8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

1/13

JOSE P. LAUREL V, in his ofcial capacity as Provincial Governor o Batanasvs. !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% LORE$&O SA$GALA$G

'A!(S)The Governor of Batangas appointed his brother, Benjamin, as Senior Executive Assistant, a non-career service position which belongs to the personal and condential sta! of an elective o"cial#$e appointed his again as Acting %rovincial Administrator when the incumbent resigned- foralleged lac& of 'ualied applicants and so as not to prejudice the operation of the %rovincialGovernment# (onse'uentl), *ose issued Benjamin +aurel a promotional appointment as (ivilSecurit) "cer classied as primaril) condential b) % ./.#

0espondent assails the appointment sa)ing that1 234 the position in 'uestion is a career position,254 the appointment violates civil service rules, and 264 since the Governor authori7ed saidappointee to receive representation allowance, he violated the Anti-Graft and (orrupt %racticesAct#

The Governor asserts that the appointment did not violate the provision prohibiting nepotismunder Section 89 of %## :o# .;< because both the positions of Senior Executive Assistant and(ivil Securit) "cer, are primaril) condential in nature# :either was there a violation of %## .;ailing his ?designation defense@, he now insists that the duties,functions and responsibilities of the %rovincial Administrator ma&e them primaril) condential innature#

The SolGen argues that the doctrines in the cases cited b) +aurel were alread) superseded b) %.;

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

2/13

The position of %rovincial Administrator is embraced within the (areer Service under Section D 5of%## :o# .;< as evidenced b) the 'ualications prescribed for it in the anual of %ositionescriptions#

*udging from the above-cited description, the position is in the career service which, ischaracteri7ed b) 2a4 entrance based on merit and tness to be determined as far as practicableb) competitive examinations, or based on highl) technical 'ualications, 2b4 opportunit) foradvancement to higher career positions, and 2c4 securit) of tenure# ore specicall), it is anopen career position, for appointment to it re'uires prior 'ualication in an appropriateexamination# As such, it cannot be a primaril) condential position#

Another obstacle to Benjamin=s appointment as %rovincial Administrator is contained in Section582f4 of 0#A# :o# 55/; which provides that no person appointed to a position in the non-competitive service 2now non-career4 shall perform the duties properl) belonging to an) positionin the competitive service 2now career service4## At the time he was designated as Acting%rovincial Administrator, he was holding the position of Senior Executive Assistant in the "ce ofthe Governor, a primaril) condential position# $e was thereafter promoted as (ivil Securit)"cer, also a primaril) condential position# Both positions belong to the non-career serviceunder Section / of %## :o# .;

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

3/13

that he reposed on them F# %etitioner emaisip was reappointed b) Governor GriIo as the%rovincial Attorne)#

The respondents appealed to the erit S)stems %rotection Board of the (S( which declared theirtermination illegal and ordered their reinstatement# The (S( denied their 0# $ence the petitionto the S(# 0espondents argue that the (S( had alread) classied the 'uestioned positions ascareer positions#

"SSUE)3# : the position of a provincial attorne) is primaril) condential in nature so that his servicesof can be terminated upon loss of condence5# : the position of the legal subordinates are condential in nature

*EL+)3#es, 5# :o

RA("O)3# A cit) legal o"cer appointed b) the ma)or to wor& for the cit) has for its counterpart in theprovince a provincial attorne) appointed b) the governor# The positions of cit) legal o"cer andprovincial attorne) were created under Sec 396of 0epublic Act :o# D3.D which categori7ed themas positions of FtrustF# B) virtue of 0#A# D3.D, both the provincial attorne) and cit) legal o"cerserve as the legal adviser and legal o"cer for the civil cases of the province and the cit) thatthe) wor& for# Their services are precisel) categori7ed b) law to be Ftrusted services#F

(adiente vs# Santos held that the position of a (it) +egal "cer is one re'uiring that utmostcondence on the part of the ma)or# The relationship existing between a law)er and his client,whether a private individual or a public o"cer, is one that depends on the highest degree of trustfor the counsel selected#

The attorne)-client relationship is strictl) personal because it involves mutual trust andcondence of the highest degree, irrespective of whether the client is a private person or agovernment functionar)# /The personal character of the relationship prohibits its delegation infavor of another attorne) without the clientJs consent# $owever, the legal wor& involved, asdistinguished from the relationship, can be delegated#

