ARSENIO O. PELEO, JR., REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, TELECOMMUNI­CATIONS OFFICE, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Under Executive Order 125, as amended, the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) including the Telecommunications
Office (TELOF), one of its sectoral offices, was
reorganized.  In the new staffing pattern
of the TELOF, there are three (3) positions of Telecom Traffic Supervisor.  The Placement and Selection Board of the said
office, after evaluating the qualifications of the candidates, recommended the
appointment of Antonio de Guzman, Evelyn Tan and Juanito
Esteves for these positions.  Cecilia de Guzman who was given a reorganizational
appointment as Teletype Technician, (the
same position which he occupied prior to the reorganization) protested
the appointment of Juanito Esteves only, alleging
that there is violation of Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 1986 and
Memorandum Circular No. 3, series of 1988 which gave preference to permanent
and regular employees considering that Esteves was a
casual employee (Temporary Management and Audit Analyst) when he was issued
such appointment.

It appears that Juanito Esteves has been in the service for thirty (30) years,
starting as Temporary; Laborer in 1956; Clerk in 1957; Auditing Aide I in 1962; Auditing Examiner II in 1966;
Technical Property Inspector in 1972 and Administrative Officer I in 1975 until
his retirement in 1983 under RA 1616.  He
was reinstated as Temporary Management and Audit Analyst in February 10, 1987 until his
appointment to his now questioned position of Telecom Traffic Supervisor.  He is a graduate with a Bachelor of Science
degree, a holder of three (3) civil service eligibilities – first grade,
auditor and general clerical.

Upon the other hand, the qualification standards
for a Telecom Traffic Supervisor shows the following requirements:

Education   – Any bachelor’s degree preferably in
Electronics and Communication Engineering or related course.

Experience – Four
years in a supervisory capa­city in the Telecommunications operations.

Civil Service
Eligibility – RA 1080, Electronics Communication Engineering, First grade, career
service profes­sional.

The NCR Regional Capital Director of the Telecommunications
Office, herein petitioner, Arsenio O. Peleo, Jr., affirmed the appointment of Juanito
Esteves.

Consequently, Cecilio de Guzman
appealed to the DOTC Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB).  In the said appeal, de Guzman stressed the
fact that when Esteves was reinstated as Temporary Management Analyst he was at most a
casual employee.  His appointment
therefore to the contested position of Telecom Traffic Supervisor grossly violated
CSC MC No. 10 series of 1986 and No. 3 series of 1988.

The Regional Director (petitioner Peleo)
defended Esteves‘ appointment stating that the
position of Telecom Traffic Supervisor is a position which requires capacity to
manage a vital section in the reorganization. 
An appointee thereto must first attain varied experience in the
communications operations for at least four (4) years in a supervisory capacity
as required in the qualification standards. 
The present item of de Guzman
is a Teletype Technician, a first level position with a salary range of
49.  The last regular position of Esteves was Administrative Officer I, a second level
position with a salary range of 64.  He
was the Chief of the Administrative Division for eight (8) consecutive years.

In a Resolution dated October
6, 1989, the DOTC Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB) upheld the
decision of the Regional Director.  The
pertinent portion of the said Resolution reads:

“Easily noticeable from the foregoing is the balance made by
the Regional Director between the quality of the personnel selected for a
certain position, and the ‘order’ of preference (from permanent to casuals) in
selecting an employee.  Obviously, the
Regional Director had exercised its discretion and had chosen its appointee,
cognizant of the respective positions previously held by the rival
candidates.  Even assuming that Mr. Esteves, prior to his appointment as Telecom Traffic
Supervisor, was a mere casual
employee, he is still an employee qualified to be considered for placement
within the organization because, per representation by the appointing authority
and in the context of M.C. 10 itself, Mr. Esteves
also ‘possess the qualification requirements for permanent appointment to
positions in the approved staffing pattern.

“As regards the issue of whether or not Memorandum Circular
No. 3, series of 1988 was violated, the Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission in her letter dated 21 January 1988, has explained the clear mandate
of the Circular which merely
requires that ‘…all items or positions in the approved staffing pattern or
Reorganized Agencies should be filled up by regular appointments,
and not by other modes of designations, so that said Agencies render service in
accordance with their thrusts and thus become more effective in delivering
productive services to the public.’ And, in no uncertain terms, the Chairman
concluded that ‘your (Esteves) proposed appointment
as recommended by the Placement and Selection Board to a regular and permanent
supervisory position for which you are expected to continue service until you
are compulsorily retired, is not inconsistent
with, nor in violation of the subject Circular.

