RICARDO L. MEDALLA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND HON. EDUARDO O. CARRASCOSO, IN HIS CAPACITY…

Petitioner, in this petition for certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus, seeks to annul and set aside a) the decision and order^[1]
of the Merit Systems Protection Board dated November 9, 1988 and September 5,
1989 respectively, in MSPB Case No. 1650 entitled “Singson, Armando v.
Medalla, Ricardo” revoking petitioner’s appointment and directing
Singson’s appointment in his stead, and b) Resolution Nos. 90­-155 and 90-373^[2]
of the Civil Service Commission dated February 9, 1990 and April 16, 1990, the
first resolution denying petitioner’s request that he be given 15 days to file
his motion for reconsideration or appeal, upholding the decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board dated November 9, 1988 and directing the Civil Service
Commission – National Capital Region
to ensure its immediate implementation, and the second resolution denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner likewise prays for the nullification of an Office Order and a
Memorandum issued by the then Manila International Airport Authority relating
to the abovecited decisions and resolutions.

It appears on record that in 1982, Engr. Ricardo Medalla,
petitioner herein, was appointed as a Geodetic
Engineer of the then Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA for
brevity). In 1986, he was promoted to
Supervising Engineer A of its
Buildings, Pavements and Grounds Division, otherwise known as the B P and G Division. On February 16, 1987, Engr. Elpidio Mendoza, the said Division’s
Department Manager, was likewise promoted, thereby leaving his position vacant
(Rollo, pp. 7-8). In view thereof,
Engr. Armando Singson was designated as the Acting Division Manager on July 1,
1987 (Annex “K”, Rollo, p. 48). The MIAA Selection/Promotion Board, however, in its meeting on October
9, 1987, unanimously appointed Medalla as the new Division Manager B of the B P
and G Division (Annex “M”, Ibid., p. 50). On the same date, Medalla was issued his formal appointment by
the then MIAA General Manager Aurelio German (Annex “N”, Ibid., p.
52) after which he immediately assumed his post. Apparently aggrieved over Medalla’s appointment, Singson filed a
protest on October 19, 1987 to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the
Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) (Annex
“O-1”, Ibid., p. 54) which endorsed the same on October 21, 1987 to
the MIAA General Manager for appropriate action in accordance with Section 14
of CSC Resolution No. 83-343 (Annex “O”, Ibid., p. 53). In response thereto, Mr. German affirmed
Medalla’s promotional appointment and in effect dismissed Singson’s protest
(Annex “P”, Ibid., p. 57). The latter appealed the decision once more to the MSPB (Annex
“Q-1”, Ibid., p. 60) which again referred the same to the MIAA
General Manager for comment (Annex “Q”, ibid., p. 59). Acting thereon, Mr. Evergisto C. Macatulad
as the Officer-in-Charge, reiterated MIAA’s position as contained in the letter of Mr. German, thus reaffirming
Medalla’s appointment. Macatulad added
that their office will no longer submit supplemental comments on the matter
(Annex “R”, Ibid., p. 63). The MSPB then required the submission of the list of positions
considered next-in-rank, the approved organization chart and systems of ranking
positions and the qualification standards for the contested position (Annex
“S”, Ibid., p. 64) which was duly complied with by the MIAA (Annex
“T”, Ibid., p. 65).

In the meantime, the MIAA underwent a reorganization pursuant to
its Resolutions Nos. 87-55 and 87-68 dated as early as September 30 and October
22, 1987 respectively (Annexes “U” and “U-1”, Ibid., pp.
69-70). Its new staffing pattern was
approved by the Department of Budget and Management on February 25, 1988
(Rollo, p. 99) thus the MIAA Placement Committee deliberated on personnel
appointments prescinding from the said pattern (Annex “W”, Rollo, p.
88). Medalla and Singson were subsequently
reappointed as Division Manager D and Principal Engineer C respectively of the
new Civil Works Division which replaced the former B P and G Division due to
added functions (Annexes “X” and “X-2”, Ibid., pp.
96-97). Both ostensibly accepted their
new designations (Annex “X-3”, Ibid., p. 98).

Notwithstanding the foregoing events, the MSPB still rendered its
disputed ruling which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board finds the appeal
meritorious. Accordingly, the
appointment of appellee Mr. Medalla as Division Manager B is hereby revoked. It is directed that Mr. Singson be appointed in his stead.

SO ORDERED.” (Annex “A”, Ibid., p. 32).

On December 20, 1988, the new MIAA General Manager Eduardo
Carrascoso sought clarification on the effectivity of this decision considering
that both Singson and Medalla had already been given their positions based on
the new plantilla (Annex “Y”, Ibid., p. 99). In a letter-reply dated April 17, 1988, MSPB
Chairman Villones still declared the decision as final and executory and then
directed the MIAA General Manager to comply therewith (Annex “Z”,
Ibid., p. 100). The matter was referred
to the MIAA Legal Office which advised that the MIAA is not bound to follow the
MSPB’s directive as the said MSPB decision has already been rendered moot and
academic in view of MIAA’s reorganization and that protests should be addressed
anew to the Task Force on Reorganization Appeals, being the proper forum (Annex
“AA”, Ibid., pp. 102-103). The contested MSPB decision therefore remained unacted upon.