5# Ct is possible to distinguish between positions law)ers in condential and non-condentialpositions b) loo&ing at the proximit) of to that of the appointing authorit)# ccupants of suchpositions would be considered condential emplo)ees if the predominant reason the) werechosen b) the appointing authorit) is the belief that he can share a close intimate relationshipwith the occupant which measures freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment ormisgivings of possible betra)al of personal trust on condential matters of state# There is noneed to extend the professional relationship to the legal sta! who assist the condentialemplo)er# Since the positions occupied b) these subordinates are remote from that of theappointing authorit), the element of trust between them is no longer predominant# At this level,

impairment of the appointing power=s interests thru the acts of the lower in ran& ma) beprevented b) the condential emplo)ee#

ith respect to the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorne) namel), (iriloGelve7on, Teodolfo ato-on and :elson Geduspan, the Cadienteand Besa rulings cannot appl)#

The) have been emplo)ed due to their technical 'ualications# Their positions are highl)technical in character and not condential, so the) are permanent emplo)ees, and the) belongto the categor) of classied emplo)ees under the (ivil Service +aw#PA+"LLA,J., concurring and dissenting1C concur with the majorit) opinion in its classication of the positions of legal assistants orsubordinates of the %rovincial Attorne) as highl) technical in character, falling under thecategor) of permanent emplo)ees, with securit) of tenure under the civil service s)stem# C

dissent, however, from the majorit) opinion in its treatment of the position of %rovincial Attorne)#

Although the power to appoint the %rovincial Attorne) is vested in the Governor, however, thesaid local public o"cer is an emplo)ee of the provincial government to which he owes his lo)alt),and not to the elected Governor, for he is not part of the latterJs personal or condential sta!# Asa provincial public o"cer, the %rovincial Attorne)Js suspension, removal or transfer is subject to

3Sec. *9. Creation of positions of Provincial Attorne an! Cit "e#al officer. To ena#le the provincial an city "overnments to avail

themselves o$ the $!ll time an tr$ste! serviceso$ le"al o$$icers, the positions o$ provincial attorney an city le"al o$$icer may #e createan s!ch o$$icials shall #e appointe in s!ch manner as is provie $or !ner Section $o!r o$ this Act. -or this p!rpose the $!nctionshitherto per$orme #y the provincial an city $iscals in servin" as le"al aviser an le"al o$$icer $or civil cases o$ the province an cityshall #e trans$erre to the provincial attorney an city le"al o$$icer, respectively.

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

4/13

the provisions of the civil service law, rules and regulations# $e ma) be removed from o"ce forincompetence, dishonest), or other misconduct but not for the GovernorJs loss of condence inhim#

Abuse of power in the termination andKor suspension of an appointee to the position of %rovincialAttorne) or of a similar position on the basis of Floss of condenceF which is not dul)substantiated should not be allowed#

SAR#"E$(O,J., concurring L dissenting1C can not agree with the second part of the decision when it refused to appl) the sameaforementioned ruling to the case of legal assistants or subordinate law)ers on the justicationthat the earlier cases of Cadienteand Besaonl) specicall) dealt with the positions of cit) legalo"cer and %:B chief legal counsel, respectivel), and that the positions of legal assistants orsubordinate law)ers are highl) technical in character and not condential#Anent the claim that the positions of assistant legal o"cers or subordinate law)ers is highl)technical and not condential, this contention is not supported b) an) evidence on record or an)basis in law# n the contrar), the function of an assistant or a subordinate legal o"cer, as can begleaned from the +ocal Government (ode, is to Fassist the chief o"cer and perform such dutiesas the latter ma) assign him#F Absent an) showing of substantial distinctions between the natureof the wor& or function of the provincial attorne) and that of the legal assistants or subordinatelaw)ers, it is logical to presume that both public o"cers handle condential matters relating tothe legal aspect of provincial administration and that their relationship with their appointingpower is that of a law)er and his client re'uiring utmost condence and the highest degree oftrust# Both should be primaril) condential#

!S! an% PAG!OR vs. RA'AEL #. SALAS

'A!(S)Salas was appointed b) the %AG(0 (hairman as Cnternal Securit) Sta! 2CSS4 memberand assigned to the casino at the anila %avilion $otel# $is emplo)ment was terminated b) the%AG(0 Board for loss of condence, after a covert investigation )ielded an alleged involvementof Salas in prox) betting#

