Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 80455-56 April 10, 1989 CENTRAL BANK O T!E P!"L"PP"NES #$% ANGELA P. &OR'AN, petitioners, vs. C"("L SER("CE COMM"SS"ON #$% BAS"LAO E. BOR&A, respondents.
GANCA)CO, J.:
May the Civil Service Commission disapprove an appointment and reuire the appointment of another person !hom it believes is more ualified for the position" #his is the primordial issue addressed in this petition for certiorari brou$ht to this Court by the petitioners %r. An$ela &. 'ordan ** and the Central Ban( of the Philippines under Section ), Para$raph A, Article Article *+ of the -) Constitution. #hey are uestionin$ Resolution Nos. )/ 1 + 01 and )/2)0 of the Civil Service Commission dated May 31, -) and 4ctober 1, -), respectively. #he #he uestioned resolutions directed the immediate revocation of the appointment of %r. An$ela P. P. 'ordan to the position of Assistant Ban( Physician of the Central Ban( of the Philippines and the issuance of an appointment in favor of herein private respondent, %r. Basilio E. Bor5a to the said position. 4n 4ctober 2, -6, the Promotions Board of the Central Ban(, !ith a representative of the Civil Service Commission in attendance, deliberated on the fillin$ up of the vacant position of Assistant Ban( Physician of the Central Ban( of the Philippines 7Salary 8rade 339. *t found %r. 'ordan, !ho then had the ran( of Coordinatin$ Assistant 7Salary 7Salary 8rade 3&9 as the only ne:t/in/ran( ne:t/in/ran( employee. After considerin$ considerin$ further the the ualifications of %r. 'ordan, said Board certified her for p romotion to the position of Assistant Ban( Physician and submitted the proposal to the 4ffice of the 8overnor of the Central Ban(. 4n the other hand, it appears that as early as 'uly 'uly,, -6, respondent Bor5a filed an application for the position of Medical %irector in the Central Ban(. ;is papers !ere acted upon by the Promotions Board and he !as considered for the position of Physician 7Salary 8rade 19. #he ban( approved the Board that protestant is not the ne:t in/ran( employee as re$ards the contested position and, as such, he !as no le$al personality to file the protest> and, that the protestee aside from bein$ the ne:t/in/ran( employee, met the reuirements for promotion. Private respondent appealed to the Merit Systems Board 7MSB for short9. *n its decision dated 4ctober 3, -1, the MSB found the appeal meritorious and ruled that private respondent should have been the one appointed as Assistant Ban( Physician. #he #he Ban(, throu$h Mr. Sebastian ?. ?. Palanca, Palanca, 'r., 'r., Special Assistant to the 8overnor, 8overnor, in an undated petition for reconsideration, prayed that the MSB decision be set aside and that the Ban(
*n the first indorsement dated March -, -), the Commission for!arded the appeal to the 4ffice of the 8overnor of the Central Ban( for his comment !ith the reuest that his comment be transmitted to the Commission !ithin ten 7&9 days from receipt. @i(e!ise, %r. 'ordan !as furnished a copy of the appeal for her to submit her ans!ercomment thereon !ithin ten 7&9 days from receipt !ith a !arnin$ that her failure to do so shall be considered a !aiver of her ri$ht to submit the same. *nstead of submittin$ her comment, %r. 'ordan filed an E:/ Parte Motion for E:tension of #ime to =ile Comment. #he Central Ban(, throu$h Mr. Sebastian Palanca, 'r. filed a similar motion alle$in$ that the Ban( received notice of the appeal on April , -). ;o!ever, the Commission denied the motion of %r. 'ordan on the $round that a protest case is not strictly an adversary proceedin$ !here protestant and protestee play active participation. 5 4n May 31, -), the Commission issued Resolution No. )01 settin$ aside the decision of the MSB dated 'anuary 3, -) and directin$ the appointment of private respondent to the contested position. 4n 'une &, -), the petitioner Central Ban( filed a petition for reconsideration that the department head en5oys !ide latitude of discretion as re$ards the appointment of department personnel and that the uestion all to !ho is more competent is of no conseuence since private respondent !as not yet an employee of the Central Ban( at the time %r. 'ordan !as considered for promotion. ;o!ever, the petitioner
nder the Civil Service Act of -0-, 11 the Commissioner of Civil Service has the final authority on appointments. 1+ But the situation has chan$ed under the ne! la!, Presidential %ecree No. &), 1 other!ise (no!n as the Civil Service %ecree, !herein the Commission is not authoriDed to curtail the discretion of the appointin$ official on the nature or (ind of appointment to be e:tended. 14 #he authority of the Commission is limited to approvin$ or revie!in$ the appointment in the li$ht of the reuirements of the la! $overnin$ the Civil Service. *n the case at bar, the ualifications of %r. 'ordan !ere never disputed. #he fact that she !as ualified !as attested to by the Promotions Board. A representative of the Commission !as present in the deliberation of the said board. Private respondent anchors his protest on the $round that he is more ualified than the appointee. *t is !ell/settled that !hen the appointee is ualified, as in this case, and all the other le$al reuirements are satisfied, the Commission has no alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance !ith the Civil Service @a!s. 15 #he Commission has no authority to revo(e an appointment on the $round that another person is more ualified for a particular position. *t also has no authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. #o do so !ould be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon the appointin$ authority. An appointment is essentially !ithin the discretionary po!er of !homsoever it is vested, sub5ect to the only condition that the appointee should possess the ualifications reuired by la!. Private respondent alle$es, ho!ever, that the po!er of appointment is not absolute and that the Commission is empo!ered to approve or disapprove the same, citin$ Section -7h9 of Article ? of the Civil Service %ecree and Section 6 of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 2/262. #his is correct As noted earlier, the appointment is sub5ect to verification by the Commission as to !hether or not the appointin$ authority complied !ith the reuirements of the la!, other!ise, it may revo(e the appointment. ;o!ever, to conclude that the Commissioner may also direct the appointment of individuals other than the choice of the appointin$ po!er is certainly not contemplated by the la!. Section -7h9 of Article ? of the Civil Service %ecree provides that the Civil Service Commission is authoriDed to perform the follo!in$ functions !ith respect to appointments in the Civil Service, to !it Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service, e:cept those of presidential appointees, members of the Armed =orces of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and 5ail$uards, and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications. . . . 