DR. MARIQUITA J. MANTALA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. IGNACIO L. SALVADOR, JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, AND DR. JULIA P. REGINO.

At issue in this certiorari proceeding is (a) the validity
of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court over the matter
of who is entitled, under the law and rules governing the civil service, to a
contested position in the Department of Health, as well as (b) the correctness
of said Court’s decision on the question.

It appears that sometime in July, 1988, Dr. Mariquita J. Mantala,
a private medical practitioner, was given by the Secretary of Health a
temporary appointment to the then vacant position of Division Chief, Medical
Division III, Monitoring and Evaluation Division of the TB Control Service,
Office of Public Health, of the Department of Health.

That temporary appointment was shortly made subject of a formal
protest filed by Dr. Julia P. Regino with the Committee on Evaluation and
Protest of the Department of Health. Dr. Regino claimed that it was she to whom the appointment should have
been extended since the post of Medical Officer III then held by her was
next-in-rank to the office in question, and moreover she had been in the
service for thirty-five years. However,
the Committee on Evaluation and Protest ruled adversely to her and upheld the
Health Secretary’s appointment of Dr. Mantala as Division Chief.

Dr. Regino appealed to the Merit Systems Board of the Civil
Service Commission. On December 14,
1989, the Board rendered a verdict adversely to Dr. Mantala and in Dr. Regino’s
favor. This decision the Department of
Health appealed to the Civil Service Commission.

Some three weeks later, or more precisely on January 8, 1990,
Secretary Bengzon made Dr. Mantala’s appointment as Division Chief
permanent. He also filed, under date of
January 23, 1989, a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision
of the Merit Systems Board which was, however, denied, on February 12, 1990.

Secretary Bengzon thereupon took the case up to the Civil Service
Commission. In its Resolution dated
June 14, 1990 (No. 90-­553), the Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the decision of the Merit Systems Board in Dr. Regino’s favor.

On a motion for reconsideration, however, the Commission, by its
Resolution No. 90-1012 dated November 14, 1990, set aside the resolution of
dismissal and upheld Dr. Mantala’s appointment. It declared “that insofar as overall rating of the
qualification, attitude and performance (was concerned), Dr. Mantala outscored
Dr. Regino,” and that the appointing authority is not limited to promotion
in filling up vacancies but may opt to fill them by the appointment of persons
with civil service eligibility appropriate to the position. Dr. Regino filed a motion for reconsideration stressing her status as “a
qualified next-in-rank” officer. This was denied, the Commission declaring that it would “not delve
into who is more qualified or who possesses more impressive
qualifications” in deference to the discretion lodged by law in the
appointing authority.

No appeal was taken from said Resolution No. 90-1012. It consequently became final and executory.

In the meantime, or more precisely on March 12, 1990, Dr. Regino
instituted an action of quo warranto and mandamus in the Regional
Trial Court at Quezon City against Dr. Mantala, Secretary Bengzon and other
officials of the Department of Health, claiming that having an established
right to the position of Division Chief in question, she should be installed
therein (Civil Case No. Q-90-5486). This resulted in a judgment dated August 30, 1991 which –

1) annulled and set
aside Dr. Mantala’s appointment as Chief of Medical Division III in the
Tuberculosis Control Service, Office for Public Health Services, Department of
Health;

2) directed the
Secretary of Health to withdraw Dr. Mantala’s appointment and “issue in
its place one for ** Dr. Julia P. Regino and, without delay, to forward the
latter’s promotional appointment to the Civil Service Commission for approval
pursuant to law;” and

3) declared Dr.
Mantala not entitled to said office and ousting her therefrom **.”

Hence this petition for review on certiorari in which it
is prayed that the Regional Trial Court’s decision be reversed.

The petition has merit and will be granted. The decision of August 30, 1991 is fatally
flawed. It was rendered without
jurisdiction, and it runs afoul of established doctrine.

