Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84257:59996&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:26:54+00:00

Document:
ANGEL ABAD, Petitioner, v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
Appointments in the civil service are made fundamentally on the basis of merit. Both the Constitution and law ensure that those appointed are fit for the position. While those who are next in rank to a vacant position may be given some preference, no one has a vested right to a government position. Seniority and salary grades should be given their due weight but should not trump the public interest.
An employee may be promoted or transferred to a position which is not more than three (3) salary, pay or job grades higher than the employee's present position except in very meritorious cases, such as: if the vacant position is next-in-rank as identified in the System of Ranking Positions (SRP) approved by the head of agency, or the lone or entrance position indicated in the agency staffing pattern.
For vacancies in the first and second levels, all qualified next-in-rank employees shall be automatically considered candidates for promotion to the next higher position.
In the letter16 dated January 26, 2007, the Civil Service Commission referred Abad's letter to the City Government of Muntinlupa's grievance machinery for proper action.
Thus, on September 25, 2007, Abad filed with the Mayor's Office the letter-complaint18 reiterating his request for disapproval of Dela Cruz's permanent appointment as City Government Department Head III.
Finding that Dela Cruz's promotion violated Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001 on the three-salary-grade rule,20 the Grievance Committee recommended the invalidation of Dela Cruz's permanent appointment as City Government Department Head III.21 This recommendation was approved by Mayor San Pedro.
Both Motion for Reconsideration38 and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration39 filed by Abad were denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution40 dated June 4, 2013.
Second, whether respondent Dela Cruz's promotion to the position of City Government Department Head III is void for lack of a deep selection process.
This Petition must be denied.
SECTION 472. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. - (a) No person shall be appointed assessor unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local government unit concerned, of good moral character, a holder of a college degree preferably in civil or mechanical engineering, commerce, or any other related course from a recognized college or university, and a first grade civil service eligible or its equivalent. He must have acquired experience in real property assessment work or in any related field for at least five (5) years in the case of the city or provincial assessor, and three (3) years in the case of the municipal assessor.
A comparative evaluation of the qualifications of Dela Cruz as indicated in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) vis-a-vis the qualification standards for the position of City Assessor III shows that he meets all the requirements for appointment thereto. Likewise, he satisfies the requirements prescribed by RA 7160. Hence, Dela Cruz qualifies for the issuance of permanent appointment as City Assessor III.
Petitioner contends, however, that he is a qualified next-in-rank who was bypassed for appointment to the position of City Government Department Head III. Thus, respondent's appointment is void notwithstanding his possession of the qualifications for the position.
SEC. 21. Recruitment and Selection of Employees. — . . .
(2) When a vacancy occurs in a position in the first level of the Career Service as defined in Section 6, the employees in the department who occupy the next lower positions in the occupational group under which the vacant position is classified, and in other functionally related occupational groups and who are competent, qualified and with the appropriate civil service eligibility shall be considered for promotion.
Petitioner, therefore, has no right to protest the appointment of respondent.
Petitioner further contends that respondent was appointed in violation of the three-salary-grade rule found in Item 15 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001. Therefore, respondent's appointment should be recalled.
Consistent with the next-in-rank rule, the appointing authority shall consider for promotion qualified next-in-rank employees. However, there are instances when the employees next in rank occupy positions whose salary grades are more than three (3) grades lower than that corresponding to the vacant position. These instances should not prevent the appointing authority from filling the vacancy, but whoever is appointed must undergo a deep selection process and demonstrate his or her superior qualifications and competence.92 This is to maintain the standard of merit and fitness for appointment in the civil service.
The Civil Service Commission found that respondent's appointment fell under the fifth exception provided in Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 03-0106 dated January 24, 2003.93 Contrary to petitioner's claim, the Personnel Selection Board conducted a deep selection process, ranking the candidates for the position of City Government Department Head III based on the following criteria: performance, 25 points; work history, 25 points; awards, 5 points; education, 5 points; training, 10 points; potential, 10 points; and physical characteristics and personality traits, 20 points.
