You are on page 1of 2

AQUINO v.

CSC Aquino filed a protest with the DECS Secretary questioning the qualification and
April 22, 1992 | Bersamin, J. | Appointment competence of Leonarda.
Digester: Bea, Alexis DECS Secretary Lourdes R. Quisumbing: revoked appointment of Leonarda on the
ground that Aquino was more competent and qualified.
SUMMARY: Petitioner was designated as Officer-in-charge of the Division Supply Aquino was then issued issued a permanent appointment as Supply Officer I which
Office by the DECS Regional Director in view of the retirement of the Supply Officer was approved by the Civil Service Regional Office.
I. Two years thereafter, the Division Superintendent of City Schools issued a Leonarda filed a notice of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
promotional appointment to private respondent as Supply Officer I in the DECS
MSPB: affirmed DECS.
division. The Civil Service Regional Office IV approved her appointment as permanent.
Petitioner filed a protest with DECS Secretary questioning the qualification and CSC: reversed and restored Leonarda to her position.
competence of private respondent for the position of Supply Officer I.
Finding the petitioner better qualified than the respondent, the DECS Secretary in a Whether or not CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking the
decision sustained the protest and revoked the appointment of private respondent, and appointment of Aquino as it found Leonarda better qualifiedNO
petitioner was issued a permanent appointment as Supply Officer by the DECS Consistently, the Court has ruled that the Civil Service Commission has no
Regional Director. Said appointment was approved by the Civil Service Regional Office authority to revoke an appointment simply because it believed that another person
IV. In an appeal to the CSC, public respondent CSC found the appeal meritorious, thus is better qualified than the appointee for it would constitute an encroachment on
revoking the appointment of petitioner and restoring private respondent to her position the discretion solely vested on the appointing authority.
under her previously approved appointment. In the case at bar, petitioner assailing the However, the Civil Service Commission has authority to revoke the appointment of
revocation of his appointment, invokes the rulings in previous jurisprudence that the the successful protestant, petitioner herein, when the right to security of tenure of
CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is the prior appointee, private respondent herein, to the contested position had
more qualified for a particular position for that would have constituted an already attached, as in this case. It must be noted that public CSC did not direct the
encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority appointment of a substitute of its choice. It merely restored the appointment of
Leonarda who was first appointed to the contested position.
DOCTRINE: It is well settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee
appointee assumes position, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right, which is assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires
protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away a legal, not merely equitable right (to the position), which is protected not only by
from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause and statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away from him either by
with previous notice and hearing. Said appointment cannot also be revoked on the revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous
ground that the protestant is more qualified than the first appointee. notice and hearing (Mitra v. Subido).
Said appointment cannot also be revoked on the ground that the protestant is more
FACTS: qualified than the first appointee. The protest must be for a cause or predicated on
Victor A. Aquino, then holding the position of Clerk II, Division of City Schools those grounds provided for under Sect 19 (6) of the Civil Service Law (PD 807),
of San Pablo City, was designated as Officer-in-Charge of the Division Supply namely:
Office by the DECS Regional Director Saturnino R. Magturo in view of the o 1) that the appointee is not qualified;
retirement of the Supply Officer I, Mr. Jose I. Aviquivil. o 2) that the appointee is not the next in rank; and
Prior to such designation, Aquino was designated as Property Inspector and In- o 3) in case of appointment transfer, reinstatement, or by original
Charge of the Supply Office performing the duties and responsibilities of the appointment, that the protestant is not satisfied with the written special
Supply Officer I. reasons or reason given by the appointing authority.
However, 2 years later the Division Superintendent of City Schools of San Pablo There is thus reasonable ground for the rule that the moment the discretionary
City, Milagros Tagle, issued a promotional appointment to Leonarda D. de la Paz power of appointment has been exercised and the appointee assumed the duties
as Supply Officer I. and functions of the position, the said appointment cannot be revoked by the
At the time of her appointment, Leonarda was then holding the position of Clerk appointing authority on the ground merely that the protestant is more qualified
II. The Civil Service approved her appointment as permanent "provided that there than the first appointee, subject however to the condition that the first appointee
is no pending administrative case against the appointee, no pending protest against should possess the minimum qualifications required by law. Otherwise, the security
the appointment, nor any decision by competent authority that will adversely affect of tenure guaranteed by Article IX-B, Section 2 par. (3) of the 1987 Constitution
the approval of (the) appointment".
would be rendered meaningless if the appointing authority is allowed to flip-flop in
exercising its discretionary power of appointment.
Even on the assumption that the revocation of Leonarda's appointment was validly
exercised by DECS Secretary Quisumbing, still the appointment extended to
Aquino was tainted with irregularity as it was issued before the finality of the
decision on the protest in violation of CSC Resolution No. 83-343 which prohibits
the issuance of an appointment to protestant if the protest case is not yet finally
resolved, since there is no vacancy in the position pending resolution of the protest
case. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The incumbent must
first be legally removed or his appointment validly terminated. An appointment to
an office which is not vacant is null and void ab initio.

NOTES:
FOR CAUSE for reasons which the law and sound public policy recognized as
sufficient warrant for removal, that is, legal cause, and not merely causes which the
appointing power in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient. It is implied
that officers may not be removed at the mere will of those vested with the power
of removal, or without any cause. Moreover, the cause must relate to and affect the
administration of office and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature
directly affecting the rights and interests of the public

You might also like