G.R. No. 92673 ; March 13, 1991
CONRADO C. CORTEZ, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BERNARDINO B. TUAZON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Conrado C. Cortez was appointed by the Philippine National Railways (PNR) Board of Directors as Chief Engine Crew Dispatcher in 1987, with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) approving it as temporary. Private respondent Bernardino B. Tuazon, holding the position of Engine Crew Dispatcher In-Charge, filed a protest with the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming he was better qualified and entitled to preference under the next-in-rank rule. The Board revoked Cortez’s appointment, finding Tuazon better qualified, a decision affirmed by the CSC on appeal.
Cortez filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the CSC cannot substitute its discretion for the appointing authority (PNR) as long as he possesses the minimum qualifications. He asserted his eligibility and contended the next-in-rank rule is not absolute. The CSC defended its resolution, presenting comparative qualifications showing Tuazon, a college graduate with a Railway Officer eligibility and longer service, scored higher in the PNR’s own evaluation than Cortez, who only reached third year college and held a Railway Assistant eligibility.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment of Cortez.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that Cortez failed to meet the prescribed minimum qualifications for the position of Chief Engine Crew Dispatcher, specifically the requirement of being a college graduate and possessing at least ten years of relevant experience. His claim of eligibility under R.A. No. 6850 was deemed applicable only to his present position, not for promotion. The CSC’s role is to ensure appointees meet the minimum qualifications; its revocation was a proper exercise of this function to protect the integrity of the civil service.
However, the Court clarified and set a crucial limitation on the CSC’s power. While the CSC can disapprove an appointment for lack of minimum qualifications, it cannot dictate to the appointing authority who to appoint. The Court interpreted the CSC’s statement that Tuazon “should be appointed” as a mere suggestion, not a lawful order. Citing Luego v. Civil Service Commission, the Court held that once the CSC determines an appointee is qualified, its role ends; it cannot revoke a valid appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as this encroaches on the discretionary power of the appointing authority. The petition was denied.