97 in which
the ranking for 29 MAO prepared
by the Placement Committee was re-evaluated
as follows:
1. Binoya, Vicente 76.20%
2. Cabana, Isidro 75.01%
3. Sebastian, Alice 72.18%
4. Zingapan, Benjamin 70.73%
5. Guzman, Wilhemina de la
P. 70.50%
6. Gervacio, Agnes 70.04%
7. Somera, Hilario S. 68.13%
8. Tolentino, Julian Jr. 67.64%
9. Guillermo, Pedro 67.22%
10. Tambio, Rodolfo 67.00%
11. Aquino, Martina D. 66.94%
12. Bassig, Pio P. 66.84%
13. Rumpon, Danilo P. 65.61%
14. Madrid, Angel 65.57%
15. Callangan, Napoleon 65.45%
16. Fiesta, Felicisimo 65.29%
17. Alvarez, Benefranco 64.99%
18. Baggayan, Samuel O. 64.42%
19. Umbay, Pedro T. 64.01%
20. De la Cruz, Florencio M. 62.07%
21. Leonador, Ernesto T. 61.88%
22. Miguel, Jose L. 61.86%
23. Berlan, Herminia C. 61.76%
24. Soliman, Clemente 61.52%
25. Zareno, Bernardo 61.50%
26. Llopis, Lino 61.47%
27. Baliuag, Felicidad 61.39%
28. Rosario, Jaime C. 60.18%
29. Banan, Juana 59.32%[3]
(Underscoring supplied).
In this re-evaluation, petitioner Sinon was displaced by the
respondent Banan and this same resolution was duly approved by the Secretary of
the Department of Agriculture, Carlos G. Dominguez, who also affixed his
signature on the same date.
However, on August 30, 1988, Sinon received an appointment as MAO
for Region II in Cagayan as approved by Regional Director Gumersindo D. Lasam
on the basis of the first evaluation made by the Placement Committee.
Thus, Sinon filed an appeal docketed as Civil Service Case No.
573 on November 22, 1989 to the CSC. This appeal was granted mainly for two reasons: first, the respondent DARAB failed to file
its Comment within the period required; and second, the evaluation of the
qualification of the employees is a question of fact which the appointing
authority or the Placement Committee assisting him is in a better position to
determine. Hence, the Resolution dated
28 February 1989 of the DARAB was set aside.[4]
On March 19, 1990, Banan filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which
she pitted her qualifications against Sinon for the last slot in the 29
available MAO positions. At the same
time, she pointed out that to allow the findings of the Placement Committee to
supercede the DARAB resolution which the Secretary of Agriculture had approved
would be tantamount to giving precedence to the Placement Committee over the
head of the agency.
Finally, on February 8, 1991, CSC, after reviewing the Comment
filed by the DARAB which had not been considered earlier in the Civil Service Case No. 573, the CSC granted
respondent Banan’s Motion for Reconsideration and gave due course to her
appointment by the DARAB.
On March 21, 1991, Sinon filed Motion for Reconsideration of the
February 8, 1991 Resolution which however was
denied by the CSC in its assailed Resolution dated July 11, 1991.
According to the respondent CSC:
Mr. Sinon strongly argued that the findings of the Placement
Committee on the qualifications of the parties should be accorded deference and
greater weight over that of the RAB. Under the Placement Committee’s evaluation, Mr. Sinon garnered 60.66
while Ms. Juana Banan earned 57.32 after assessing the contending
parties qualification in education, relevant experience, eligibility and other
factors. Following the request of several
parties for reevaluation, the RAB in their decision gave Mr. Sinon 57.66
while Ms. Banan obtained 59.32. Seemingly the findings of the two bodies are in conflict. Mr. Sinon argues that the findings of the
Placement Committee should prevail since it is specially mandated by RA 6656.
We disagree. The Placement
Committee’s function is recommendatory in nature. The agency’s
Reorganization Appeals Board was specially created by the Circular of the
Office of the President dated October 2, 1987 and conferred with authority to
review appeals and complaints of officials and employees affected by the
reorganization. The decision of the
agency RAB has the imprimatur of the Secretary of that
agency and is therefore controlling in matters of appointment. Under this principle, the decision of the
DARAB in this case enjoys precedence over the Placement Committee.[5]
Hence, this petition was
filed with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and/or restraining order
to enjoin the execution of the assailed resolutions.