Salas re'uested reinvestigation from the %A(G0 Board, which was denied# Appeals to the %SBand (S( were denied sa)ing that being a condential emplo)ee b) operation of law 2%3./94 histerm onl) in fact expired upon loss of condence b) the appointing power# The (A howeverreversed the mentioned rulings and adjudged Salas to not be a condential emplo)ee afterappl)ing the ?proximit) rule@#

%etitioners raise 8 grounds1 234 Sec 3/# %# 3./9 creating the %A(G0 expressl) provides that allemplo)ees of the casinos and related services shall be classied as condential appointees 254PAGCOR vs# Court o Appeals! et al# which classied %AG(0 emplo)ees as condentialappointees 264 (S( 0esolution :o# 93-.6; declared emplo)ees in casinos and related service ascondential appointees b) operation of law and 284 $is functions as a member of the CSS

"SSUE): Salas, a member of the %A(G0=s Cnternal Securit) Sta! is a condential emplo)ee

*EL+):o

RA("O)FSection 3/8of % 3./9 insofar as it exempts %AG(0 positions from the provisions of(ivil Service +aw and 0ules has been modied b) the 39.< (onstitution and E 595# $owever,the same cannot be said with respect to the last portion of Section 3/, which provides that Fallemplo)ees of the casino and related services shall be classied as JcondentialJ appointees#F

There were two instances when a position ma) be considered primaril) condential1 "irst, whenthe %resident, upon recommendation of the (S( (ommissioner has declared the position to be

primaril) condential and, second, when b) the nature of the functions of the o"ce there existsFclose intimac)F between the appointee and appointing power which insures freedom ofintercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betra)als of personal trust orcondential matters of state# At rst glance, it would seem that the instant case falls under therst categor) b) virtue of the express mandate under Section 3/ of %residential ecree :o# 3./9#

4All positions in the corporation, &hether technical, aministrative, pro$essional or mana"erial are e'empt $rom the provisions o$ the

Civil Service 1a&, r!les an re"!lations, an shall #e "overne only #y the personnel mana"ement policies set #y the /oar o$

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

5/13

#$n Nature%The (ourt explicitl) decreed that executive pronouncements, such as %residential ecree :o#3./9, can be no more than initial determinations that are not conclusive in case of conMict#According to the transcripts in the passage of the bill, it is the nature of the position thatdetermines whether it is polic)-determining or primaril) condential#F The matter should be leftto the Fproper implementation of the laws, depending upon the nature of the position to belledF, and if the position is Fhighl) condentialF then the %resident and the (S( (ommissionermust implement the law# The words ?in nature@ is used in Section 5, Article NCC- of the old(onstitutions, Section D of 0epublic Act :o# 55/; and Section 3 of the General 0ules in theimplementing rules of %## .;

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

6/13

RA("O)Such a special civil action can onl) be commenced b) the Solicitor General or b) aperson claiming to be entitled to a public o"ce or position unlawfull) held or exercised b)another and since Tarrosa is not lawfull) entitled to the same, he cannot avail of the said remed)#

Cn Greene v. 'no&, 3

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

7/13

source# This follows from the nature of the writ of 'uo warranto itself# Ct is never directed to ano"cer as such, but alwa)s against the person Q to determine whether he is constitutionall) andlegall) authori7ed to perform an) act in, or exercise an) function of the o"ce to which he la)sclaim#

!O$!*"(A RO#UAL+E&2AP vs.(*E !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% P$B

'A!(S)(onchita 0omualde7-ap started wor&ing with the %:B on 5; September 39

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

8/13

0estoring petitioner to her previous position with bac&wages would be unjust enrichment to her,considering that she had abandoned or showed lac& of interest in reclaiming the same positionwhen the ban& was not )et full) rehabilitated and she onl) insisted on reinstatement in August39.9 or two 254 )ears after her alleged unjustied separation#

PE("("O$ +"S#"SSE+.