7Emphasis supplied.9 =rom the fore$oin$, it is clear that the Commission has the authority to chec( !hether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eli$ibility or the reuired ualifications. *f he does, his appointment must be approved> if not it should be disapproved. No other criterion may be employed by the Commission !hen it acts on an appointment. #hus, !hen as in this case, it is not disputed that the appointee, %r. 'ordan, is ualified for the contested position, the Commission e:ceeded its po!er in revo(in$ her appointment on the $round that private respondent is more ualified. #he Commission cannot substitute its !ill for that of the appointin$ authority. *t may be true that private respondent has an ed$e over %r. 'ordan in terms of educational attainment inasmuch as the former holds a post/$raduate de$ree in Medicine from a forei$n educational institution and considerin$ that he has had e:perience and trainin$ in reputable institutions here and ab road. ;o!ever, under the pertinent rules on promotion obtainin$ in the Central Ban(, 16 educational attainment and trainin$ e:perience are 5ust amon$ the factors to be considered in the promotion of its employees. #he other f actors to be considered are performance ratin$, e:perience and o utstandin$ accomplishments, physical characteristics and personality traits and potential. After evaluatin$ the ualifications of %r. 'ordan, the Central Ban( arrived at the conclusion that she outran(s the others in point of e:perience, ran(, salary and service in the Ban(. %r. 'ordan holds the de$ree of %octor of Medicine and is a $raduate of the niversity of the Philippines. She had been !ith the Central Ban( since September 1, -)1. *t appears that durin$ this span of time, she had displayed a hi$h de$ree of efficiency, dedication and initiative in dischar$in$ the duties and responsibilities of her position. She also attended various seminars, conferences, symposia and other special trainin$ courses that enriched her (no!led$e in the field of medicine.
Prior to her promotion to the contested position, she held the position of ban( physician from September 1, -)1 to 'uly -, -. 4n 'uly -, -, %r. 'ordan !as promoted to the position of coordinatin$ assistant. 4n the other hand, the private respondent !as appointed to the position of ban( physician only on 4ctober -, -6. 4n one occasion private respondent !as found $uilty of dishonesty for failin$ to reveal in his information sheet that he has a sister/in/la! employed in the Central Ban(. 1 #he stand of the Commission that the appointee did not hold a special medical position prior to her appointment, unli(e in the case of the private respondent !ho held the position of ban( physician is devoid of merit. #he position of coordinatin$ assistant !hich !as held by %r. 'ordan prior to her promotion in the Medical a nd %ental nit !here she belon$s is filled up only by ualified and competent physicians. 4n the basis of the fore$oin$, the appointin$ authority found that %r. 'ordan satisfied all the reuirements set by the Central Ban( on promotion the !isdom of !hich cannot be uestioned. *t must be stressed that the la! does not impose a ri$id or mechanical standard on the appointin$ po!er. #he appointin$ person en5oys sufficient discretion to select and appoint employees on the basis of their fitness to perform the duties and to assume the responsibilities of the position to be filled. 18 As earlier ruled in Reyes vs. Abeleda, 19 at least sufficient discretion, if not plenary, should be $ranted to those entrusted !ith the responsibility of administerin$ the offices concerned, primarily the department heads. #hey are in the position to determine !ho can best fulfill the functions of the office thus vacated. nless the la! spea(s in mandatory and peremptory tone, there should be full reco$nition of the !ide scope of such discretionary authority. #he po!er of appointment is essentially a political uestion involvin$ considerations of !isdom !hich only the appointin$ authority can decide. 19# #he Commission disre$arded the performance ratin$s of %r. 'ordan submitted by the Central Ban( on the $round that the same !ere not si$ned by %r. 'ordan
only on 4ctober 0, -6 that he !as appointed as physician and he assumed the position only on 4ctober -, -6. *t !as, therefore, impossible to consider him for appointment to the contested position before that time. Anent the ar$ument of the respondents that the Central Ban( lac(s the le$al personality to contest the decision of the Commission and hence the decision became final and e:ecutory for failure of %r. 'ordan to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court finds the ar$ument untenable. *n an earlier case, + this Court held that it is the appointin$ authority !ho stands adversely affected !here the Civil Service Commission disapproves the appointment made. #his rule is ac(no!led$ed by the Solicitor 8eneral. ;o!ever, the Solicitor 8eneral contradicted himself by insistin$ that the decision of the MSB dated 4ctober 3, - became final and e:ecutory for failure of %r. 'ordan to file a motion for reconsideration !hen all the !hile the Central Ban( filed a timely motion for reconsideration thereof. Petitioner Central Ban(, as the appointin$ authority is the one !hich can defend its appointment since it (no!s the reasons for the same. Any final determination of the issue can only be enforced throu$h it. Moreover, it is the act of the appointin$ authority that is bein$ uestioned. *ndeed, !hen the Commission directed the Central Ban( to submit its Comment on the appeal filed by private respondent the Commission must have been a!are that the participation of the Central Ban( is indispensable. Althou$h the Commission also directed %r. 'ordan to file a separate Comment, it denied the latter
