View full case

NENITA E. DELA CRUZ v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

This case revolves around a petition for certiorari filed by Nenita dela Cruz, challenging the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) that overturned the ruling of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Reorganization Appeals Board. The petitioner and the private respondent, Cynthia Cruz, were both appointed to positions within the Department of Science and Technology. Specifically, the petitioner was appointed as an International Science Relations Officer IV (ISRO IV), while the respondent was appointed as an International Science Relations Officer III (ISRO III). These positions were designated for the Typhoon Committee Secretariat (TCS) under the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA).

Prior to their appointments, the petitioner held the position of Meteorological Aide [Rank 2], which had a lower salary compared to the respondent's position as a Feature Writer [Rank 11] under PAGASA. The respondent contested the petitioner's appointment before the DOST Reorganization Appeals Board, arguing that she held a higher rank and should have been appointed to the ISRO IV position. The Appeals Board initially dismissed the appeal and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

However, the Civil Service Commission reversed the decision of the Appeals Board and awarded the contested position to the respondent. The Commission stated that the respondent was better qualified for the ISRO IV position. This prompted the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before the court, seeking to annul the CSC's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the position of Feature Writer held by private respondent is fundamentally related to the contested position of International Science Officer IV held by petitioner.

  2. Whether the absence of performance ratings for the last two years is a sufficient ground to appoint private respondent over petitioner.

  3. Whether the previous rank and salary range of private respondent can be considered as a basis for her being more qualified for the position.

  4. Whether the next-in-rank rule should be applied to resolve the dispute.

  5. Whether the appointing authority has the discretion to choose among qualified candidates.

RULING:

  1. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer. Its authority is limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law. When the appointee is qualified and all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the CSC has no choice but to attest to the appointment. Appointment is an essentially discretionary power vested in the appointing officer, and as long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law, the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred.

  2. The next-in-rank rule is not absolute as vacancies can be filled through various means, including appointment of outsiders with appropriate eligibility. In this case, the contested position was newly created and did not exist prior to reorganization, so the next-in-rank employee cannot insist on being appointed.

  3. While preferential consideration is given to the next-in-rank employee, it does not guarantee their appointment. The appointing authority has the discretion to choose the most qualified candidate for the position.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The authority of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) is limited to reviewing appointments on the basis of the Civil Service Law.

  • The CSC has no power to determine the kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer.

  • Appointment is an essentially discretionary power vested in the appointing officer, as long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law.

  • The power of the Civil Service Commission is limited to checking if the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or required qualifications. The Commission cannot revoke an appointment based on its belief that another candidate is more qualified.

  • The promotion and appointment in the civil service should be based on merit and fitness. However, the Civil Service Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority in promoting the merit system.