ERLINDA P. MERAM, PETITIONER, VS. FILIPINA V. EDRALIN, THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to set aside
the decision of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, permanently
enjoining the Minister of Natural Resources and the Director of the Bureau of
Forest Development (BFD) from enforcing and implementing the decisions of the
Merit Systems Board and the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission which
ordered the appointment of the petitioner to the contested position of
Administrative Officer V in the Bureau of Forest Development.

On July 29, 1982,
the private respondent Filipina V. Edralin, who was a
training officer of the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD)
was proposed for appointment to the position of Administrative Officer V, R-73,
Administrative Division of the BFD. 
Petitioner herein and Mr. Hermecio M. Agravio who hold the positions of
Administrative Officer III, R-70 and Supply Officer V, R-70 respectively, filed
their protest against the proposal.

On the same date, the Director of the BFD sent a memorandum to
the respondent Minister stating that in the course of the deliberation of the
BFD Promotion Board, the latter found out that there are four BFD Personnel in
the Central Office who are considered “next-in-rank” to the position
of Administrative Officer V namely:

“Erlinda P. Meram, Administrative Officer III, Range 70, assigned as
Chief of the Internal Control Staff.

“Hermecio M.
Agravio, Supply Officer V, Range 70, Chief of the
Property Section, designated Asst. Chief of the Administrative Division from October 8, 1981 to July 20, 1982.

“Atty. Dominador Malong, Legal Officer,
Range 69, assigned in the Legal
Division.

“Atty. Salome T. Cansino, Trial Attorney Range 69, assigned in the Legal
Division.” (Rollo, pp. 30-31)

In his memorandum, the Director also pointed out that the Board found
that Mrs. Filipina V. Edralin, Training Officer, Range 60, assigned in the Training
Center was not next-in-rank.

On August 10, 1982,
the Civil Service Commission forwarded to the respondent Minister the protests
of the petitioner and Agravio for appropriate action.

On August 12, 1982,
the respondent Minister forwarded the permanent appointment of respondent Edralin to take effect on August 17, 1982, as Administrative Officer V to the
Commission for appropriate action.

In his letter, the Minister explained that he assessed the
recommendation of the Promotions Board and considered also other aspects which
are vital to the dynamism of the
service; and upon seeing that respondent Edralin is
eminently qualified for the position, the person on whom he can repose his
trust and confidence, and who possesses the necessary integrity, knowledgeability and sound judgment, he decided to appoint
her to the said position for the best interest of the service.

In due course, the appointment was approved by the Commission
“subject to the final outcome of the protests against the appointment by Erlinda Meram and H. Agravio.”

On September 1, 1982,
the respondent Minister rendered a decision, embodied in two separate letters,
dismissing the protests.  In his letter
to the petitioner which was received by the latter on September 10, 1982, the Minister assured her
“that when another opportunity comes, and I have had a chance to better
appreciate your qualities and capabilities, then I would certainly consider you
for the appointment to a more senior position.”

Petitioner and Agravio appealed to the
Merit Systems Board (MSB)
pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 5 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1409.

On January 13, 1983,
the Merit Systems Board promulgated a decision in favor of Hermecio
M. Agravio, revoking the previous approval of the
appointment of respondent Edralin and directing the Minister to appoint, in her stead, Agravio
to the contested position.  In its
decision, the MSB ruled:

xxx                                                    xxx                                                       xxx

“Based on the
foregoing qualifications of the
contestants, this Board finds that all parties meet the eligibility
requirement.  While Mrs. Edralin and Mrs. Meram are
holders of bachelor’s degree supplemented with at least 12 units in management
and/or public administration, Mr. Agravio, although a
third year in Commerce, has relevant in-service trainings/seminars which would
sufficiently offset his one year deficiency in college work and the required 12
units in management/public administration (CSC Res. No. 682, dated July 20,
1977).  Thus, all meet the education
requirement for the contested position. 
As to the required 5 years experience, Mr. Agravio
has been (an) Administrative Officer
II for four years of progressively responsible experience in all phases of administrative functions.  In the same manner, Meram
has been a Disbursing Officer for more
than one year, a Budget Examiner for six
months, Cashier IV for five years, and an
Administrative Officer III for more than three years or a total of about
nine years and six months.  On the other
hand, the relevant experience of Edralin consists of
three years in Training Assistant and about one year as Training Officer, which
experiences as Trainor, although may be considered,
are however less than the required five years of progressively responsible
experience.  However, Edralin’s
deficiency in the required experience may be offset by her relevant training
and academic units earned in
Master of Public Administration.