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES considered, the Board upholds the
appointment of Mr. Juanito Esteves
as Telecom Traffic Supervisor.

“APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the DOTC Reorganization Appeals Board
in its meeting held on October 6, 1989.

“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 25-26, Rollo)

From the foregoing Resolution, de Guzman appealed to the Civil
Service Commission.

The Civil Service Commission,
while finding that Esteves meets the minimum
requirements for appointment to the contested position, and that de Guzman does
not, nevertheless ruled that Esteves‘ appointment to
the said position runs counter to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of
1986.  Thus, in its said Resolution dated
January 19, 1990, the Civil Service Commission stated:

“From the foregoing, it is shown that Esteves
meets the minimum requirements for appointment to the position, he being a
bachelor’s degree holder and a former supervisor as Administrative Officer for
a number of years in the Telecommunications Office.  However, being a casual employee of the TELOF
as of February 1, 1987 and immediately before its reorganization, Esteves had no preferential right for reappointment as
Telecom Traffic Supervisor to the prejudice and disadvantage of permanent
employees of the TELOF.  Hence, the
issuance of his appointment to the contested position runs counter to CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 1986, as amended, which requires that all
permanent incumbents should be placed first in an agency’s new staffing pattern
before the next category of employees namely, temporary, casual, contractual.

“On the other hand, de Guzman does not appear to have any
supervisory experience to qualify him for the contested position.  Hence, he is considered to be not meeting the
minimum requirements thereof.

“Wherefore, foregoing premises considered, the Commission
hereby resolved to dismiss the instant appeal of Cecilio
de Guzman.  The position issued to Juanito Esteves as Telecom
Traffic Supervisor is not in order and is hereby declared vacant.” (p. 29,
Rollo)

The Regional Director (petitioner Peleo)
moved for reconsideration.  He vigorously
maintained that the appointment in question is proper, regular and in order for
the following reasons:

“1.  CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10 s. 1986
primary objective is to prioritize the placement and retention of permanent
employees over the other categories of employment.  This was religiously, satisfactorily and
fully complied with by this Office.  Our
records show that all personnel of this region covered by its old
plantilla were properly placed and
accommodated in the new plantilla
without a single case of demotion nor phase out of any
employee.  Definitely, CSC MC 10 was not
violated in the appointment of Mr. Esteves to the
position in question.

“2.  MC 10 does not close the door to
casual employee for possible appointment during the reorganization, nor does it
pre-empt the appointing authority to select only from permanent employees over
better qualified casual employees.

“3.  The operation of the provision in Section
24-D, Article VIII, P.D. 807 that reinstated employee may be appointed to the
same level of position for which he is qualified was neither superseded nor
suspended by the operation of said MC. 
Construing this proviso further, the appointment referred to here is
permanent in nature and Mr. Esteves retained his
former ranking.  It may be stated here
that Mr. Esteves was not even granted a comparable
level of position as that of Administrative Officer which currently carried
(as) the allocation of Grade 24 with a salary of P10,132.00 per month.  Likewise, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3 S.
1988 supports the apointment of Mr. Esteves and definitely cures its defect of having been
first employed as temporary.

“4.  Applying the privilege of choice of the
Appointing Authority, a case settled by the Supreme Court in Dominador L. Galura v. Manuel F.
San Pedro, BIR, the appointment of Mr. Esteves is
perfectly in order considering that even CSC Case No. 519 promulgated on
January 19, 1990 explicitly admits, ‘that Esteves
meets the minimum requirement to the position.’ Considering further that there
was no violation of CSC MC #10, why then should the appointment of Mr. Esteves be considered not in order and the position
declared vacant.

“5.  Before signing his appointmenmt,
there was a clarification letter of that Commission that there was no legal
impediment to Mr. Esteves’ proposed appointment,
(Appendix A).