Without giving due course
to the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court required the
parties to file their respective Comments.[6]
On 12 November 1992, the Court gave due course to the petition
and required the parties to submit
their respective Memoranda.[7]
The main issue for Our consideration is this: whether or not
the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in reviewing and re-evaluating the
rating or qualification of the petitioner Sinon.
The arguments of the petitioner can be summed up as follows:
1). In issuing the Resolution of 8 February
1991, the CSC in effect revoked the appointment that the petitioner received as
early as 30 August 1989 and which was deemed permanent by virtue of the
approval of the Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture;
2). In giving petitioner a rating of only 57.66%,[8]
from his previous rating of 60.66% and at the same time according a rating of
59.32% to private respondent from a rating of only 57.32%, the CSC departed
from its power which is limited only to that of “review”, and hence
encroached upon the power of appointment exclusively lodged in the appointing
authority;
3). In giving due course to the
appointment of respondent Banan in its Resolution of 8 February 1991, CSC was
directing the appointment of a substitute of their own choice when the power to
appoint was exclusively lodged in the appointing authority.
We rule as follows.
By grave abuse of
discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The
abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[9]
Contrary to the
allegations of the petitioner, We do not find any evidence of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CSC when it issued Resolution dated 8 February
1991 which in effect approved the appointment of respondent Banan over
petitioner Sinon.
With the reorganization of
the MAF into the DA with Executive Order No. 116, it became imperative to
“protect the security of tenure of Civil Service Officers and employees in
the implementation of government reorganization”. Thus, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6656.[10]
It was under the
same law of R.A. 6656 that the Placement Committee was created:
Section 6. In order that
the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be appointed in any
reorganization, there shall be created a Placement Committee in each
department or agency to assist the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel. The
Committee Shall consist of two (2) members appointed by the head of the
department or agency, a representative of the appointing authority, and
two (2) members duly elected by the employees holding positions in the first
and second levels of the career service: Provided, that if there is a registered
employee association with a majority of the employees as members, that employee
association shall also have a representative in the Committee: Provided, further, that immediately
upon the approval of the staffing pattern of the department or agency
concerned, such staffing pattern shall be made known to all officers and
employees of the agency who shall be invited to apply for any of the positions
authorized therein. Such application
shall be considered by the committee in the placement and selection of
personnel. (Underscoring ours).
To “assist” means to lend an aid to,[11]
or to contribute effort in the complete accomplishment of an ultimate purpose
intended to be effected by those engaged.[12]
In contrast, to “recommend”[13]
is to present one’s advice or choice as having one’s approval or to represent
or urge as advisable or expedient. It
involves the idea that another has the final decision.
Clearly, the Placement Committee was charged with the duty of
exercising the same discretionary functions as the appointing authority
in the judicious selection and placement of personnel when the law empowered it
to “assist” the appointing authority.
The same law also allows any officer or employee aggrieved by the
appointments to file an appeal with the appointing
authority who shall make a decision within thirty (30) days
from the filing thereof. If the same
employee is still not satisfied with the decision of the
appointing authority, he may further appeal within ten (10) days from the
receipt thereof to the CSC.[14]
In the case at bar, the Circular dated October 2, 1987 of the
Office of the President created the agency Reorganization Appeals Board to
address the problem of employees affected by the reorganizations.
The foregoing legal
measures spell out the remedies of aggrieved
parties which make it impossible to give the status of finality to any
appointment until all protests or oppositions are duly heard.
Thus, while it is true that the appointment paper received by
petitioner Sinon on 30 August 1989 for the position of MAO had not conferred
any permanent status and was still subject to the following conditions attached
to any appointment in the civil service:
“Provided that there is no pending administrative case against
the appointee, no pending protest against the appointment, nor any decision by
competent authority that will adversely affect the approval of the
appointment.”[15]
Hence, for as long as the re-evaluation of the qualifications
filed by Banan was pending, the petitioner cannot claim that he had been issued
with a “complete” appointment. Neither is there any point in asserting that his appointment had
“cured” whatever change was subsequently recommended by the DARAB.[16]
The fact that the DARAB is
capable of re-evaluating the findings of the Placement Committee only to find
that Sinon is not qualified should not be taken as a grave abuse of discretion.
We cannot subscribe to petitioner Sinon’s insistence that the
public respondent CSC had disregarded the findings of the Placement
Committee. The truth is, these findings
were re-evaluated and the report after such re-evaluation was submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. The CSC affirmed the findings of the DARAB.
