EDGAR N. RAPISORA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

This petition for certiorari with mandamus seeks to
set aside Resolution No. 92-1214 dated 3 September 1992^[1] of
the respondent Civil Service Commission denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the Commission’s Resolution No. 92-699 dated 26 May 1992^[2]
which disapproved the permanent appointment of petitioner as Provincial Health Officer I,
Integrated Provincial Health Office, Benguet Province. The dispositive part of Resolution No.
92-699 reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission resolves that: the appointment of Dr. Edgar N. Rapisora as Provincial Health Officer I,
Integrated Provincial Health Office, Benguet be disapproved; and, the action of
Director E. Tadle-Herrera of CSC-DOH be set aside.”^[3]

Petitioner was the Chief of Hospital of the Kalamansig District
Hospital in the Province of Sultan Kudarat, Mindanao, when he learned that the
position of Provincial Health Officer I of Benguet would become vacant. He forthwith applied for the said position. A committee was created by the Department of
Health to screen applicants for the vacant positions in the Department
including the position applied for by petitioner.

On 5 November 1991, then Secretary of Health, Honorable Alfredo
R. A. Bengzon designated herein petitioner as officer-in-charge of the Office
of the Provincial Health Officer I, Integrated Provincial Health Office of
Benguet.^[4]
Thereafter, he was extended a permanent appointment, by transfer with promotion, on 24
December 1991.^[5]
Petitioner actually assumed the duties of the position on 2 January 1992.

When petitioner assumed office as Provincial Health Officer I on
2 January 1992, the new Local Government Code had taken effect on 1 January
1992, for which reason respondent, through Director E. Tadle-Herrera, CSC-DOH,
returned to the Secretary of Health petitioner’s appointment calling the
Secretary’s attention to Section 463, Chapter 2, Title IV of the Local
Government Code of 1992.^[6]
Hence, the Secretary of Health, Honorable Antonio O. Periquet who had succeeded
Secretary Alfredo R.A. Bengzon, wrote Benguet Governor Andres R. Bugnosen
seeking his concurrence in the appointment of petitioner and informing the
Governor that the Department of Health after a formal screening and evaluation
by its executive committee believed that petitioner was the most appropriate
person to assume the position in question. Governor Bugnosen concurred with the petitioner’s appointment.^[7]

On 3 April 1992, petitioner’s appointment was approved by the
Field Officer of the respondent, Director E. Tadle Herrera as TEMPORARY,
“(P)ending promulgation of the guide­lines on who will be the appointing
authority pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991.”^[8]

Petitioner appealed to respondent Commission, seeking reconsideration
of his appointment from temporary to permanent which was the appointment
extended to him by the Secretary of Health. Respondent instead set aside the action of Director E. Tadle-Herrera and
entirely disapproved petitioner’s appointment on the ground that he did not
possess a Certificate/Master in Public Health/Hospital Administration which is
the educational requirement for the position at the time of appointment, in
accordance with DOH qualification standards. Moreover, according to respondent, the Local Government Code of 1992
already took effect when petitioner assumed office on 2 January 1992, so that
in accordance therewith, the Provincial Health Officer I should be appointed by
the local chief executive concerned with the concurrence of a majority of all
the members of the Sanggunian, subject to Civil Service law.

The issues raised in the present petition^[9] may
be simplified to whether or not respondent Civil Service Commission committed
grave abuse of discretion in dis­approving petitioner’s permanent appointment
as Provincial Health Officer I of Benguet Province.

We
find the petition meritorious.

Petitioner was extended a permanent appointment even before the
Local Government Code took effect, after he went through a rigid interview by
the Executive Committee created by the Department of Health to screen
applicants for available positions in the Department. Under DOH qualification standards for the position of Provincial
Health Officer I, the appointee must meet the following requirements:

“Education:     Doctor of Medicine with a certificate/Master
in Public Health/Hospital Administration

Experience:   5
years experience in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and
supervising various public health and medical activities.

Eligibility:       RA
1080 (Physician)”^[10]

True enough, petitioner did not possess a Certificate/Master in
Public Health/Hospital Administration at the time of his appointment. Apparently then Health Secretary Bengzon
decided that petitioner’s other qualifications, such as, his training
and experience in hospital administration offset or made up for his deficiency in educational requirement. Prior to his appointment to the position in
question, petitioner held the position of Chief of Hospital, Kalamansig
District Hospital, Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat. In addition, while in foreign employment from 1976 to 1985, he served as
officer-in-charge of two (2) general hospitals in Nigeria and attended
seminars, symposia, workshops, clinical conferences, and trained
newly-graduated Nigerian physicians in general surgery. These training and expe­rience must have
been taken into account by Health Secretary Bengzon when he extended a
permanent appointment to peti­tioner, which appointment his successors,
Honorable Antonio O. Periquet and the incumbent Honorable Juan M. Flavier, also
recommended for approval by the Civil Service Commission.

