G.R. No. 110276. July 29, 1994
ORLANDO G. UMOSO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AND SEVERINO G. CARONAN, RESPONDENTS.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the
Resolution[1]
of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC), dismissing petitioner Orlando
Umoso’s appeal from the decision of the Merit System Protection Board[2],
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 letter[4]
addressed 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 Memorandum[5]
for 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.[6]
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,[7]
dismissing 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 appealed[10]
to 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. 93-748[11]
dated 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 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.[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.[15]
Thus, 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.[16]
In the analogous case of Ernesto Perez v. Merit System Protection Board,[17]
this 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 Qualification 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.[20]
The Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that
another person is more qualified for a particular position.[21]
Correctly 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, his 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 for certiorari is 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., concur.
Bellosillo, J., on leave.
[1]
Rollo, p. 20.
[2]
Id., 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.
[8]
Id., p. 38.
[9]
Annex J, Petition; Rollo, p. 39.
[10]
Annex N, Petition; Rollo p. 45.
[11]
Annex B, Petition; Rollo p. 20.
[12]
Id., 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.
[18]
Rollo, p. 36
[19]
Id.
[20]
Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 69137, Aug. 5, 1986,
143 SCRA 328.
[21]
Patagoc 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.