GR 112045; (May, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112045 May 29, 1995
DANILO F.C. RIMONTE, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and HENRIETTA F. ROQUE, respondents.
FACTS
Following the enactment of R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman implemented a reorganization. Petitioner Danilo F.C. Rimonte, then Planning Officer III, applied for several positions, including Records Officer V. However, he was appointed Associate Graft Investigation Officer III, while respondent Henrietta F. Roque was appointed to the contested Records Officer V position. Rimonte filed a protest with the Ombudsman, arguing he was better qualified. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez denied the appeal, asserting his discretionary appointing power.
Rimonte then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), alleging violations of reorganization laws and rules. He contended the Central Placement Committee’s Final Ranking Form was defective, as it considered only Roque, used an “assumed” performance rating for her, and employed evaluation criteria different from official guidelines. The CSC dismissed his appeal, finding Roque possessed the minimum qualifications and that the appointing authority’s discretion must be respected. Rimonte’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the appointment of Henrietta F. Roque as Records Officer V.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the CSC resolutions. The Court held that the CSC, as the single arbiter of civil service contests, its judgments are generally unappealable and subject to certiorari review only for grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse. The legal principle is that appointment is a discretionary act of the appointing authority, provided the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications for the position. The Court cited Luego v. Civil Service Commission, which established that the CSC’s authority is limited to determining whether an appointee possesses the required qualifications and eligibility; it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority by choosing who it deems better qualified among candidates.
The Court ruled that since respondent Roque undisputedly met the minimum qualifications for Records Officer V, the Ombudsman’s choice of her over the petitioner, who may have had superior credentials, was within his prerogative. Considerations of wisdom, convenience, and the interests of the service are best left to the head of the office. The alleged procedural irregularities in the ranking process did not invalidate the appointment, as the Ombudsman’s act of appointment itself confirmed his confidence in Roque’s suitability. Therefore, the CSC correctly attested to the appointment.