GR 93935; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93935. February 9, 1994.
FELIPA GUIEB, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and MILAGROS MARCALINAS, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a reorganization of the Department of Agriculture pursuant to Executive Order 116. Petitioner Felipa Guieb was appointed to the position of Administrative Officer I, Department of Agriculture, Region VI, on December 16, 1988. Private respondent Milagros Marcalinas filed a protest against this appointment with the DA-Reorganization Appeals Board on January 27, 1989. While this protest was pending, Marcalinas also filed a Complaint with the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) on July 10, 1989, alleging the same grounds. The CSC, after receiving comments from the Regional Director, promulgated a Resolution on February 14, 1990, finding Marcalinas’s protest meritorious, ruling that her appointment as Administrative Officer I should be given due course, and ordering that Guieb be returned to her organic region (Region XI). Petitioner Guieb filed this special civil action of certiorari, arguing she was denied due process as she was not furnished a copy of the protest and that her appointment did not violate the law on nepotism.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the appointment of petitioner Felipa Guieb and directing the appointment of private respondent Milagros Marcalinas to the contested position.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion. The power of the CSC over appointments, as defined in Section 9(h) of PD No. 807, is limited to checking whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. The Commission cannot employ any other criterion when approving or disapproving an appointment. The Court, citing its ruling in Luego vs. Civil Service Commission and subsequent jurisprudence, held that the CSC disregarded this established doctrine by effectively appointing its own choice (Marcalinas) based on factors beyond eligibility and qualifications. The Court annulled and set aside the CSC resolutions dated February 14, 1990 and May 25, 1990, and remanded the protest to the DA-Reorganization Appeals Board for further proceedings. The Court reprimanded the CSC for its continuing defiance of the Court’s rulings, warning that repetition would invite more severe sanctions.