JA"#E (. PA$"S vs. !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% BELLA V. VELOSO

'A!(S)The (((, formerl) &nown as the (ebu (it) $ospital, is operated and maintained b) thelocal government of (ebu (it)# %etitioner was emplo)ed as Administrative "cer of the $ospital,while private respondent was Administrative "cer of the (it) $ealth epartment detailed atthe said hospital#

rdinance :o# 353/ amending the (harter of (ebu changed the name of the hospital to (((and under such ordinance, the (it) a)or appointed respondent Peloso as of Assistant (hief of$ospital for Administration# %anis assails this appointment sa)ing that1 34 34 the position ofAssistant (hief of $ospital for Administration was not legall) created 254 assuming that it was,there was no 'ualication standard nor valid screening procedure and 264 the seniorit) and next-in-ran& rules were disregarded#

%anis protested the appointment which was however denied at all levels#

"SSUES73# : the o"ce was validl) created5# : Peloso was validl) appointed to the position ta&ing into consideration 'ualications

*EL+)3# es5# es

RA("O)3# rdinance :o# 353/ for the purpose of correcting the deciencies and improving theperformance of said institution amending the (harter of (ebu provided for an "ce of $ospitalAdministrator, granted such powers as were deemed in line with the objectives of the rdinance#

The title of $ospital Administrator was later found to be a misnomer and thus was properl)classied b) the *oint (ommission on +ocal Government %ersonnel Administration as one ofAssistant (hief of $ospital for Administration# This classication was subse'uentl) approved b)the epartment of Budget anagement# The position of Assistant (hief of $ospital forAdministration is the ver) same position of $ospital Administrator created b) rdinance :o#353/# The "ce of $ospital Administrator was not extinguished, the designation thereof wasmerel) corrected to reMect the proper classication of the position under existing rules#

5# Both candidates possess the minimum 'ualications for the position# The determination ofamong the 'ualied candidates should be preferred belongs to the appointing authorit)# TheFnext in ran&F rule specicall) applies onl) in cases of promotion# This case however involves anew o"ce and a position created in the course of a valid reorgani7ation# Hnder the law, avacanc) not lled b) promotion ma) be lled b) transfer of present emplo)ees in thegovernment service, b) reinstatement, b) reemplo)ment of those separated from the service,and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibilit), but not necessaril) inthis order# Ct cannot be said that private respondent was an outsider# Although directl) emplo)edb) the (it) $ealth epartment, she actuall) wor&ed at the ((( prior to her appointment to thesubject position# Besides, even, if she was an outsider, the law does not prohibit the emplo)mentof persons from the private sector so long as the) have the appropriate civil service eligibilit)#

The concept of Fnext in ran&F does not impose an) mandator) or peremptor) re'uirement toappoint the person occup)ing the next lower position in the occupational group of the o"ce#hat the (ivil Service +aw and the Administrative (ode of 39.< provide is that if a vacanc) islled up b) the promotion, the person holding the position next in ran& thereto Fshall beconsidered for promotion# ne who is Fnext in ran&F to a vacanc) is given preferentialconsideration for promotion to the vacant position, but it does nor necessaril) follow that healone and no one else can be appointed# There is no vested right granted the next in ran& nor aministerial dut) imposed on the appointingauthorit) to promote the holder to the vacant position

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

9/13

An appointment, whether to a vacanc) or to a newl) created position, is essentiall) within thediscretionar) power of whomsoever it is vested# nce a candidate possesses the minimum'ualities re'uired b) law, su"cient discretion, if not plenar), is granted to the appointingauthorit)# whom to appoint among those 'ualied is an administrative 'uestion involvingconsiderations of wisdom for the best interest of the service which onl) the appointing authorit)can decide#

+EL'"$ $. +"V"$AGRA!"A, JR., A$+ ALE-"S +. SA$ LU"S vs# *O$. PA(R"!"A A. S(O.(O#AS, RA#O$ P. ERE$E(A, JR., an% PRES!"LLA B. $A!AR"O'A!(S) ancita was appointed unicipal evelopment (oordinator 2(4 of %ili, (amarines Sur,in a permanent capacit)# hen the old +G( too& e!ect in 39.6, the o"ce was renamed asunicipal %lanning and evelopment (oordinator, to which position, then unicipal Budget"cer %rescilla B# :acario was appointed and ancita relieved from service b) Gov# %rila# Thelocal Budget "ce, was nationali7ed and placed under the Band Alexis # San +uis wastemporaril) appointed unicipal Budget "cer of %ili b) B Secretar) (arague and wassubse'uentl) appointed to said position in a permanent capacit), b) petitioner eln :#ivinagracia, a)or of %ili#

