GR 93479; (June, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93479 ; June 25, 1991
TEODORO G. BARROZO, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and VALENTINO L. JULIAN, respondents.
FACTS
Upon the retirement of the City Engineer of Baguio, Mayor Ramon L. Labo, Jr. extended a permanent appointment to Teodoro G. Barrozo, a Senior Civil Engineer from the DPWH assigned to the City Engineer’s Office. This appointment was approved by the Civil Service Regional Office. Valentino L. Julian, the Assistant City Engineer and next-in-rank, protested the appointment. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), upon appeal, declared Barrozo’s appointment void. The CSC found that while both met the minimum qualifications, Julian, as next-in-rank, was not legally disqualified, and there was no showing Barrozo possessed far superior qualifications or that special reasons justified bypassing Julian. The CSC thus directed Julian’s appointment.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment of Teodoro G. Barrozo and directing the appointment of Valentino L. Julian.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated Barrozo’s appointment. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that the power of appointment is a discretionary act vested in the appointing authority, not the Civil Service Commission. The CSC’s role is limited to ascertaining whether an appointee possesses the required qualifications; it cannot review the appointing authority’s discretion as to who among qualified candidates is best suited. The “next-in-rank” rule under the Civil Service Law only grants preferential consideration for promotion, not an absolute right to appointment. The law requires that next-in-rank employees be considered, but the final selection remains with the appointing authority, who may choose another qualified candidate based on a holistic assessment of qualifications. Since Mayor Labo exercised his discretion within legal bounds and Barrozo was qualified, the CSC overstepped its authority by substituting its own judgment and mandating a specific appointment. The Court reiterated its doctrine from Luego v. CSC that the CSC cannot disallow an appointment merely because it believes another person is better qualified, much less direct the appointment of its own choice.