GR 180845; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180845 November 22, 2017
GOV. AURORA E. CERILLES, Petitioner, vs. 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 initiated a reorganization of the provincial government. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan approved a new staffing pattern with reduced positions and authorized the reorganization. Governor Cerilles subsequently made new appointments to the revised plantilla. Several permanent employees from the old staffing pattern, including the private respondents, were terminated and not appointed to the new positions. They appealed their termination directly to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO), which, upon reviewing the Report on Personnel Actions, invalidated ninety-six of the Governor’s appointments for allegedly violating Republic Act No. 6656 by failing to grant preference to permanent employees from the old plantilla.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) upheld the CSCRO’s invalidation of the appointments. Governor Cerilles elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the CSC lacked original jurisdiction over reorganization protests under R.A. 6656 and committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals, while noting the petition was the wrong mode of appeal, resolved it on the merits and affirmed the CSC’s decision, leading to this appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in invalidating the appointments made by Governor Cerilles during the reorganization.
RULING
No, the Civil Service Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the CSC’s decision. The legal logic centers on the proper application of R.A. 6656, which governs government reorganizations. The law mandates that permanent employees in the original staffing pattern must be given preference for appointment to new positions in the reorganized structure. The Court found that the reorganization undertaken by Governor Cerilles failed to comply with this statutory requirement. The CSC, in the exercise of its constitutional mandate to uphold the merit and fitness principle in the civil service, has the authority to review and invalidate appointments that violate the law. The Governor’s discretion in making appointments is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds set by statutes like R.A. 6656. The CSC’s finding that the appointments disregarded the preferential rights of permanent employees was a valid exercise of its quasi-judicial powers to ensure compliance with civil service laws and rules. Consequently, its actions were not attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.