GR 92103; (November, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990
VIOLETA T. TEOLOGO, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DR. PRUDENCIO J. ORTIZ, DR. JOSE M. TUPAZ, JR., and MRS. RUBY G. GELVEZON, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Violeta Teologo, questions the appointment of private respondent Ruby Gelvezon as Chief Nurse I at the Representative Pedro Trono Memorial Hospital. Teologo, who had held the position in an acting capacity for over a year and claimed to be next-in-rank, argued she had a preferential right to the appointment. She contended Gelvezon was ineligible, having retired as a Senior Nurse in 1986 and collected all retirement benefits. Gelvezon’s reinstatement was sought under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 5, s-1983, which permits reinstatement of a retiree only under specific conditions.
The Civil Service Regional Office No. 6 initially denied the request for authority to reinstate Gelvezon, noting the vacancy could be filled by promoting qualified personnel like Teologo. However, the Civil Service Commission, upon appeal by Regional Health Director Dr. Prudencio Ortiz, set aside this denial. The CSC directed action on Gelvezon’s appointment, erroneously stating she was neither a retiree nor overage and thus did not require prior reinstatement authority. Teologo’s motion for reconsideration, which highlighted Gelvezon’s retired status and the violation of circulars, was denied by the CSC.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the reinstatement and appointment of Ruby Gelvezon to the position of Chief Nurse I.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and nullified the CSC resolutions. The Court held that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion. While the appointing authority possesses discretionary power to select appointees based on qualifications, this discretion must be exercised within legal bounds. Gelvezon, as a retiree, could not be reinstated without complying with the stringent requirements of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 5, s-1983, which mandates prior authority—a condition not satisfied here. The CSC’s approval overlooked this fundamental rule.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the CSC’s role is limited to attesting that an appointee possesses the prescribed qualifications, not to substitute its judgment for the appointing authority’s choice among qualified candidates. However, in this case, the appointment bypassed eligible and available candidates like Teologo who were already in the service, undermining the principles of career service advancement and loyalty. The reinstatement, effected despite Gelvezon’s misrepresentation regarding her retired status and the availability of qualified incumbents, constituted an invalid exercise of discretion. Thus, the promotions in the civil service must be based on merit, competence, and devotion to duty, not on political patronage or arbitrary preference.