On July 21, 1989, Singson’s appeal to MIAA General Manager
Carrascoso asking for the implementation of the same decision (Annex
“B” Ibid., p. 104) turned out to be in vain, so Singson filed a
motion to the MSPB which ????? on September 5, 1989, as follows:

“After a careful review of the records, the Board noted that
the General Manager, MIAA, received the decision dated November 9, 1988 of the
Board on December 5, 1988. However,
instead of filing a motion for reconsideration/appeal from the decision, he
requested for clarification as to whether said decision be (sic) executed. He did not file a motion for reconsideration
within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of said
decision. Hence, the decision of the
Board became final and executory. Consequently, the Board’s decision dated November 9, 1988 be (sic)
implemented immediately. Accordingly,
the appointment dated August 1, 1988 of Mr. Ricardo L. Medalla, Jr. as Division
Manager D, in the Civil Works Division, MIAA, is hereby revoked.

x x x.

SO ORDERED.” ( Annex
“B”, Rollo, pp. 34-35).

On October 26, 1989, Medalla filed before the CSC a motion for
reconsideration of the above order (Annex “DD”, Ibid., p. 113) but
the motion was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 90-155 dated February 9,
1990 stating thus:

‘WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Commission resolved
to deny, as it hereby denies the request of Ricardo Medalla that he be given
fifteen (15) days to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal. Accordingly, the Order dated September 5,
1989 of the Merit Systems Protection Board, directing the revocation of the
appointment of Medalla as Manager B, Civil Works Office, NAIA, and the
appointment of Armando F. Singson to said position in accordance with MSPB
Decision dated November 9, 1988, stands. xxx.” (Annex “C”, Ibid., p. 38).

Medalla’s second motion for reconsideration was also denied in
Resolution No. 90-373 dated April 16, 1990 (Annex “D”, Ibid., pp.
40-41). Undaunted, Medalla filed a
third motion for reconsideration which has as yet, remained pending (Annex
“FF”, Ibid., p. 121). Meanwhile, MIAA General Manager Carrascoso, in conformance with the
previous CSC resolutions, issued Office Order No. 80 on May 18, 1990, which
directed Singson and Medalla to assume their duties as Division Manager A and
Principal Engineer A, respectively, of the Civil Works Division (Annex
“E”, Ibid., p. 42). Medalla
promptly requested for the deferment of the said Office Order pending the
resolution of his motion for reconsideration before the CSC but he was informed
that his request may not be given due course as it is only a restraining order
from the Supreme Court which can suspend the effectivity of any CSC ruling
(Annex “F”, Ibid., p. 43).

Hence, the present petition.

Once again, the act of the Commission through the MSPB in
replacing an appointee with an employee of its choice is at issue in the case
at bar.

The petition must be granted.

The Court has already repeatedly ruled that the Commission has no
such authority to do so. Its only
function is limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their
accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Law (Chang v. CSC, et
al., G.R. No. 86791, November 26, 1990, 191 SCRA 663). Thus, when the Commission finds the
appointee to be qualified and all the other legal requirements have been
satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment (Central Bank of
the Philippines, et al., v. CSC, G.R. Nos. 80455-56, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA
774). Thereafter, its participation in
the appointment process ceases (Orbos v. CSC, G.R. No. 92561, September 12,
1990, 189 SCRA 464). Indeed, 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 Commission (Gaspar v. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. 90799, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 777). This is because the appointing authority occupies the ideal
vantage point from which to identify and designate the individual who can best
fill the post and discharge its functions in the government agency he heads
(Abila v. CSC, et al., G.R. No. 92573, June 13, 1991, 198 SCRA 102). Consequently, when the appointing authority
has already exercised his power of appointment, the Commission cannot revoke
the same on the ground that
another employee is better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment
on the decision vested in the appointing authority (Luego v. CSC, G.R. No.
69137, August 5, 1986; Pintor v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 84022 and 85804, March 9, 1989, En banc). The Commission may not and should not
substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority (Patagoc v. CSC,
et al., G.R. No. 90229, May 14, 1990, 189 SCRA 416).

In fine, the Court has categorically ruled:

“We declare once again, and let us hope for the last time,
that the Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over its
own personnel. Neither does it have the
authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to
ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications. The determination of who among aspirants
with the minimum statutory qualifications should be
preferred belongs to the appointing authority and not the Civil Service
Commission. It cannot disallow an
appointment because it believes another person is better qualified and much
less can it direct the appointment of its own choice.

Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court
cannot compel. While the act of
appointment may in proper cases be the subject of mandamus, the selection
itself of the appointee – taking into account the totality of his
qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his personality
– is the prerogative of the appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to the discretion of the
appointing authority. It is a political
question that the Civil Service Commission has no power to review under the
Constitution and the applicable laws.” (Lapinid v. CSC, et al., G.R. No.
96298, May 14, 1991).

In the same case, the Court has even warned that from the date of
its promulgation, departure from the mandate of Luego by the Commission shall
be considered contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with severely, in view
of the status of the contemnor.

In the light of the foregoing doctrines, the Commission appears
to have overstepped its jurisdiction when it revoked the appointment of
petitioner Medalla who was shown to have satisfied the requirements prescribed
for the contested position, and instead directed the appointment of protestant
Singson. No sanction, however, may yet
be imposed on the Commission as the
act complained of occurred before the promulgation of the aforestated Lapinid
decision.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, a) the decision, order and
resolutions appealed from are SET ASIDE and b) Engr. Ricardo Medalla and Engr.
Armando Singson are REINSTATED to the posts of Division Manager D and Principal
Engineer C respectively, of the Civil Works Division.

SO ORDERED.

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

Bellosillo, J., on leave.

^[1]
Penned by Chairman Raymundo R. Villones, Board Members Bella Amilhasan and
Vicente P. Ramos and attested by Chief Board Secretary Marilyn N. Barizo-­Aquino.

^[2]
Issued by Chairman Patricia A. Sto.
Tomas, Commissioners Samilo N. Barlongay
and Mario D. Yango and attested by Board Secretary VI C.V. Usac.