FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the resolutions issued by the respondents CSC and DARAB. Prior to the reorganization of MAF, the private respondent was the MAO, while the petitioner was the Fisheries Extension Specialist II. After the reorganization, the petitioner was included in the list of employees evaluated for the MAO positions, but the respondent was excluded. The respondent appealed to DARAB and had her ranking changed, displacing the petitioner. The petitioner received an appointment as MAO based on the first evaluation made by the Placement Committee but filed an appeal with the CSC, which was granted. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the CSC should give more weight to the DARAB's resolution. The CSC granted the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the DARAB's appointment of the respondent as MAO. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CSC's resolution was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in reviewing and re-evaluating the rating or qualification of the petitioner Sinon.

2. Whether or not the CSC encroached upon the power of appointment exclusively lodged in the appointing authority.

3. Whether or not the CSC directed the appointment of a substitute of their own choice when the power to appoint was exclusively lodged in the appointing authority.

4. Whether the petitioner's appointment as Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) was complete and valid despite the re-evaluation of qualifications filed by the respondent, and the subsequent recommendation and approval of the DARAB.

5. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) disregarded the findings of the Placement Committee.

RULING:

1. No, the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reviewing and re-evaluating the rating or qualification of the petitioner Sinon.

2. No, the CSC did not encroach upon the power of appointment exclusively lodged in the appointing authority.

3. No, the CSC did not direct the appointment of a substitute of their own choice when the power to appoint was exclusively lodged in the appointing authority.

4. The Court ruled that the petitioner's appointment was not complete and valid because the re-evaluation of qualifications filed by the respondent was still pending. The petitioner cannot claim to have been issued a "complete" appointment until the re-evaluation process was completed.

5. The Court held that the CSC did not disregard the findings of the Placement Committee. The findings were re-evaluated and the report after such re-evaluation was submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. The CSC affirmed the findings of the DARAB.

PRINCIPLES:

• Grave abuse of discretion requires a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that amounts to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

• The Placement Committee is created to "assist" the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel, which involves the exercise of discretionary functions.

• The Placement Committee and the appointing authority have the same discretionary functions in the selection and placement of personnel.

• The aggrieved parties have remedies available, which prevent the appointment from being considered final until all protests or oppositions are duly heard.

• The re-evaluation of qualifications filed by an applicant does not violate the law. It is necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the qualifications of the applicant.

• The CSC has the authority to affirm the findings of the DARAB, as long as it is consistent with the law and does not encroach upon the prerogatives of other authorities.

• In a reorganization, officers and employees holding permanent appointments are given preference for appointment to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former positions.

• The appointing authority for a position lies with the agency head.