“From the foregoing, it cannot be said that Mr. Agravio does not qualify for the position, or that Mrs. Meram’s
work experience are not suitable and relevant, and her education not
appropriate to the contested position. 
Moreover, the contested position is not confidential in nature but
rather, belongs to the second level in the career service so that trust and confidence are not
the decisive factors in filling the position.

“The Merit Promotion Plan established by the Bureau of Forest
Development shows that the positions considered next-in-rank to the contested
position of Administrative Officer V
(R-73) are: 
Administrative Officer III (R- 70), Supply Officer IV (R-70), Senior
Legal Officer (R-69).  Mrs. Meram holds the position of Administrative Officer III, and
Mr. Agravio, Supply Officer IV.  Mrs. Edralin holds
the position of Training Officer (R-60) which is not listed as
next-in-rank.  Such being the case, Mrs. Edralin is not, while Mrs. Meram
and Mr. Agravio are next-in-rank employees to the
contested position.  Hence, the latter
two should have been considered for the position of Administrative Officer V.

xxx                                                    xxx                                                       xxx

“In terms of education, Mrs. Meram
is a holder of bachelor’s degree with 12 units in Master in Business
Administration and has 9 years
and 6 months relevant experience with 12 relevant trainings completed.  Mr. Agravio, who is
a third year Commerce student, however, has 13 years of relevant experience to
his credit and 23 relevant trainings completed. 
Moreover, for a period of 9 months, Mr. Agravio
was designated Officer-in-Charge, Administrative Division, pursuant to MNR
Special Order No. 359, series of 1981, and there is no showing that he failed
to discharge efficiently the duties and responsibilities of the position.  Thus, Mr. Agravio
is considered more competent and qualified than Meram.”
(Rollo, pp. 50-51)

Both the petitioner and respondent Edralin
filed motions for reconsideration.  On May 16, 1983, the MSB promulgated
another decision modifying the earlier one and appointed the petitioner, after
finding that Agravio’s designation as Assistant
Officer-in-Charge was revoked because he had been ineffective in said position.

Respondent Edralin appealed to the
Civil Service Commission.  On October 5, 1983, the Commission
dismissed the appeal and on May 3, 1984,
it denied the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration.

On May 18, 1984,
respondent Edralin filed a letter-petition with the
Office of the President invoking Section 19(6) of P.D. No. 807.  In her petition, Edralin
alleged that jurisdiction in promotional contests is lodged with the Ministry
head and appeal by the aggrieved party from decisions of said Ministry head
should be taken to the Office of the President. 
Therefore, the Merit Systems Board and the Civil Service Commission had
no jurisdiction to act on petitioner’s appeal.

Petitioner, on the other hand, filed a motion for execution of
the Commission’s decision.

On June 14, 1984,
the Confidential Legal Assistant of the Office of the Presidential Assistant
for Legal Affairs directed the Commission to forward within fifteen (15) days
from receipt thereof, the entire records of the case in view of Edralin’s appeal.

On July 19, 1984,
the Commission rejected the order of the Office of the President, stating that
under Section 8, P.D. No. 1409, decisions of the Commission are subject to
review only by the courts.

On October 9, 1984, the Minister of
Natural Resources issued a Memorandum to the BFD Director instructing him to
enforce and implement the order of the Commission for having become final and executory.

On October 15, 1984,
the BFD Director issued the apppointment of
Administrative Officer V to the petitioner effective as of that date.

On February 20, 1985,
Confidential Legal Assistant Sabio issued an order directing the MNR to transmit all
relevant records of the case.

Respondent Edralin wrote another letter
to the President of the Philippines.  It seems that this letter was taken cognizance of by then
President Marcos because on top of such letter appeared a note in his purported
handwriting which reads:

“9 March 1985

Justice Lazaro,

Tell Dir. Cortes to suspend everything pending study by the Office
of the President.  Prepare decision on
appeal for reconsideration.

(Sgd.)
Illegible”

(Rollo,
p. 75)

In connection with the above note, Presidential Assistant for
Legal Affairs Lazaro furnished a copy of Edralin’s letter with the President’s marginal note to
Director Cortes of the BFD.

On March 19, 1985, the Director of the BFD issued a memorandum,
informing Lazaro that the matters which the President
was directing him to suspend are already fait accompli and that, therefore, while he was willing to comply
with the Presidential instructions, the implementation of his compliance had
become legally untenable.

