CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

Civil Service Commission versus De la Cruz

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 brought by the Civil Service Commission against Saturnino de la Cruz, an employee of the Air Transportation Office of the Department of Transportation and Communication. The Commission asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had set aside two Commission resolutions disapproving De la Cruz's promotional appointment as Chief of the Aviation Safety Regulation Office and had approved that appointment instead. The case matters because it fixes two rules every examinee must carry: the meaning of the phrase "and/or" in qualification standards, and the elementary principle that the power to appoint is discretionary and belongs to the appointing authority, not to the Commission.

Procedural History

De la Cruz was promotionally appointed to the contested position on November 28, 1994, and the appointment was duly attested by the Civil Service Commission. Annabella Calamba filed a protest with the Department of Transportation and Communication, claiming he did not meet the four-year supervisory requirement. The Department Secretary dismissed the protest. Calamba appealed to the Civil Service Commission's National Capital Region office, which, after several unanswered requests for comment from the Air Transportation Office, rendered a decision on November 18, 1997 upholding the protest and recalling the approval of the appointment. After conflicting letters from the regional director, the Commission treated Calamba's request for implementation as an appeal and issued Resolution No. 98-2970 on November 13, 1998, disapproving the appointment and reverting De la Cruz to his former position. His motion for reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 99-1451. De la Cruz then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which granted it, set aside both resolutions, and approved his appointment; the Commission's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Saturnino de la Cruz rose through the ranks of the Air Transportation Office. From March 1981 he served as Supply Checker, then Junior Aeronautical Engineer, then Air Carrier Safety Inspector, then Check Pilot I, and from March 1987 to November 1994 as Check Pilot II. On November 28, 1994 he was promotionally appointed Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer, the position at the head of the Aviation Safety Division.

In February 1995 Calamba protested the appointment, alleging that De la Cruz lacked the four-year supervisory requirement. The Department Secretary found the protest without merit, but on appeal the Commission's regional office ruled that, counting his prior positions, he could not have exercised managerial or supervisory functions for the required number of years as of the date of his appointment. The regional director later reversed himself, saying that a liberal consideration of the records showed substantial compliance; when asked to clarify the conflicting rulings, he explained that his earlier ruling was unofficial and inexistent.

The Commission itself then disapproved the appointment and ordered De la Cruz reverted to his former position, and denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals set aside both resolutions and approved the appointment, and the Commission elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in approving De la Cruz's appointment despite his alleged failure to meet the four-year managerial and supervisory qualification for the position.
• Whether or not the reckoning point for compliance with the qualification standards is the date of issuance of the appointment, rather than the date of its approval by the Commission or the date of resolution of the protest.
• Whether or not De la Cruz's completion of the required experience during the pendency of the case may be counted in his favor.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute or rule verbatim; it quotes the qualification standards of the Department of Transportation and Communication for the contested position, which provide:

EXPERIENCE: 4 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PLANNING, ORGANIZING, DIRECTING, COORDINATING, AND SUPERVISING THE ENFORCEMENT OF AIR SAFETY LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LICENSING, RATING AND CHECKING OF ALL AIRMEN AND MECHANICS AND THE REGULATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF FLYING SCHOOLS.

This standard, read together with the managerial standard in the Qualification Standards Manual, is the very language the Court construes through the phrase "and/or."

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacks merit because De la Cruz sufficiently complied with the experience standards. The standards allowed either four years of managerial experience under the Qualification Standards Manual or four years of experience in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and supervising the enforcement of air safety laws under the Department's own standards. The Court applied the settled rule of statutory construction that the term "and/or" means that the word "and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably, and that "or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from another. Hence either clause could be applied. While De la Cruz had only a little over one year of managerial experience at the time of his appointment, his work for more than thirteen years prior, spanning four of the five sections of the Aviation Safety Division, fell squarely within the supervisory standard of the second clause.

The Court added that his appointment passed the rigid screening of the Personnel Selection and Promotion Boards, that his trainings and his Airline Transport Pilot's License were taken into account, and that he was the uncontested choice of the appointing authority. It recalled that the power to appoint is in essence discretionary, that the appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his best judgment, and that between the Commission and the appointing authority, the Court sustains the latter.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Commission that the reckoning point is the date of issuance of the appointment, not the date of its approval by the Commission or the date of resolution of the protest. On the third issue, the Court found it unnecessary to rule, since De la Cruz was qualified at the time of his appointment; but it observed that even assuming he was not, the Commission itself had previously allowed appointments of personnel initially lacking in experience who later obtained it, and by that reasoning he would be deemed to have complied.

Doctrine

First, the phrase "and/or" in a qualification standard means that "and" and "or" are used interchangeably, so that either of the alternative standards may be applied in determining whether an applicant qualifies. Second, the power to appoint is essentially discretionary; the appointing authority considers not only civil service eligibility but also performance, education, work experience, trainings and seminars attended, agency examinations and seniority, and its final choice should be respected and left undisturbed, for as long as the appointee satisfies the legal requirements of the office. Third, the reckoning point for determining an appointee's qualifications is the date of issuance of the appointment, not the date of its approval by the Commission or the resolution of a protest against it.

Disposition

The petition was denied; the decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside the two Commission resolutions was affirmed, and the appointment of Saturnino de la Cruz as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer was approved.

Remember This

Memorize this line: between the Commission and the appointing authority, the Court sustains the latter, because the power to appoint is discretionary and the appointee's qualifications are measured as of the date the appointment was issued. Examiners use this case to test the meaning of "and/or" in qualification standards and the limits of the Civil Service Commission's power to disapprove an appointment that meets the legal requirements.