n appeal to the %SB, ancita received judgment ordering her reinstatement after nding herremoval to be illegal# The decision was appealed b) ivinagracia to the (S( but was denied# As aresult of the denial, :acario was terminated from o"ce in order to e!ect the reinstatement ofancita# (S( held that the reinstatement of ancita was not a valid cause for the removal of:acario, and since she was the former unicipal Budget "cer she had the right to return tothat position# Sto Tomas denied a re'uest for reconsideration b) ivinagracia#

%rivate respondent claims that she did not voluntaril) appl) for transfer from the Budget "ce tothe "ce of %( but was constrained to FacceptF the new position because of her deference tothen a)or %rila# Cn fact, according to her, she applied for the position of Budget "cer with theepartment of Budget and anagement while she was %( indicating that she did notabandon or relin'uish her former position#

"SSUES)3# : Sec 36 0ule PC of the C00 of B& D E 565 is applicable5# : the lateral transfer of :acario was validl) made

*EL+)3# :o, 5# :o

RA("O)3# Sec# 36 of the mnibus 0ules Cmplementing Boo& P of E## 595 has the ! re'uisites1 3 st1 beforea public o"cial or emplo)ee can be automaticall) restored to her former position, there mustrst be a series of promotions 5nd all appointments are simultaneousl) submitted to the (S( forapproval and 6rd the (S( disapproves the appointment of a person proposed to a higher

position# The essential re'uisites under Sec# 36 do not avail in the case# The movement of:acario from the Budget "ce to the "ce of %( cannot be considered a promotion for theterm connotes an increase in duties and responsibilities as well as a corresponding increase insalar)# Ct was movement of a lateral transfer#

5# The unconsented lateral transfer of :acario from the Budget "ce to the "ce of %( wasarbitrar), amounting to removal without cause, invalid as it is anathema to securit) of tenure#hen :acario was extended a permanent appointment and she assumed the position, sheac'uired a legal, not merel) an e'uitable right# Such right to securit) of tenure is protected notonl) b) statute, but also b) the (onstitution and cannot be ta&en awa) from her either b)removal, transfer or b) revocation of appointment, except for cause, and after prior notice#

Sec# D, par# 6, 0ule PCC, mnibus 0ules Cmplementing Boo& P of E## 595 provides that transfershall not be considered disciplinar) when made in the interest of public service, in which case,the emplo)ee concerned shall +e inormed o the reasons thereor# Cf the emplo)ee believes thatthere is no justication for the transfer, he ma) appeal his case to the commission# A transer is aFmovement from one position to another which is of e'uivalent ran&, level and salar), withoutbrea& in service#F Promotion is the Fadvancement from one position to another with an increasein duties and responsibilities as authori7ed b) law, and is usuall) accompanied b) an increase insalar)F# A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, advancement or reduction or a transferthat aims to Flure the employee away rom his permanent position!F cannot +e done without theemployees, consent# Thatwould constitute removal rom o-ce# :o permanent transfer can ta&e

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

10/13

place unless the o"cer or emplo)ee is rst removed from the position held, and then appointedto another position#

Ct could not be said that :acario vacated her former position as Budget "cer or abdicated herright to hold the o"ce when she accepted the position of %(# The principle of estoppel cannotbar her from returning to her former position because of the fact that she reluctantl) acceptedthe second o"ce#

The appointment of San +uis is is with a condition1 a /ondisyon nasa ayos ang pag/a/atiwalagsa tung/ulin ng dating nanunung/ulan, which when translated means FProvided that theseparation of the former incumbent is in order#F (onsidering that the separation of :acario whowas the former incumbent was not in order, San +uis should relin'uish his position in favor ofprivate respondent :acario# This is, of course, without prejudice to San +uisJ right to bereinstated to his former position as (ashier CC of the E:0, he being also a permanent appointeee'uall) guaranteed securit) of tenure#

$AR!"SO 2. SA$("AGO vs# !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% LEO$AR+O A. JOSE