Because of all the foregoing circumstances, the Jurisprudence
cited by the petitioner Sinon appears to be incorrect.[17]
Neither do we find in the Resolution of 8 February 1991, any
statement by the CSC directing the appointment of the respondent Banan. Hence, there was no directive from the CSC
that may be misinterpreted as a usurpation of any appointing power.[18]
Besides, in affirming the appointment
of Banan as recommended by the DARAB and approved by the Secretary of
Agriculture, the CSC is only being consistent with the law. Section 4 of R.A. 6656 mandates that officers and employees holding
permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the new
positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former
positions. Also, the term incumbent officer and the privileges
generally accorded to them would more aptly refer to Banan and not to
petitioner Sinon whose appointment was never confirmed completely.[19]
There is no dispute that the position of MAO in the old staffing pattern is
most comparable to the MAO in the new staffing pattern.
Finally, the Solicitor General in behalf of the CSC correctly
noted that the petitioner Sinon had conveniently omitted the then Secretary of
Agriculture who had affixed his approval on the findings of the DARAB. Petitioner Sinon knew fully well that as head of the agency, the Secretary of
Agriculture was the appointing authority.
It must be recalled that the whole purpose of reorganization is
that it is a “process of restructuring the bureaucracy’s organizational
and functional set-up, to make it more viable in terms of the economy,
efficiency, effectiveness and make it more responsive to the needs of its
public clientele, as authorized by law.”[20] For as long as the CSC confines itself within the limits set out by
law and does not encroach upon the prerogatives endowed to other authorities,
this Court must sustain the Commission.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Acting C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, and
Melo, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., J., on official
leave.
Bidin, J., in the result.
Griño-Aquino, J., In the result
only for we ruled in Bustamante vs. Executive Secretary 186 SCRA 109 and Parian
vs. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 772 that the reorganization of the
Department of Agriculture was null and void.
Medialdea, J., on leave.
* Penned by the Hon. Patricia A.
Sto. Tomas, Chairman; with Hon. Samilo N. Barlongay, concurring.
** Mr. Dante Q. Barbosa, Chairman;
with Mr. Carlos A. Fernandez, Mr. Conrado C. Gozun, Ms. Lourdes P. Santos, Mr.
Apolonio V. Bautista, and Mr. Arturo T. Lising as members.
[1]
Rollo, p. 25.
[2]
Rollo, p. 18.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Rollo, p. 36.
[5]
Rollo, p. 26.
[6]
Rollo, p. 81.
[7]
Rollo, p. 98.
[8]
RAB Resolution No. 97, August 23, 1989; Rollo, p. 20.
[9]
Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 165 SCRA 284 (1988) and Litton Mills, Inc. vs. Galleon
Trader, Inc., 163 SCRA 494 (1988).
[10]
Approved on June 10, 1988.
[11]
Peabody vs. Town of Holland, 178 A. 888, 889 107 Vt. 237, 98 A.L.R. 866
cited in “ASSIST” from 4A WORDS AND PHRASES 182 (1969).
However, the word
“assist” in statutory construction and jurisprudence usually appears
in the statutes defining accessories after the fact.
[12]
People vs. Thurman, 62 Cal. App. 147; 216 P. 394 (1923).
[13]
Cited in People of Virgin Islands vs.
Price, C.A. Virgin Islands, 181 F. 2d 394, 396, in
“RECOMMEND”, 36A WORDS AND PHRASES 17 (1969).
[14]
R.A. 6656, Section 7 and Section 8.
[15]
Rollo, p. 29.
[16]
See Lustre vs. Civil
Service Commission, 197 SCRA 295 (1991).
[17]
These are the cases of Gaspar vs. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 774
(1990); Gabriel vs. Domingo, 189 SCRA 672 (1990); Orbos vs. Civil
Service Commission, 189 SCRA 459 (1990); Luego vs. Civil Service
Commission, 143 SCRA 327 (1986); Central Bank vs. Civil Service
Commission, 171 SCRA 744 (1989).
[18]
See Cortez vs. Civil Service Commission, 195 SCRA 218 (1991).
[19]
See Inocencio Pari-an vs. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 772 (1991).
[20]
Rules on Government Reorganization, June 30, 1988, released pursuant to the
provisions of Section 12 of R.A. 6656.