CASE DIGEST: ABILA vs. CSC. G.R. No. 92573, June 3, 1991

FACTS:

Abila, who was then the Acting Assistant Civil Security Officer of Civil Intelligence and Security Department of the Quezon City Government was appointed by then OIC Simon to the vacant position of Admin Officer IV in the Health Department due to the retirement of Amado Villafuerte.

Eleria on the other hand, who was then the Administrative Officer III of Health Department filed a protest with the Merit System Protection Board (Board) in respect of Abila’s appointment. The Board dismissed her protest but later on appeal to the same Board. The latter promulgated a decision revoking Abila’s appointment and directed the OIC or Mayor of Quezon City to appiont Eleria in lieu of Abila. They ruled that although both Abila and Eleria met the minimum eligibility and education, Eleria had the edge in terms of rank and experience as an Administrative Officer and Eleria actually held the position next-in-rank to that of the vacancy that gave her “promotional priority” over Abila. The appeal was filed by Abila with the CSC but the latter affirms the decision of the Board.

ISSUE:

1. Whether CSC has authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the official authorized by law to make an appointment to the government service.

2. Whether the appointment made by appointing authority may be disregarded by following the next-in-rank rule.

RULING:

1. No. The CSC has no such authority. The power of appointment is essentially discretionary and vested by law in the head of the office concerned. He 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. The choice of an appointee from among those who possess the required qualifications is a political and administrative decision calling for considerations of wisdom, convenience, utility and the interests of service which can best be made by the head of the office concerned, the person most familiar with the organizational structure and environmental circumstances within which the appointee must function.

Settled is a rule that the CSC has no power of appointment except over its own personnel. It also doesn't have the authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications. 

In the case at bar, CSC itself acknowledged that both petitioner Abila and respondent Eleria are legally qualified for the position in question. Having made the determination, the CSC had exhausted its powers and may not act any further except to affirm the validity of petitioner's appointment.

2. No. the CSC had no authority to revoke petitioner's appointment because it believed that Eleria was better qualified for the position involved. This constitutes an encroachment upon a discretionary authority vested by law in the Quezon City Mayor and not in the CSC.

The Court notes that a vacant position in the Civil Service may be filled by promotion, transfer of present employees, reinstatement and re-employment or appointment of outsiders who have the necessary eligibility. The next-in-rank rule invoked by CSC to justify its choice of Eleria over Abila, applies only where a vacancy is filled by promotion, a process which denotes a scalar ascent of an officer to another position higher either in rank or salary. 

A promotion involves a situation quite different from the situation in the case at bar where the appointment of Abila was effected through lateral transfer from a position in one department of the city government to a position of greater responsibility in another department of the same government.

The appointing authority, under the Civil Service Law, is allowed to fill vacancies by promotion, transfer of present employees, reinstatement, reemployment, and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility, not necessarily in that order. There is no legal fiat that a vacancy must be filled only by promotion; the appointing authority is given wide discretion to fill a vacancy from among the several alternatives provided for by law. The rule is not mandatory. Hence, the Civil Service Law provides is that if a vacancy is filled by a promotion, the person holding the position next in rank thereto "shall be considered for promotion".