GR 102948; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102948 February 2, 1994
JAIME T. PANIS, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BELLA V. VELOSO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jaime T. Panis and private respondent Bella V. Veloso were both employed by the Cebu City government. Panis was the Administrative Officer of the Cebu City Medical Center (CCMC), while Veloso was the Administrative Officer of the City Health Department detailed at CCMC. On November 9, 1987, the Mayor of Cebu City appointed Veloso to the newly created position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration of CCMC. Panis, also a candidate for the position, protested the appointment. The protest was dismissed by the City Attorney, with the Mayor’s approval, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office and later by the CSC itself. Panis filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the appointment violated law and civil service rules because: (1) the position was not legally created; (2) there was no qualification standard or valid screening procedure; and (3) the seniority and next-in-rank rules were disregarded.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the appointment of Bella V. Veloso to the position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC. The Court held:
1. The position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration was legally created under Ordinance No. 1216, which reorganized the Cebu City Hospital (renamed CCMC). The initial title “Hospital Administrator” was a misnomer and was properly reclassified to “Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration” by the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration, with approval from the Department of Budget Management.
2. Both Panis and Veloso possessed the minimum qualifications for the position. A valid screening by the Personnel Selection Board was conducted. Panis, despite due notice, failed to appear for the screening and final selection process.
3. The “next-in-rank” rule applies only to promotions, not to appointments to a newly created position resulting from a valid reorganization. Even if the rule applied, it only grants preferential consideration, not a vested right to appointment. The appointing authority has discretionary power to choose from among qualified candidates, considering who can best serve the interest of the service. The Mayor validly exercised this discretion in appointing Veloso, noting her competence and achievements in improving the hospital’s performance during her detail.
4. Allegations regarding Veloso’s moral character and honesty were deemed irrelevant to the appointment’s validity and should be addressed in a separate appropriate proceeding.