The document denominated as Merit Promotion and System of Ranking Position shows that out of nine (9) candidates, respondent ranked first with a grade of 90.67 out of 100 points.94 Respondent's case, therefore, is a "very meritorious case." His promotion from Local Assessment Operations Officer III with Salary Grade 18 to City Government Department Head III with Salary Grade 27 is valid.
Respondent possesses the minimum qualifications for the position of City Government Department Head III. Moreover, his promotion from a Salary Grade 18 to a Salary Grade 27 position was a "very meritorious case" since he has gone through a deep selection process. Respondent Herminio Dela Cruz's appointment as City Government Department Head III, therefore, is valid.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 11, 2012 is AFFIRMED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr. Del Castillo, and Mendoza* , JJ., concur.
3 Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente (Chair) and Antonio L. Villamor of the Ninth Division.
ART. 119. Appointment of Appointive Local Officials.—(a) Unless otherwise provided in this Rule, heads of offices and departments in the LGUs shall be appointed by the local chief executive concerned with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the sanggunian, subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations.
10 Id. at 51. The Resolution was dated September 24,2002.
48 CONST., art. IX-B, sec. 3.
49 CONST., art. IX-B, sees. 2(2) and 3.
50 CONST., art. IX-B, sec. 3.
51 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 3, sec. 12(1).
52Meram v. Edralin, 238 Phil. 228, 238 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division], citing Gervais v. New Orleans Police Department, 77 So 2d, 393, Civil Service Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren, 244 P 2d 1157, in turn citing State ex rel. Kos v. Adamson, 226 Min. 177, 32 N. W. 2d 281, 284.
54 CONST., art. IX-B, sec. 2(1).
55 LOCAL GOVT. CODE, sec. 78.
1. Selection of employees for appointment in the government service shall be open to all qualified men and women according to the principle of merit and fitness.
57 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 2, sec. 7.
58 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 2, sec. 9.
59 1987 Adm. Code, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 2, sec. 8(l)(a).
60 1987 Adm. Code, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 2, sec. 8(l)(b).
61 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 2, sec. 8(l)(c).
8. All candidates for appointment to the first and second level positions shall be screened by the [Personnel Selection Board]. Candidates for appointment to third level positions shall be screened by the [Personnel Selection Board] for third level positions composed of at least three (3) career executive service officials as may be constituted in the agency.
63 LOCAL GOVT. CODE, sec. 80(c).
64 LOCAL GOVT. CODE, sec. 80(b).
65 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, art. 168(b).
66 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, art. 119(a).
67 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, art. 168(f).
68 Local Govt. Code, sec. 472(a).
71 Id. at 35 and 53.
75 See Panis v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 102948, February 2, 1994, 229 SCRA 589, 593 [Per J. Quiason, En Bane] and Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 93868, February 19, 1991, 194 SCRA 278, 289-290 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc], where this court held that the next-in-rank rule only applies in cases of promotion.
76 Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, rule VI, sec. 1.
77 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, title I, subtitle A, chapter 5, sec. 21, pars. (2) and (3).
78Meram v. Edralin, 238 Phil. 228, 238 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third Division].
79 Id., citing Samson v. Court of Appeals, 230 Phil. 59, 63 (1986) [Per J. Alampay, Second Division].
80Espanol v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85479, March 3, 1992, 206 SCRA 715, 722 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc]; Taduran v. Commissioner of Civil Service, et al, 216 Phil. 57, 61 (1984) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
81Espanol v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85479, March 3, 1992, 206 SCRA 715, 723 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].
82 Abila v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92573, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 102, 106 [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
83Espanol v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 85479, March 3, 1992, 206 SCRA 715, 721 [Per J. Regalado, En Banc].
85Cortez v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92673, March 13, 1991, 195 SCRA 216, 221 [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
88 CSC Resolution No. 991936, otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, rule V, sec. 67(a).
89 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 1.
90 CSC Resolution No. 991936, otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, rule I, sec. 2(n).
13. The appointing authority may appoint an applicant who is not next-in-rank but possesses superior qualification and competence, and has undergone selection process.
95 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 3(m). See Barrozo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 93479, June 25, 1991, 198 SCRA 487, 492 [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
96 RULES OF COURT, Rule 66, sees. 1(a), 2, and 3.
97 53 Phil. 866 (1928) [Per J. Ostrand, En Banc].

References: v. 

ART. 119
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 168
 art. 119
 art. 168
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.