'A!(S) Santiago held the position of (ustoms (ollector before he was extended a permanentpromotional appointment b) then (ustoms (ommissioner igberto Tanada to the ran& of(ustoms (ollector CCC# +eonardo *ose opposed the appointment before the %SBsa)ing that hewas next-in-ran&, being a (ustoms (ollector CC#

%SB referred the protest to Tanada who upheld the appointment sa)ing that1 234 the next-in-ran& rule is no longer mandator) 254 the protestee is competent and 'ualied for the position 264existing law and jurisprudence give wide latitude of discretion to the appointing authorit)# The%SB however ruled di!erentl) and revo&ed the appointment of Santiago, directing that *ose beappointed in his stead#

The (S( invo&ed its power to enforce the merit s)stem under the (onstitution and held *ose tobe better 'ualied for his educational attainment, civil service eligibilities, relevant seminars andtraining courses ta&en, and holding as he does b) permanent appointment a position which ishigher in ran& and salar) range#

$ence the petition b) Santiago#

"SSUE): *ose being next-in-ran& should be appointed to the contested position

*EL+):

RA("O) Cn 0aduran vs. Civil ervice Commission it was held that there is Fno mandator) norperemptor) re'uirement in the 2(ivil Service +aw4 that persons next-in-ran& are entitled topreference in appointment# hat it does provide is that the) would be among the rst to be

considered for the vacanc), if 'ualied, and if the vacanc) is not lled b) promotion, the sameshall be lled b) transfer or other modes of appointment# ne who is next-in-ran& is entitled topreferential consideration for promotion to the higher vacanc) but it does not necessaril) followthat he and no one else can be appointed# The rule neither grants a vested right to the holdernor imposes a ministerial dut) on the appointing authorit) to promote such person to the nexthigher position#

(S( 0esolution :o# .6- 686 Sec 8 provides An emplo)ee who holds a next-in- ran& position whois deemed the most competent and 'ualied, possesses an appropriate civil service eligibilit),and meets the other conditions for promotion shall be promoted to the higher position when itbecomes vacant# $owever, the appointing authorit) ma) promote an emplo)ee who is not next-in-ran& but who possesses superior 'ualications and competence compared to a next-in-ran&

emplo)ee who merel) meets the minimum re'uirements for the position#

Tanada justied the appointment he made b) comparing the credentials and wor& experience ofthe two# hile *ose was a (ustoms c(ollector, there was no o"cial record of activit)recommending him for promotion# n the other hand, after the >ebruar) revolution, the%rotestee was immediatel) designated b) the undersigned as (hief of a tas& force which hasbeen credited with the sei7ure of millions of pesos worth of smuggled shipments# Each one wasdul) recorded, not onl) in the o"cial les, but also in the media# %rotestee has been the recipientof citations awarded b) the (ustoms (ommissioner for the two consecutive )ears 39.8 and39.D, for exemplar) performance of o"cial duties, particularl) investigation and prosecution#ore specicall), the latest citation commends the %rotestee for his pivotal role in the sei7ure

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

11/13

and forfeiture of an ocean-going vessel upheld b) the Supreme (ourt, which constituted a rst inthe histor) of this Bureau#

The power to appoint is a matter of discretion# The appointing power has a wide latitude ofchoice as to who is best 'ualied for the position# To appl) the next-in-ran& rule peremptoril)would impose a rigid formula on the appointing power contrar) to the polic) of the law thatamong those 'ualied and eligible, the appointing authorit) is granted discretion and prerogativeof choice of the one he deems t for appointment#

The (ommission is empowered to approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, topositions in the civil service and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess theappropriate eligibilit) or re'uired 'ualication# $owever, Fall the commission is actuall) allowedto do is chec& whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibilit) orthe re'uired 'ualications# it has no authorit) to revo&e the said appointment simpl) because itbelieved that the private respondent was better 'ualied for that would have constituted anencroachment on the discretion vested solel) in the appointing authorit)#F

G#0# :o# 95./

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

12/13

second level of the career service as herein dened, the emplo)ees in the department whooccup) the next lower positions in the occupational group under which the vacant position isclassied, and in other functionall) related occupational groups, who are competent and 'ualiedand with appropriate civil service eligibilit) shall +e considered or appointment to the vacancy#(S( will nd no comfort in eram v#3dralin 36which it cites# Cn that case, the (ourt a"rmed theappointment of the next in ran& Fbecause the original appointeeJs appointment was made inconsideration of the political, ethnic, religious or blood ties totall) against the ver) purposebehind the establishment of professionalism in the civil service#F Cn the case at bar, respondentshave not asserted the existence of an) circumstances which would have warranted interventionb) the (ommission to correct an arbitrar) and merel) capricious exercise of power b) theappointing authorit)#

