FACTS:

In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner Perfecto Español seeks the reversal of Resolution No. 88-755 issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The said resolution confirmed the appointment of private respondent Orlando Bulseco as Regional Manager of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Regional Office No. 2. The position became vacant in September 1986. Petitioner Español, who was the Chief of the Engineering Division, filed a letter protest with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) alleging that he should be appointed to the position as he is next-in-rank to the Regional Manager position.

The MSPB ruled in favor of Español based on the provisions of Resolution No. 83-343 of the CSC, which stated that the employee next-in-rank and deemed most competent and qualified should be promoted. However, the CSC reversed the decision of the MSPB and confirmed the appointment of Bulseco. The CSC found that Bulseco, despite holding the position of Chief Design Engineer, had performed the duties and functions of positions equal and next-in-rank to the Regional Manager position. The CSC also considered the superior qualifications and relevant experience of Bulseco.

Petitioner Español, however, argues that the CSC erred in setting aside his appointment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the next-in-rank rule is applicable in promotions and whether the appointing authority has discretion in filling a vacancy.

RULING:

1. The next-in-rank rule is not absolute and only applies in cases of promotions. Even in promotions, the appointing authority has the discretion to disregard the next-in-rank rule for sound reasons. The appointing authority is allowed to fill vacancies through various methods including promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility. There is no legal requirement that a vacancy must be filled only by promotion. 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, not the Civil Service Commission.

PRINCIPLES:

• Appointment is a discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in whom it is vested according to his best judgment, as long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law.

• The next-in-rank rule is not mandatory and can be disregarded.

• The next-in-rank rule provides that those next-in-rank would be among the first to be considered for the vacancy if qualified, but if the vacancy is not filled by promotion, it may be filled by transfer or other modes of appointment.

• The next-in-rank rule is not absolute and can be disregarded in case of promotions.

• The appointing authority has discretion in filling a vacancy and can choose the person he deems fit for appointment.

• The Civil Service Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the head of office in determining the best candidate for a position.

• Formal qualifications are valuable, but intangibles such as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy, initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best interests of the service should also be considered.

• Section 4 of CSC Resolution No. 83-343 has been superseded by Section 2 of Rule 3 of CSC Resolution No. 89-799, which provides that employees in the department who occupy the next lower positions in the occupational group under which the vacant position is classified shall be considered for appointment.

• Section 19(6) of Presidential Decree No. 807 was not repealed by Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1409. It is the power of review by the President, not the next-in-rank rule, that was repealed.