This nothwithstanding, on May 27, 1985, Lazaro
rendered the questioned decision, the dispositive
portion of which provides:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the
Minister of Natural Resources embodied in two separate letters, both dated
September 1, 1982, dismissing the protests of Hermecio
M. Agravio and Erlinda P. Meram, is hereby AFFIRMED and the appeals therefrom of said protestants are hereby DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF MERIT.  The Minister of Natural
Resources and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development are hereby
ENJOINED PERMANENTLY from carrying out, complying with and/or enforcing in any
manner whatsoever, (1) the decisions dated January 13, 1983, and May 16, 1983 of the Merit Systems Board in MSB
Case No. 813 and (2) Resolutions Nos. 83-427 and 84-138, dated October 5, 1983,
and May 3, 1984, respectively, of the Civil Service Commission in CSC Case No.
84.” (Rollo, p. 106)

Hence, this petition.

The principal issue presented in this case is whether or not the
Office of the President acted correctly in
taking cognizance of respondent’s letter-petition, and passing upon the
same, and thereafter, setting aside the decisions of the Merit Systems Board and the Civil
Service Commission.

P.D. No. 1409, Section 5(2) provides:

“Sec. 5.  Powers and Functions
of the Board. – The Board shall have the following functions, among others:

xxx                                                    xxx                                                       xxx

“(2)  Hear and decide cases brought before it
by officers and employees who feel aggrieved by the determination of appointing
authorities involving appointment, promotion, transfer, detail, reassignment
and other personnel actions, as well as complaints against any officers in the
government arising from abuses arising from personnel actions of these officers
or from violations of the merit system.”

In connection with this power of the MSB, Section 8 of this
decree also provides:

“Sec. 8.  Relationship with the Civil Service
Commission. – Decisions of the Board involving the removal of
officers and employees from the service shall be subject to automatic review by
the Commission.  The Commission shall
likewise hear and decide appeals from other decisions of the Board, provided
that the decisions of the Commission shall be subject to review only by the
Courts.

The petitioner contends that by virtue of the above-quoted decree
which was promulgated on June 8, 1978,
the MSB and the Commission had validly acquired jurisdiction over her formal
protest to the exclusion of all other officials, boards or offices and that,
therefore, the respondent Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs gravely
abused his discretion when he disregarded and declared as null and void the
decisions of the MSB and the resolutions of the Commission which had already
become final and executory, and in fact, had already
been executed, enforced and implemented.

On the other hand, the Solicitor-General contends that P.D. No.
807 vests exclusive appellate jurisdiction upon the Office of the President in
cases of appeal by a qualified next-in-rank employee from decisions of ministry
(department) heads arising from appointments in three (3) specific cases.  One of them is when said employee is
contesting the appointment of one who is not next-in-rank.  Therefore, the petitioner’s protest should
have been elevated to the Office of the President and not to the Commission,
much less to the Merit Systems Board.

P.D. No. 807 was promulgated on October 6, 1975. 
Section 19 (6) of this decree provides:

“Sec. 19 (6) A qualified next-in-rank employee shall have the
right to appeal initially to the department head and finally to the Office of
the President an appointment made (1) in favor of another next-in-rank employee
who is not qualified, or (2) in favor of one who is not next-in-rank, or (3) 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 appeal is
not satisfied with the written special reason or reasons given by the appointing
authority for such appointment: 
Provided, That final appeal shall be to the department head concerned if
the appointment is issued to a qualified next-in-rank employee.  Before deciding a contested appointment, the
Office of the President shall consult the Civil Service Commission.  x x x“

There is nothing in the
above-quoted provision which connotes exclusivity of jurisdiction in the Office
of the President to take cognizance of the specific cases cited above.  Furthermore, even if it were so, with the
promulgation of P.D. No. 1409, this power of review by the Office of the
President was not only divested of its exclusivity but was, in fact, repealed
altogether.  The petitioner, therefore,
correctly filed her protest with the MSB in accordance with P.D. No. 1409.  Moreover, respondent Edralin
is now estopped from questioning the orders of the
MSB and the Commission since she submitted to the jurisdiction of these two
bodies by filing for reconsideration with the MSB and upon denial of the same, by appealing to the
Commission.

