G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968
BIENVENIDO F. REYES, petitioner-appellee, vs. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE & CASHIER AND DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the right to promotion to the vacant position of Budget Officer IV in the School Finance Division of the Bureau of Public Schools. Petitioner Bienvenido F. Reyes, who had been employed in the government since June 15, 1939, and in the School Finance Division since July 25, 1940, was appointed as Acting Budget Officer III in that division on August 2, 1962. Respondent Romeo G. Abeleda, in government service since August 16, 1937, was appointed as Budget Officer III in the Medical and Dental Services Division of the same Bureau, effective July 1, 1962. The Director of Public Schools recommended Reyes for promotion to the vacant Budget Officer IV position. However, the Secretary of Education instructed the preparation of an appointment proposal in favor of Abeleda. Reyes filed a protest with the Commissioner of Civil Service, which was resolved against him, and Abeleda was promoted. The Court of First Instance of Manila declared Abeleda’s appointment null and void, ordered it set aside, and directed the approval of Reyes’s appointment, finding Reyes to be the “next in rank” in the division where the vacancy existed. The respondents appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is who, under the Civil Service Law (Section 23 of Republic Act No. 2260 ), has the right to promotion to fill a vacancy in a competitive or classified position as the person “next in rank” who is “competent and qualified” and possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and denied the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court held that respondent Abeleda was rightfully promoted. The law provides that if there are two or more persons under equal circumstances, seniority shall be given preference. Both Reyes and Abeleda were Budget Officers III. However, Reyes held his position in an “acting capacity,” whereas Abeleda held his with a “permanent status.” Furthermore, Abeleda had seniority in government service (appointed 1937 vs. Reyes’s 1939) and in assuming the Budget Officer III position (permanently on July 1, 1962, vs. Reyes’s acting appointment on August 21, 1962). Therefore, Abeleda was not under equal circumstances with Reyes and was the senior candidate. The Court also emphasized that the appointing power enjoys sufficient discretion to select employees based on their fitness, and the law does not impose a rigid formula. The Secretary of Education’s appointment of Abeleda complied with the statutory provision and was within his discretionary authority.