G.R. No. 96578 ; May 20, 1991
CELSO LUSTRE, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TASK FORCE ON REORGANIZATION APPEALS AND JAPAR TAHIR, respondents.

FACTS

Pursuant to a reorganization under Republic Act No. 6656 , petitioner Celso Lustre was appointed Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) of Tubao, Lanao del Norte, effective July 1, 1988. His appointment, however, was expressly issued “without prejudice to the final outcome of the protest filed against this appointment.” Private respondent Japar Tahir filed a protest against this appointment. The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Appeals Board (DA-RAB) subsequently upheld the protest, finding Tahir more qualified based on a comparative evaluation of their credentials, and ordered the recall of Lustre’s appointment.
Lustre appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), arguing a violation of his security of tenure, as he had held the position for over two years. He also contested the evaluation of his qualifications, particularly his education and training credits, and later sought to submit additional certificates of training. The CSC dismissed his appeal, affirming the DA-RAB’s findings that Tahir obtained a higher total score (58.82%) than Lustre (56.52%) in the evaluation covering education, performance, experience, training, and examination.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the recall of petitioner Lustre’s appointment and dismissing his appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in Lustre’s arguments. The Court held that Lustre’s security of tenure was not violated because his appointment was conditional and explicitly subject to the resolution of the pending protest. Upon the protest’s resolution in favor of Tahir, the conditional nature of the appointment was triggered.
On the merits of the qualification evaluation, the Court deferred to the expertise of the DA-RAB and the CSC. It found no reason to disturb the CSC’s factual findings, which were supported by evidence. The CSC correctly excluded Lustre’s training hours that were irrelevant to the MAO position or were completed after the effective date of the appointment (July 1, 1988). His belatedly submitted training certificates were insufficient to overturn Tahir’s higher score. The Court also noted that the CSC acted reasonably in setting deadlines for document submission to prevent indefinite delays in protest cases.
Furthermore, the Court clarified the scope of the CSC’s authority. Its power is limited to approving or disapproving an appointment based on whether the appointee possesses the required qualifications. It cannot substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority by directing the appointment of a candidate it deems better qualified. In this case, the appointing authority’s conditional appointment, coupled with the valid finding that Tahir was more qualified, justified the CSC’s actions.