“6.  The appointment of Mr. Esteves was upheld by the Appeals Board of the Department
of Transportation and Communications, recognizing its merits and therefore, it
is in order.” (pp. 30-31, Rollo)

The Regional Director further argues that the merits of the
appointment of Esteves was not taken into
consideration by the Civil Service Commission as it decided merely “on the
issue of the employment status of the appointee which has no bearing on the
basic requirement which is the more encompassing element of a sound
appointment.” (p. 31, Rollo)

In its Resolution dated May
4, 1990, the Civil Service Commission denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the Regional Director (petitioner Peleo),
ruling in part as follows:

“The contention of Esteves and the
TELOF NCR Director that his (Esteves) being a casual
employee before the TELOF reorganization is not bar to his placement in the new
staffing pattern of the agency is not tenable. 
The fact that there were many reorganization protests, including the
instant protest of de Guzman in the
TELOF shows that the guidelines were not strictly complied with, or at least
there were dissatisfied sectors in that reorganization.  Moreover, the alleged ruling of the
Commission that Esteves, after retirement, can be
reappointed to new positions in the TELOF staffing pattern is merely a
clarification of CSC MC 3, s. 1988 of then CSC Chairman Celerina
Gotladera that positions should be filled up by
regular appointments.  Moreover, as a
former retiree, Esteves cannot be rehired in
government without authority from the Commission.  The reply of CSC Executive Director Alfredo Deza to the query of Esteves on
whether he is qualified for reinstatement is not an authority to be reemployed
but a statement that he is qualified for appointment to his former supervisory
position at the time he retired.

“That the power of appointment is essentially a management
prerogative is accepted as a general rule. 
However, it is not absolute as it must be in accordance with the Civil
Service Law and Rules, such as MC No. 10, s. 1986.

“In fine, there is no cogent reason to modify, reverse or set
aside the Commission Resolution dated January
19, 1990 in CSC Case No. 519.

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission
resolved to deny the instant motions for lack of merit.” (p. 33, Rollo)

Hence, this petition.

CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 1986,
as amended requires that all permanent incumbents should be placed first in an agency’s
staffing pattern before the next category of employees, namely, temporary,
casual and contractual. 
Therefore, being a casual employee in the TELOF as of February 1, 1987
and immediately before its reorganization, Juanito Esteves had no preferential right to reappointment as
Telecom Traffic Supervisor to the prejudice and disadvantage of permanent
employees of the TELOF.  But records show
that Esteves‘ questioned appointment did not result in the displacement of any incumbent permanent or temporary employee in
the TELOF.  De Guzman, the lone
protestant to the position or even respondent Civil Service Commission itself
has not identified a single incumbent employee of the TELOF who was displaced
or prejudiced one way or the other by Esteves‘
appointment.  The fact is, all the incumbent
personnel of the said office were given appointments under the new staffing
pattern and none was demoted or dismissed from the service as a result of the
reorganization.  As correctly argued by
petitioner, MC No. 10 does not close the door to casual employee for possible
appointment during the reorganization, nor does it pre-empt the appointing
authority to select only from permanent employees over better qualified casual
employees.

In the case at bar,
Esteves was appointed to the questioned position
because aside from being qualified for the position, no other incumbent
employee of the TELOF was qualified.  De
Guzman, the lone protestant, was found
by the Civil Service Commission as not qualified for the position.  The other “reorganization protest”
mentioned by the Civil Service Commission in its Resolution did not involve the
alleged violation of MC No. 10 and did not question the appointment of Esteves.  The common
issue raised therein was whether the protestant was “more qualified”
for the contested position than the protestee.  Besides these protests were just minor ones and there were only about three
(3) that reached the Civil Service Commission.

As to respondent Commission’s claim that “as a former retiree, Esteves
cannot be rehired in government without authority from the Commission”,
suffice it to say that the records show that respondent Commission itself,
through Director Romeo C. de Leon of the National Capital Region, authorized
the rehiring of Esteves.  The 2nd Indorsement
dated October 1, 1987 of
the CSC, National Capital Region states:

“This refers to the request for the authority to reinstate Mr. JUANITO ESTEVES as
Temporary Management Analyst, in that Office. 
He retired under R.A. 1616 on March
15, 1983.

“In the exigencies of the service and as the requirements of
the Commission on this matter are properly observed and complied with, the
request for the authority to reinstate Mr. Esteves is
hereby granted.”

WHEREFORE, the questioned resolutions of respondent
Commission dated January 19, 1990
and May 4, 1990 are
ANNULLED.  Consequently, the Court
upholds the appointment of Juanito Esteves as Telecom Traffic Supervisor.

SO ORDERED.

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