Respondent finds untenable petitioner’s contention that his
deficiency in educational requirement (Master in Public Health/Hospital
Administration) can be offset by his train­ing and experience. It maintains that petitioner should at least
have earned for himself some units or started pursuing such particular
educational requirements as allegedly required by the rule on substitution.

We do not agree. This
rule cannot be strictly inter­preted as to curtail an agency’s discretionary
power to appoint as long as the appointee possesses other quali­fications
required by law.

Recently, this Court held:

“It would be appropriate to state at the outset that when necessary,
education, experience or training may be used interchangeably to offset
deficiencies (in fact, the CSC issued Memorandum Circular No. 23 series of 1991
expressly allowing the offsetting of deficiencies except the required
elibility). The necessity exists if the
appoin­tee’s training or experience is
of such a level that the same would more than supplement the deficiency
in education considering the demands of the position in question. The converse holds true if the appointee’s
deficiency is in the required training or experience. The decision as to when the conditions give rise to a necessity
to interchange education with experience and vice-versa rests upon the sound
discretion of the appointing authority. This is not to be viewed as an unbridled license given to the appointing
authority to appoint whomsoever he desires. This is rather a recognition of the fact that the appointing authority
is in the best position to determine the needs of his department or agency and
how to satisfy those needs. Moreover,
it is precisely the province of the QS to provide the gauge by which the
appointing authority shall exercise his
discretion. The QS has been defined in
Section 20, PD 807 as expressing the minimum requirements for a class of
position in terms of education, training and experience, civil service
eligibility, physical fitness and other qualities required for successful
performance. It is, thus the QS which
provides for the considerations upon which the appointing authority decides
when the levels of education or experience may be sufficient to offset each
other.”^[11]

As repeatedly ruled by the Court, the Civil Service Commission is
not empowered to determine or change the kind or nature of the appointment, for
it is an essential discretionary power and must be performed by the officer on
whom it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that
the appointee should possess the minimum qualification required by law. In the case at bench, then Secretary of
Health, Honorable Alfredo R.A. Bengzon, and his successors, Honorable Antonio
O. Periquet and Hon. Juan M. Flavier, believe that petitioner possesses the
necessary qualifications required by law for the position.

It is worthy to note that respondent Commission had approved the
appointment of a former Public Health Officer I in Benguet, Dr. Emilio B.
Cadayona, who at the time of his appointment in 1988 did not also possess a
Certificate/Master’s degree in Public Health/Hospital Administration but, like
petitioner, was a holder of the Degree of Doctor of Medicine. The Court suggests that respondent look
more closely into its own resolutions and be consistent in resolving the
qualifications of appointees.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court sets aside Resolution No. 92-699, dated 26 May 1992, and Reso­lution
No. 92-1214, dated 3 September 1992 of respondent Civil Service Commission, and
orders the respondent Commis­sion to approve petitioner’s permanent appointment
as Provincial
Health Officer I, Integrated Provincial Health Office, Benguet Province.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex “A”, pp.
33-36, Rollo

^[2]
Annex “B”, pp. 37-39, ibid.

^[3]
p. 39, ibid.

^[4]
Annex “G-1”, p. 52, ibid.

^[5]
Annex “C”, p. 40, ibid.

^[6]
Section 463 enumerates the Provincial Officials in general, one of which is a
provincial health officer.

^[7]
Annex “C”, p. 40, ibid.

^[8]
Annex “C-1”, p. 41, ibid.

^[9]
I-The Civil Service Commission erred in
disapproving the appointment of
herein petitioner, Resolutions Nos. 92-699 and 92-1214 being contrary to
law and jurisprudence, done with
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, so the Commission should
be mandated to approve petitioner’s appointment as issued by the Secretary of
Health;

II-The Civil Service Commission erred in not using its investigative
powers to determine the justification of petitioner’s appointment;

III-The Civil Service Commission
erred in not taking into account that once the aforestated resolutions become
final and executory, and enforced, the petitioner, a permanent career civil service employee who was transferred to another
job by way of promotion due to merit will loss (sic) a job which is the Commission’s
bounden duty to protect.

^[10]
Annex “C-1”, supra

^[11]
Torio vs. Civil Service Commission, et. al., G.R. No. 99336; Espanola vs.
Civil Service Commission, et. al., G.R. No. 100178, June 9, 1992, 209 SCRA 677.