ZENAIDA BOLOR CHANG, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS.

More than once has this
Court ruled that as regards appointments to the government service extended by
the official legally authorized to make the same, the Civil Service Commission
may not and should not substitute its judgment for that of the former as to the
appointee’s qualifications and fitness, as long as the appointee’s possession
of the minimum requisites prescribed for the position is otherwise shown.^[1] It will so rule once again in this case.

The Bureau of Internal
Revenue was reorganized in 1987 pursuant to Executive Order No.
127.  To “assist the appointing
authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel in the
reorganization,” the Civil Service Commission created a Placement
Committee, and among other things authorized “a representative of the CSC
* * (on request) to render assistance to the committee.”^[2]

Prior to the reorganization, petitioner Zenaida
Chang was the Chief of the Fiscal Operations Branch of Revenue Region R-B1, Quezon City.  The new plantilla
drawn up in line with the reorganization, converted her position to Chief Revenue Officer
(CRO) III; and the Placement Committee — applying the guidelines laid
down by the CSC,^[3]
and then assisted by the CSC representative, Assistant Director Leticia Bugtong — recommended that Chang be appointed to the new office.  The same recommendation was made by Chang’s
immediate superior, the Regional Director, Revenue Region (RR) No. 4-B1, Quezon City.

The recommendation was protested by a certain Atty. Tito R. Pintor, who claimed to be better qualified for the position
of CRO III.  BIR Commissioner Bienvenido A. Tan,
Jr. opined that the protest was premature
considering that “the promotional appointment of Ms. ** Chang to the position
of Chief Revenue Officxer III has not yet been made.” In any case,
Commissioner Tan pointed out, “a comparison of the qualification, training
and experience of the protestant and protestee will
readily show that protestee Chang edges protestant Pintor in training and experience to the alleged proposed
contested position **, (considering among other things that) she has been
actually discharging the functions of the Chief, Fiscal Operations Branch,
Revenue Region No. 4-B1, BIR, Quezon City **.”^[4]

Commissioner Tan thereafter appointed Chang permanent CRO III
retroactive to November 11, 1987.  The appointment was approved as permanent by the CSC.^[5] Atty. Pintor
renewed his protest, this time before the BIR Reorganization and Appeals Board,
on February 24, 1988; but the latter resolved the protest against him, by resolution dated May 10,
1988.^[6]

This did not end petitioner Chang’s travails, however, for
another protest was filed with the BIR Reorganization Appeals Board
(BIR-RAB).  The second protest was
presented by Anthea A. Maderazo,
who also asserted a preferential right to be appointed CRO III on account of
her allegedly superior qualifications.

The BIR-RAB ruled against Ms. Maderazo.  She appealed to the CSC.  The CSC dismissed her appeal, by Resolution
promulgated October 28, 1988,^[7]
but affirmed “her appointment to the position of Revenue Enforcement
Officer pursuant to Executive Order 127, which is comparable to her former
position of Revenue Fiscal Officer.” However, the CSC revoked petitioner
Chang’s appointment as CRO III “in the interest of justice and
fairness.” According to the CSC-

” * * (although)
her education and eligibility meets the minimum requirements of the Chief
Revenue Officer III position, she failed to meet the minimum experience
requirement of the subject position.  Her
eight (8) months service as Revenue Document Processor of the Bureau prior to
its reorganization fall short of the 5 years experience requirement of the
positions.”

The
Commission thus directed “her appointment to any other position in the new
staffing pattern of the Bureau, where her qualifications are best fitted, which
in no case (should be) lower than her former position before the BIR
reorganization.”

Chang filed a motion for
reconsideration dated November 18, 1988, contending that her nine-year experience as
Chief Accountant II of the Professional Regulations Commission invested her
with the requisite minimum experience.^[8]

Chang’s immediate
superior, the Regional Director, Revenue Region 4-B1, filed a
“Supplemental Memorandum to ** (Chang’s) Motion for Reconsideration
**,” dated November 18, 1988, asserting that the records — which, it was
intimated, were not then before the CSC — do show Chang’s fulfillment of the
prescribed experience requirement.  BIR
Commissioner Tan also asked that the decision be reconsidered, in a letter to
the CSC Chairman dated December 17, 1988.  Tan
pointed out inter alia that –

” ** (Chang’s) experience as Chief
Accountant as per certification issued by the Professional Regulations
Commission ** is sufficient to consider her to the position of Chief Revenue
Officer III since she was also in­-charge of various revenue operations
activities and planning for more
than nine (9) years which is more than the required minimum five (5) years experience for the
position.  Her duties and
responsibilities in the Professional Regulations Commission as Chief Accountant
as can be gleaned from the certification issued by it are the same duties and
responsibilities she is performing as Chief Revenue Officer III, Fiscal Operations Branch, Revenue
Region No. 4-B1, Quezon City (see RAO 3-87 hereto attached
and certification of the Chief, Adm. Branch).

* * * * *.

“She corrected the deficiencies cited in the COA Annual Audit
Report on the fiscal operations of the BIR, RR-4-B1, Q.C. for the calendar year
1985 bearing on weak internal control pertaining to the financial operations of
the Region.  This aspect of the COA audit
report influenced greatly the Regional Director in favoring Mrs. Chang over the
OIC, as well as the former Assistant Chief of the Fiscal Operations
Branch.”

The CSC declined to
reconsider its Resolution of October 28, 1988.^[9] It declared that –

“ ** (Chang’s) more than five (5) years experience as Chief
Accountant in the PRC cannot be considered in her favor, as this is not the
kind of experience the Qualification Standard for Chief Revenue Officer III
position requires.

“The nature of the functions of said position relates more on the
application of tax or revenue laws, the determination of the kind and extent of
taxes due and collectible and the performance of functions which directly involve
revenue operations activities in the Bureau itself which makes the functions
and responsibilities thereof broader in scope than that of the Chief
Accountant.”