AR+EL"&A #E+E$"LLA vs# !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$, A#PARO +ELLOSA, ROSAL"$+AJUR"A an% #AR"(A BUR+EOS

'A!(S) %etitioner Ardeli7a edenilla was a contractual emplo)ee of the %$ occup)ing theposition of %0 CC# $e was detailed as Technical Assistant in the "ce of Secretar) forAdministration and anpower anagement # %ursuant to E## 358, a reorgani7ation ensuedwithin the %$ and all the positions were abolished# $e was appointed to the position ofSupervising $uman 0esource evelopment "cer#

0espondents who are emplo)ees in the $uman 0esource Training and aterial evelopmentivision contested the appointment sa)ing that being next-in-ran& emplo)ees, one of themshould=ve been appointed to the position# The (S( sustained the protest sa)ing that the next inran& should as far as practicable be appointed# Ct also noted that while edenilla is a contractualemplo)ee, the others are permanent# The 0 b) edenilla was denied#

"SSUES)3# : edenilla was denied due process when (S( did not inform her of the appeal before it5# : (S( acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving appointment of edenilla6# : edenilla was validl) appointed b) the appointing authorit) based on 'ualications

*EL+)3# :o5# es6# es

RA("O)3# The essence of due process is the opportunit) to be heard# The presence of a part) is notalwa)s the cornerstone of due process# Cn the case at bar, an) defect was cured b) the ling of amotion for reconsideration#

5# hen the appointee is 'ualied, (S( has no choice but to attest to the appointment# Ct is not

within its prerogative to revo&e an appointee on the ground that another person is better'ualied for the job# nce the function is discharged, the (S(=s participation in the appointmentprocess ceases#

6# %etitioner wasn=t onl) a cum laude graduate from the H%, she has also ac'uired plent) ofexperience in the eld of $0# She was ran&ed :o#3 in the TrainorJs Training %rogram, was arecipient of a special commendationgiven b) Executive irector of the :ational (ommission inthe 0ole of >ilipino oman, She obtained in her on-going BA studies at the +HS, which shepursued as an entrance scholar# (S( failed to consider that the petitioner, in her 3 )ear < monthsexperience with Guthrie-*ensen was engaged in research relating to performance appraisals)stems and merit promotion s)stems which duties are all related to $uman 0esourceevelopment# The disputed position re'uires of the holder of the o"ce, s&ills in human resource

developmental planning, research and statistics# The petitioner possesses these s&ills in morethan appropriate 'uantities#

ld emplo)ees should be considered rst but it doesn=t follow that the) should automaticall) beappointed# The preference given to permanent emplo)ees assumes that emplo)ees wor&ing in aepartment for longer periods have gained not onl) superior s&ills but also greater dedication tothe public service# This is not alwa)s true and the law does not preclude the infusion of newblood, )ounger d)namism, or necessar) talents into the government service# Cf, after consideringall the current emplo)ees, the epartment Secretar) cannot nd among them the person he

8/12/2019 55284617-Digests-5

13/13

needs, there=s nothing in the (ivil Service +aw to prevent him from reaching out to otherepartments or to the private sector provided all his acts are bona de for the best interest ofthe public service and the person chosen has the needed 'ualications#

The reason behind %## :o# 9;< of attracting honor graduates into the public service would benegated if the) alwa)s have to start as (ler& C and wait for hundreds of deadwood above them torst go into retirement before the) can hope for signicant and fullling assignments#

Cn this case, the contested position was created in the course of reorgani7ation# The positionappears to be a new one# The applicabilit), therefore, of the next-in-ran& rule does not come inclearl)# Besides, as earlier stated, said rule is not absolute# There are valid exceptions#

Granting for the sa&e of argument that the case involves a promotional appointment, the next-in-ran& rule must give wa) to the exigencies of the public service# The intent of the (ivil Service+aws not merel) to bestow upon permanent emplo)ees the advantage arising from their longemplo)ment but most speciall), it is to foster a more e"cient public service#