NARCISO Y. SANTIAGO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LEONARDO A.

JOSE FACTS: Santiago held the position of Customs Collector before he was extended a permanent promotional appointment by then Customs Commissioner Wigberto Tanada to the rank of Customs Collector III. Leonardo Jose opposed the appointment before the MPSBsaying that he was next-in-rank, being a Customs Collector II. MPSB referred the protest to Tanada who upheld the appointment saying that: (1) the next-in-rank rule is no longer mandatory; (2) the protestee is competent and qualified for the position (3) existing law and jurisprudence give wide latitude of discretion to the appointing authority. The MPSB however ruled differently and revoked the appointment of Santiago, directing that Jose be appointed in his stead. The CSC invoked its power to enforce the merit system under the Constitution and held Jose to be better qualified for his educational attainment, civil service eligibilities, relevant seminars and training courses taken, and holding as he does by permanent appointment a position which is higher in rank and salary range. Hence the petition by Santiago. ISSUE: WON Jose being next-in-rank should be appointed to the contested position HELD: NO RATIO: In Taduran vs. Civil Service Commission it was held that there is "no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in the (Civil Service Law) that persons next-in-rank are entitled to preference in appointment. What it does provide is that they would be among the first to be considered for the vacancy, if qualified, and if the vacancy is not filled by promotion, the same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of appointment. One who is next-in-rank is entitled to preferential consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy but it does not necessarily follow that he and no one else can be appointed. The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty on the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position. CSC Resolution No. 83- 343 Sec 4 provides An employee who holds a next-in- rank position who is deemed the most competent and qualified, possesses an appropriate civil service eligibility, and meets the other conditions for promotion shall be promoted to the higher position when it becomes vacant. However, the appointing authority may promote an employee who is not next-in-rank but who possesses superior qualifications and competence compared to a next-in-rank employee who merely meets the minimum requirements for the position. Tanada justified the appointment he made by comparing the credentials and work experience of the two. While Jose was a Customs cCollector, there was no official record of activity recommending him for promotion. On the other hand, after the February revolution, the Protestee was immediately designated by the undersigned as Chief of a task force which has been credited with the seizure of millions of pesos worth of smuggled shipments. Each one was duly recorded, not only in the official files, but also in the media. Protestee has been the recipient of citations awarded by the Customs Commissioner for the two consecutive years 1984 and 1985, for exemplary performance of official duties, particularly investigation and prosecution. More specifically, the latest citation commends the Protestee for his pivotal role in the seizure and forfeiture of an ocean-going vessel upheld by the Supreme Court, which constituted a first in the history of this Bureau. The power to appoint is a matter of discretion. The appointing power has a wide latitude of choice as to who is best qualified for the position. To apply the next-in-rank rule peremptorily would impose a rigid formula on the appointing power contrary to the policy of the law that among those qualified and eligible, the appointing authority is granted discretion and prerogative of choice of the one he deems fit for appointment. The Commission is empowered to approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service and disapprove those where the appointees do not possess the appropriate eligibility or required qualification. However, "all the commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. it has no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it believed that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority."