Impugning these rulings of the CSC, and seeking their annulment,
petitioner Chang has appealed to this Court.

The whole question really
is, whose assessment should be deemed decisive on whether or not, in light of
the undisputed facts, Chang possesses the requisite five-year experience
prescribed for the position of Chief Revenue Officer III in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue:  the assessment of the
BIR head and of Chang’s immediate superior, or that of the Civil Service
Commission.

The immediate,
commonsensical answer would seem to be: 
that of the former, since it may be reasonably assumed that the BIR
Commissioner and the Regional Director, under whom Chang will render services
as CRO III, know best the precise nature and extent of the services required of
her and her ability to render them, based not only on her past work record but
her actual, observed performance.

The answer is one that
reflective analysis of the relevant factors confirms.  The minimum qualifications for Chang’s office
laid down in the Revised Qualification Standards drafted by the BIR itself are
the following:

EDUCATION        Bachelor’s degree in Commerce or
Business Administration, major in Accounting or Management; Bachelor’s degree
relevant to the job;

EXPERIENCE     Five (5) years of progressively responsible
experience in various revenue operations activities or other related works
which must include planning, coordinating and supervising revenue operations
activities;

CIVIL SERVICE   CPA, Bar, Career Service (Prof.) or relevant
Second

ELIGIBILITY          Level eligibility.

The
officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would seem to be the best qualified
to interpret the norms thus laid down, which they had themselves drafted, or
helped to formulate.  Now, as to the
factor of experience, about which the controversy at bar revolves, the BIR
officials have evidently considered Chang’s nine-year stint in the Professional
Regulations Commission, her last position there being Chief Accountant II, as
equivalent to work “related” to revenue operations activities,
including “planning, coordinating and supervising” the same.  Moreover, as the Solicitor General stresses,
Chang’s “duties, functions and responsibilities as PRC Chief Accountant
for almost eight years prior to her 8 months working stint with the BIR”
are well nigh identical to, or reveal “a one to one correspondence” with,
those specified for CRO III of the BIR. 
Her duties and functions in the PRC included the following:^[10]

1) implement fiscal policies and plans of the
agency;

2) prepare income or revenue estimates for budget
consideration;

3) plan, coordinate and supervise revenue
operation activities;

4) undertake the accounting operations and budget
activities of the agency;

5) supervise preparation of financial plans;

6) certify to the correctness of accounts and
availability of funds;

7) plan and implement procedures for internal
control purposes;

8) coordinate with various government agencies in
the effective implementation of government financial policies;

9) determine whether all revenues due the
government are duly accounted for;

10) verify and certify
as to the authenticity of supporting documents of all money claims;

11) prepare memoranda
and sign correspondence regarding financial or fiscal operations.

All things considered,
the Court is satisfied that petitioner Chang’s qualifications for the office of
CRO III were correctly analysed, weighed and rated by
the BIR officials concerned, and that the CSC in effect is here attempting to
substitute its judgment on the matter for that of the former.  In doing so, respondent CSC has exceeded its
authority.  The CSC is not a co-manager,
or surrogate administrator of Government offices and agencies. Its function and
authority are limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their
concordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Law.^[11]

In the determination of this
question, the views and conclusions of the appointing authority should be
accorded no little respect, and should not be lightly disregarded and set
aside.  Those views and conclusions may
be rejected and overruled only when shown to be clearly in error or attended by
bad faith or other improper motives or considerations; and reasonable
differences in the appraisal of qualifications should be resolved in favor of
the appointing authority which, after all, will avail of the appointee’s
services, deal with him on a day-to-day basis, and be generally responsible for
him.  Quite recently, the Court en banc had occasion to point out that “the determination of who among
several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested
in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not
in the Civil Service Commission. * * Given the demands of a certain job, who
can do it best should be left to the Head of the office concerned provided the
legal requirements for the office are satisfied.  The Civil Service Commission cannot
substitute its judgment for that of the Head of Office in this regard.”^[12]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The challenged Resolutions of the respondent
Civil Service Commission in CSC Case #61 promulgated on October 28, 1988 and on
January 11, 1989 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and petitioner’s appointment as
Chief Revenue Officer III, G-27, of Revenue Region 4-B1, Quezon
City, effective as of November 1, 1987, is UPHELD AND AFFIRMED.  No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
SEE Luego v. CSC, 144 SCRA
325, and other cases cited in footnote 11, infra

^[2]
Memorandum Circular No. 10, s. 1986

^[3]
Supra

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 24-25:  2nd Indorsement, Jan. 26, 1988

^[5]
Id.,
p. 26

^[6]
Id.,
p. 27

^[7]
Id.,
pp. 18-20

^[8]
Id., pp. 29-38

^[9]
By resolution prom. Jan. 11, 1989:
Rollo, pp. 21-23

^[10]
Annex J, petition

^[11]
Luego v. CSC, 144 SCRA 325
(footnote 1, supra); Central Bank
of the Philippines, et al. v.
Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. Nos. 80455-56, April 10,
1989, and Maximo Gabriel v. Hon. Eufemio
Domingo, et al., etc., G.R.
No. 87420, September 17, 1990; See also, Resolutions in Pintor. v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 84022 and 85804, March 9, 1989; Saet v. Alvarez, G.R.
No. 82862, Sept. 26, 1988; Remigio v. Chairman, Civil
Service Commission, G.R.No. 86324, July 6, 1989; Cacatian v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 87343, July 18, 1989; Galura v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R.
No. 85812, June 1, 1989; Zulueta v. Mamangun, G.R. No. 85941, June 15, 1989;

^[12]
Gaspar v. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 90799, prom. Oct.
18, 1990