Disciplinary cases, and cases involving “personnel
actions” affecting employees in the civil service — including
“appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re­employment,
detail, reassignment, demotion and separation,” and, of course, employment
status and qualification standards — are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission. The
Constitution declares the Commission to be “the central personnel agency of the
Government,”^[1]
having power and authority to administer the civil service;^[2] to promulgate its own rules
concerning pleadings and practice before
it or before any of its offices;^[3] and
to render decision in “any case or matter brought before it within sixty
days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution,” which
decision, or order or ruling “may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”^[4]

On October 9, 1989, pursuant to the constitutional authority on
it conferred, the Civil Service Commission, in its Resolution No. 89-779,
approved, adopted and promulgated its “Rules on Administrative
Disciplinary Cases and Rules on Protest Cases.” Part B of said Rules,
entitled “B. Rules on Protest Cases,”
inter alia sets out with particularity the Commission’s jurisdiction broadly
set forth in the Constitution, to wit:

“Section 3. Final
Appellate Jurisdiction.–The Civil Service Commission shall exercise final
and exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Merit
Systems Protection Board and the Civil Service Regional Offices involving
contested appointments or promotions.”

and prescribes the procedure (Rule IV)
governing protest cases. Said protest
cases are described as follows:^[5]

“(a) An appointment made in favor
of another next-in-rank employee who is not qualified;

(b) An appointment made in favor of one who is
not next-in-rank;

(c) An appointment made in favor of one who is
appointed by transfer and not next-in-rank, or by reinstatement or by original
appointment, if the employee making the protest is not satisfied with the
written special reason or reasons given by the appointing authority for such
appointment.”

These
protest cases are decided in the first instance by the head of Department or agency,
subject to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, whose decisions are in
turn subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commission. The latter’s decision may, in turn, be
brought to the Supreme Court.

It was thus error, because beyond its competence, for the
respondent Trial Court to take cognizance of the quo warranto
and mandamus action instituted by Dr. Regino which was in essence a
protest against the appointment of Dr. Mantala. Moreover, this protest, as already stated, had earlier been
submitted by Regino herself to the civil service adjudicatory system laid down
for the purpose in accordance with the Constitution, the law, and the
Commission’s rules. Dr. Regino appealed
to the Merit Systems Protection Board from the decision of the Secretary of
Health rejecting her protest and upholding the appointment of Dr. Mantala. She ventilated her position in the appellate
proceedings instituted by Dr. Mantala in the Civil Service Commission, in
connection with the latter’s attempt to overthrow the adverse judgment of the
Board. When the Commission, in its
Resolution of November 14, 1990, eventually sustained Dr. Mantala’s appeal, Dr.
Regino filed a motion for reconsideration. It was only after that Resolution of November 14, 1990, in Dr. Mantala’s
favor, became final and executory by reason of Dr. Regino’s failure to
take an appeal therefrom — and evidently to remedy this fatal procedural lapse
— that the latter thought of filing her quo warranto and mandamus
action in the Regional Trial Court. Such a stratagem cannot be allowed to succeed.

Even on the merits, Dr. Regino’s cause fails. For one thing, the Commissions’ conclusion
— “that insofar as overall rating of the qualification, attitude and
performance (was concerned), Dr. Mantala outscored Dr. Regino” — is
basically a factual one and may not be reviewed on certiorari; and
its legal opinion — that the appointing authority is not limited to promotion
in filling up vacancies but may opt to fill them by the appointment of persons
with civil service eligibility appropriate to the position — is entirely in
accord with law. For another, the now
firmly established doctrine is that the discretion exercised by the appointing
power in extending an appointment to a given position to one of two or more employees
possessing the requisite minimum qualifications for the position, will not
generally be interfered with and must be sustained, and the Civil Service
Commission has no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it
believes that another employee is better qualified, for that would constitute
an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
August 30, 1991 is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and Resolution No. 90-1012
dated November 14, 1990 of the Civil Service Commission upholding Dr. Mantala’s
appointment to the contested position, which has long since become final and
executory, is hereby declared to be determinative and conclusive of the
controversy at bar and, if not yet carried out, must now be forthwith
executed. Costs against private
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
ART. IX-B, Sec. 3

^[2]
Id., Sec. 1 (1)

^[3]
ART. IX-A, Sec. 6

^[4]
Id., Sec. 7

^[5]
Rule 4, Sec. 6

^[6]
Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327, 333. The doctrine has since been confirmed and
applied in, among others, Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission,
171 SCRA 744; Santiago, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, 178 SCRA 733.