ARDELIZA MEDENILLA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AMPARO DELLOSA, ROSALINDA JURIA and MARITA BURDEOS FACTS: Petitioner Ardeliza Medenilla was a contractual employee of the DPWH occupying the position of PRO II. He was detailed as Technical Assistant in the Office of Secretary for Administration and Manpower Management . Pursuant to E.O. 124, a reorganization ensued within the DPWH and all the positions were abolished. He was appointed to the position of Supervising Human Resource Development Officer. Section 4. An employee who holds a next in rank position who is competent and qualified, possesses an appropriate civil service eligibility and meets the other conditions for promotion shall be promoted to the higher position, when it becomes vacant. (Emphasis supplied) Respondents who are employees in the Human Resource Training and Material Development Division contested the appointment saying that being next-in-rank employees, one of them shouldve been appointed to the position. The CSC sustained the protest saying that the next in rank should as far as practicable be appointed. It also noted that while Medenilla is a contractual employee, the others are permanent. The MR by Medenilla was denied. ISSUES: 1. WON Medenilla was denied due process when CSC did not inform her of the appeal before it 2. WON CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving appointment of Medenilla 3. WON Medenilla was validly appointed by the appointing authority based on qualifications HELD: 1. No 2. Yes 3. Yes RATIO: 1. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The presence of a party is not always the cornerstone of due process. In the case at bar, any defect was cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. 2. When the appointee is qualified, CSC has no choice but to attest to the appointment. It is not within its prerogative to revoke an appointee on the ground that another person is better qualified for the job. Once the function is discharged, the CSCs participation in the appointment process ceases. 3. Petitioner wasnt only a cum laude graduate from the UP, she has also acq uired plenty of experience in the field of HRD. She was ranked No.1 in the Trainor's Training Program, was a recipient of a special commendationgiven by Executive Director of the National Commission in the Role of Filipino Woman, She obtained in her on-going MBA studies at the DLUS, which she pursued as an entrance scholar. CSC failed to consider that the petitioner, in her 1 year 7 months experience with Guthrie-Jensen was engaged in research relating to performance appraisal systems and merit promotion systems which duties are all related to Human Resource Development. The disputed position requires of the holder of the office, skills in human resource developmental planning, research and statistics. The petitioner possesses these skills in more than appropriate quantities. Old employees should be considered first but it doesnt follow that they should automatically be appointed. The preference given to permanent employees assumes that employees working in a Department for longer periods have gained not only superior skills but also greater dedication to the public service. This is not always true and the law does not preclude the infusion of new blood, younger dynamism, or necessary talents into the government service. If, after considering all the current employees, the Department Secretary cannot find among them the person he needs, theres nothing in the Civil Service Law to prevent him from reaching out to other Departments or to the private sector provided all his acts are bona fide for the best interest of the public service and the person chosen has the needed qualifications. The reason behind P.D. No. 907 of attracting honor graduates into the public service would be negated if they always have to start as Clerk I and wait for hundreds of deadwood above them to first go into retirement before they can hope for significant and fulfilling assignments. In this case, the contested position was created in the course of reorganization. The position appears to be a new one. The applicability, therefore, of the next-in-rank rule does not come in clearly. Besides, as earlier stated, said rule is not absolute. There are valid exceptions. Granting for the sake of argument that the case involves a promotional appointment, the next-in-rank rule must give way to the exigencies of the public service. The intent of the Civil Service Laws not merely to bestow upon permanent employees the advantage arising from their long employment but most specially, it is to foster a more efficient public service.

JAIME T. PANIS vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BELLA V. VELOSO

FACTS: The CCMC, formerly known as the Cebu City Hospital, is operated and maintained by the local government of Cebu City. Petitioner was employed as Administrative Officer of the Hospital, while private respondent was Administrative Officer of the City Health Department detailed at the said hospital. Ordinance No. 1216 amending the Charter of Cebu changed the name of the hospital to CCMC and under such ordinance, the City Mayor appointed respondent Veloso as of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration. Panis assails this appointment saying that: 1) 1) the position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration was not legally created; (2) assuming that it was, there was no qualification standard nor valid screening procedure; and (3) the seniority and next-in-rank rules were disregarded. Panis protested the appointment which was however denied at all levels. ISSUES; 1. WON the office was validly created 2. WON Veloso was validly appointed to the position taking into consideration qualifications HELD: 1. Yes 2. Yes RATIO: 1. Ordinance No. 1216 for the purpose of correcting the deficiencies and improving the performance of said institution amending the Charter of Cebu provided for an Office of Hospital Administrator, granted such powers as were deemed in line with the objectives of the Ordinance. The title of Hospital Administrator was later found to be a misnomer and thus was properly classified by the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration as one of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration. This classification was subsequently approved by the Department of Budget Management. The position of Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration is the very same position of Hospital Administrator created by Ordinance No. 1216. The Office of Hospital Administrator was not extinguished, the designation thereof was merely corrected to reflect the proper classification of the position under existing rules. 2. Both candidates possess the minimum qualifications for the position. The determination of among the qualified candidates should be preferred belongs to the appointing authority. The "next in rank" rule specifically applies only in cases of promotion. This case however involves a new office and a position created in the course of a valid reorganization. Under the law, a vacancy not filled by promotion may be filled by transfer of present employees in the government service, by reinstatement, by reemployment of those separated from the service, and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility, but not necessarily in this order. It cannot be said that private respondent was an outsider. Although directly employed by the City Health Department, she actually worked at the CCMC prior to her appointment to the subject position. Besides, even, if she was an outsider, the law does not prohibit the employment of persons from the private sector so long as they have the appropriate civil service eligibility. The concept of "next in rank" does not impose any mandatory or peremptory requirement to appoint the person occupying the next lower position in the occupational group of the office. What the Civil Service Law and the Administrative Code of 1987 provide is that if a vacancy is filled up by the promotion, the person holding the position next in rank thereto "shall be considered for promotion. One who is "next in rank" to a vacancy is given preferential consideration for promotion to the vacant position, but it does nor necessarily follow that he alone and no one else can be appointed. There is no vested right granted the next in rank nor a ministerial duty imposed on the appointing authority to promote the holder to the vacant position An appointment, whether to a vacancy or to a newly created position, is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested. Once a candidate possesses the minimum qualities required by law, sufficient discretion, if not plenary, is granted to the appointing authority. whom to appoint among those qualified is an administrative question involving considerations of wisdom for the best interest of the service which only the appointing authority can decide.