GR 30091; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30091 January 30, 1970
LEONILA S. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO as Commissioner of Civil Service and JESUS D. MACROHON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonila S. del Rosario, an Accountant III in the Bureau of Public Highways (BPH), filed a certiorari and mandamus proceeding against the Civil Service Commissioner and Jesus D. Macrohon. She believed she was the officer next in rank, competent, qualified, and possessing appropriate civil service eligibility, entitled to promotion to the vacant position of Assistant Chief Accountant IV. She assailed the Commissioner’s determination dated September 30, 1968, which held that respondent Macrohon (Chief Accountant I) was rightfully entitled to the promotion and approved it. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications, concurring with a Department Complaints Commission decision, had directed the appointment of Macrohon instead of del Rosario. The Commissioner’s determination noted that, according to the BPH’s proposed Merit Promotion Plan and an organizational chart, the position next in rank to Assistant Chief Accountant IV was Chief Accountant I (held by Macrohon), and del Rosario was next in rank only to the position of Chief Accountant I. The Commissioner also found that Macrohon possessed the requisite qualifications, including a CPA eligibility under RA 1080, and had a higher efficiency rating (94%) compared to del Rosario’s (90%).
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the promotion of Jesus D. Macrohon over Leonila S. del Rosario to the position of Assistant Chief Accountant IV, and whether mandamus lies to compel del Rosario’s promotion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court held that petitioner failed to make a clear and sufficient showing that she was the officer next in rank entitled to promotion under Section 23 of the Civil Service Act. The organizational chart indicated her position was lower than Macrohon’s. The Court emphasized the broad discretionary authority of the appointing power (the department head) in choosing who is best qualified for promotion, provided the appointee is qualified and eligible. The department head had chosen Macrohon, and the Commissioner’s approval was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Since no legal right of the petitioner was violated, certiorari and mandamus did not lie. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.