G.R. No. L-34632 February 21, 1980
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. APOLONIO AYROSO and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Apolonio Ayroso, a Junior Field Service Representative (Pay Class 5) at the GSIS, filed a petition for intervention in an existing CIR case. He alleged that five vacant positions for Field Insurance Representative (Pay Class 6) existed and that the GSIS management intended to fill them with candidates less qualified than him. He prayed for an order directing his promotion. The GSIS opposed, citing a collective bargaining agreement provision and a Board Resolution approving recommendations for the vacancies, which were pending due to protests. A subsequent GSIS memorandum even recommended Ayroso for one of the positions. The CIR found that, based on the GSIS’s own points system for promotions, Ayroso had the second-highest rating among the candidates and was a first-grade civil service eligible with a service award.
The CIR issued an order directing the GSIS to extend promotional appointments to Ayroso and four other named employees. The GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration, reserving its right to submit supporting arguments later. The CIR en banc dismissed this motion as pro forma, ruling that the supporting arguments were filed beyond the reglementary period. The GSIS then elevated the case via certiorari, arguing that promotion is a management prerogative and that the CIR committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the GSIS to promote Apolonio Ayroso and in dismissing the GSIS’s motion for reconsideration as pro forma.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s orders, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the substantive issue, the Court held that while the right to select and appoint is generally a management prerogative, this prerogative is not absolute. It must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not to defeat employee rights under laws or valid agreements. In this case, the GSIS had bound itself through a Memorandum Agreement and a subsequent Board Resolution, which made promotions from Pay Classes 1 to 6 subject to CIR approval as per an earlier CIR order in the main case. By voluntarily submitting the matter to the CIR’s jurisdiction, the GSIS could not later claim the CIR overstepped by enforcing its own order. The CIR’s directive was merely to implement the agreed-upon promotion system based on the established points system, where Ayroso was demonstrably qualified.
Regarding the procedural issue, the Court found the CIR did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion for reconsideration as pro forma. The motion merely stated the order was contrary to facts and law without specifying grounds, and the supporting arguments were filed late. A motion for reconsideration that does not point out specifically the findings or conclusions alleged to be contrary to law is pro forma and does not suspend the period for appeal. The CIR acted within its rule-making power in enforcing its procedural rules. Consequently, the petition was denied.