In the leading case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
(23 SCRA 29), we ruled:

“While petitioners could have prevented
the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the case by seasonably taking
exception thereto, they instead invoked the very same jurisdiction by filing an
answer and seeking affirmative relief from it. 
What is more, they participated in the trial of the case by
cross-examining respondent Planas.  Upon this premise, petitioners cannot now be
allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the
jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselves voluntarily.

This ruling was reiterated in Philippine National Bank
v. Intermediate Appellate Court (143 SCRA 299).

As stated earlier, both the MSB and the Commission had jurisdiction to pass upon the petitioner’s
protest with or without the application of the principle of estoppel.  But more important, however, is the fact that
in the decision of the MSB on January 13, 1983, the said board found that
respondent Edralin is not an employee who is
“next-in-rank” to the vacated position, and although there is no
mandatory nor peremptory requirement that persons next-in-rank are entitled to
preference in appointments (see Taduran v.
Commissioner of Civil Service, 131 SCRA 66), the very purpose of the civil
service law dictates that persons who are qualified and next-in-rank should be
given preferential consideration when filling up a vacated position through
promotion.

In Samson v. Court of Appeals (145 SCRA 654, 658-659) we ruled:

xxx                                                    xxx                                                       xxx

“x  x  x As may be noted,
the general purpose of the Civil Service Law (Republic Act No. 2260) is ‘to
insure and promote the general mandate requiring appointments only according to
merit and fitness, and to provide within the public service a progressive
system of personal administration to insure the maintenance of an honest and
efficient progressive and courteous civil service in the Philippines.”
(Section 2, R.A. 2260).”

The principles governing
the integrity of the civil service are of universal validity.  As stated in the case of Hanley v.
Murphy (255 P 2d. 1, 4):

xxx                                                    xxx                                                       xxx

“x  x  x The civil service
system rests on the principle of application of the merit system instead of the
spoils system in the matter of appointment and tenure of office.  (Barry v. Jackson, 30 Cal. App. 165, 169, 157
P. 828) To that end the charter establishes a classified civil service system,
with exclusive power in the civil service commission to provide qualified
personnel, for the various municipal departments
and to classify or reclassify positions according to prescribed duties.  x  x  x.”

Furthermore, civil
service laws are not enacted to penalize anyone.  They are designed to eradicate the system of
appointment to public office based on political considerations and to eliminate
as far as practicable the element
of partisanship and personal favoritism in making
appointments.  These laws intend to
establish a merit system of fitness and efficiency as the basis of appointment;
to secure more competent employees, and thereby promote better government.  (See Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 77 So 2d. 393;
Civil Service Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren, 244 P 2d. 1157 citing State ex rel.
Kos v. Adamson, 226 Minn. 177, 32 N. W. 2d 281, 284)

In the case at bar, the
BFD personnel who are considered next-in-rank to the vacated position were
identified.  Respondent Edralin was not one of them.  In fact, she was nine or ten salary ranges
below the next-in-rank personnel. 
Subsequently, the MSB made the same finding in its decision.  Evidently, therefore, the foremost
consideration why respondent’s appointment was ordered by the Office of the
President notwithstanding the fact that
petitioner was more qualified and that she was next-in-rank was because of her
petition to the President in the form of a letter rather than an appeal and
which started by introducing herself as “Filipina Villeses-Edralin, wife of Efren
E. Edralin of Sarrat, Ilocos Norte.” The clear intent of her letter-petition
was not to appeal in accordance with P.D. No. 807 but to elicit some kind of
favorable response from the President based on considerations of blood ties,
influence, or ethnic and regional affiliations. 
To a certain extent she
succeeded but this Court must strike down the practice of political, ethnic,
religious, or blood ties being used to get choice appointments for it goes
against the very purpose behind the establishment of the civil service in our
country.  As earlier stated,
appointments under the civil service law should be based on merit and fitness
and should never depend on how intimate a friend or how closely related an
appointee is to the powers that
be.  And granting that the respondent
possesses the qualifications required for the contested position, it cannot be
denied that the petitioner equally possesses the same qualifications, if not in
greater degree, and more important, she is next-in-rank to the vacated
position.  Therefore, she deserves to be
appointed to the disputed item.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.  The decision of the Presidential Assistant
for Legal Affairs dated may 27, 1985 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.  The decision of the Merit Systems Board dated
May 16, 1983 and the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission which dismissed respondent’s appeal and
motion for reconsideration are hereby REINSTATED and made immediately
EXECUTORY.  No extension to file a motion
for reconsideration will be granted.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.