G.R. No. 93064 June 22, 1992
AGUSTINA G. GAYATAO, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BAYANI I. FERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Bayani I. Fernandez was holding the position of Customs Operations Chief I (COC) in the Bureau of Customs in a permanent capacity since March 5, 1984. On October 15, 1987, he was reassigned as Acting Chief of the Export Division at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Customhouse. On February 15, 1988, Commissioner Salvador M. Mison, purportedly acting pursuant to Executive Order No. 127 implementing the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs, appointed petitioner Agustina G. Gayatao, then a Supervising Customs Trade Examiner, to the position of Customs Operations Chief at the NAIA Customhouse. Subsequently, in a Customs Personnel Order dated March 3, 1988, petitioner was designated as COC of the Export Division at NAIA, while private respondent was designated as Customs Operations Assistant Chief (COAC) of the Aircraft Operations Division. Aggrieved, private respondent filed a protest before the Merit System Protection Board of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), alleging unjust demotion and better qualifications. The CSC, in a resolution dated October 5, 1989, revoked petitioner’s appointment and directed the Commissioner of Customs to appoint private respondent in her stead, a resolution it reaffirmed on April 10, 1990, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment of petitioner and ordering the appointment of private respondent in her place.

RULING

No, the Civil Service Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the CSC’s resolutions. The revocation of petitioner’s appointment was based primarily on the finding that it resulted in the demotion of private respondent without lawful cause, in violation of his security of tenure. Private respondent, a permanent employee, was holding the contested COC position prior to the reorganization. His non-reappointment to that position and designation to a lower position (COAC) amounted to a removal without cause, as his original position was not abolished. The reorganization was tainted with bad faith, as evidenced by the replacement of an incumbent with someone less qualified in terms of status of appointment. The CSC’s reference to private respondent’s better qualifications was merely to support its finding of unlawful demotion and bad faith. The CSC’s action was a valid exercise of its constitutional duty to protect the civil service and order the reinstatement of an employee unlawfully dismissed or demoted, pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6656 . The doctrine that the CSC cannot revoke an appointment simply because it believes another person is better qualified was deemed inapplicable, as the CSC in this case did not substitute the appointing authority’s discretion but merely restored a prior appointee who was illegally demoted.