G.R. No. 208506 . February 22, 2017
MAHARLIKA A. CUEVAS, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY, in her capacity as Director IV of the Civil Service Commission and MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maharlika A. Cuevas was appointed as Director III of the National Museum, first under a temporary status on November 24, 2008, and later on a permanent status on November 24, 2009, by then Board of Trustees Chairman Antonio O. Cojuangco. The appointments followed a Board Resolution recommending her for the position. A rival applicant, Elenita D.V. Alba, filed a protest with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC, while dismissing Alba’s claim of superior qualification, invalidated Cuevas’s appointment. The CSC found the appointment process flawed, as Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8492 (The National Museum Act of 1998) vests the appointing authority for the Director III position exclusively in the Board of Trustees as a collegial body, not in the Chairman alone.
The CSC declared its resolution final and executory after the National Museum and Cuevas failed to perfect a timely appeal. Cuevas later filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming she only learned of the adverse resolution belatedly. The CSC denied her motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s ruling. Cuevas elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s resolution which invalidated petitioner Cuevas’s appointment as Director III.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed rulings. The core legal issue was the validity of the appointment made solely by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The Court upheld the CSC’s interpretation of Section 11, R.A. No. 8492 , which explicitly states that “The Board of Trustees shall appoint the Director of the Museum and two (2) Assistant Directors.” The law is clear and leaves no room for delegation unless expressly authorized. Unlike other statutes governing state universities, the National Museum Act contains no provision allowing the Board to delegate its appointing power.
Consequently, the act of the Board in merely recommending candidates and then allowing the Chairman to issue the appointment constituted an invalid abdication of its discretionary appointing authority. Since the appointment originated from an unauthorized source, it was void from the beginning. On procedural grounds, the Court found no reversible error in the CA’s affirmation of the CSC’s finding that its resolution had become final due to the failure to appeal within the reglementary period. The petition raised questions of fact or required a re-evaluation of evidence, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law.