G.R. No. 180845. June 06, 2018.
GOV. AURORA E. CERILLES, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ANITA JANGAD-CHUA, MA. EDEN S. TAGAYUNA, MERIAM CAMPOMANES, BERNADETTE P. QUIRANTE, MA. DELORA P. FLORES AND EDGAR PARAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Following the creation of Zamboanga Sibugay, which reduced Zamboanga del Sur’s Internal Revenue Allotment, Governor Aurora Cerilles sought to reorganize the provincial government. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan authorized the reorganization and approved a new staffing pattern with reduced positions. Governor Cerilles implemented the reorganization, appointing new personnel and resulting in the termination of permanent employees, including the private respondents, who were not reappointed.
The terminated employees appealed their termination to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO). Upon reviewing the Report on Personnel Actions, the CSCRO invalidated ninety-six appointments made by Governor Cerilles, finding a violation of Republic Act No. 6656 (the law governing security of tenure during reorganization) for failing to grant preference to permanent employees from the old plantilla. The CSC affirmed this decision. Governor Cerilles challenged the CSC’s jurisdiction and the invalidation of the appointments before the Court of Appeals, which upheld the CSC.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in invalidating the appointments made by Governor Cerilles during the reorganization for alleged non-compliance with RA 6656.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while the appointing authority has discretion, this discretion must be exercised within the bounds of the law. RA 6656 mandates that permanent employees affected by a reorganization be given preference for appointment to new positions in the approved staffing pattern. This preference is a legal right designed to protect security of tenure.
The CSCRO and the CSC properly exercised their constitutional and statutory mandate to enforce civil service laws and rules. Their finding that the appointments disregarded the preference mandated by RA 6656 was supported by the records, as qualified permanent employees from the old plantilla were not reappointed. The CSC’s power to approve or disapprove appointments includes the authority to invalidate those made in violation of the law. Therefore, the CSC’s actions were a valid exercise of its quasi-judicial functions to correct an abuse in the exercise of appointing power, not an encroachment on executive prerogative. The petition was denied.