JOSE P.

LAUREL V, in his ofcial capacity as Provincial Governor of Batanas

vs. !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% LORE$&O SA$GALA$G
'A!(S)
The Governor of Batangas appointed his brother, Benjamin, as Senior Executive Assistant, a non-
career service position which belongs to the personal and condential sta! of an elective o"cial#
$e appointed his again as Acting %rovincial Administrator when the incumbent resigned- for
alleged lac& of 'ualied applicants and so as not to prejudice the operation of the %rovincial
Government# (onse'uentl), *ose issued Benjamin +aurel a promotional appointment as (ivil
Securit) ,"cer classied as primaril) condential b) %- ./.#
0espondent assails the appointment sa)ing that1 234 the position in 'uestion is a career position,
254 the appointment violates civil service rules, and 264 since the Governor authori7ed said
appointee to receive representation allowance, he violated the Anti-Graft and (orrupt %ractices
Act#
The Governor asserts that the appointment did not violate the provision prohibiting nepotism
under Section 89 of %#-# :o# .;< because both the positions of Senior Executive Assistant and
(ivil Securit) ,"cer, are primaril) condential in nature# :either was there a violation of %#-# .;<
Sec 89
3
because what the latter proscribes is the appointment of a relative to career service
position and since +aurel was onl) designated as Acting %rovincial Administrator, the prohibition
doesn=t appl)#
The (S( revo&ed the designation of Benjamin as Acting %rovincial Administrator for being
nepotic#for although dubbed a designation, was still illegal because what cannot be done directl)
cannot be done indirectl)# >ailing his ?designation defense@, he now insists that the duties,
functions and responsibilities of the %rovincial Administrator ma&e them primaril) condential in
nature#
The SolGen argues that the doctrines in the cases cited b) +aurel were alread) superseded b) %-
.;<, Sec / and %- ./. which repealed an) provision of law authori7ing an) o"cial, other than
the %resident, to declare positions polic)-determining, primaril) condential or highl) technical
"SSUES)
3# A,: Benjamin can be validl) appointed to the position of %rovincial Administrator, the latter
being a primaril) condential position#
5#A,: the rule on nepotism applies to designation
6# A,: the doctrines in %inero and Sala7ar were superseded b) %- ./.
*EL+)
3# :o
5# Bes
6# :o
RA("O)
3# Cf the position is primaril) condential, the prohibition in %- .;< will not appl)# >irstl), it must
be noted that the prior admission of the petitioner to the position being a career position
amounts to estoppel# Even barring estoppel, the position cannot be claimed as primaril)
condential# Benjamin cannot be appointed#
1
SECTION 49. Nepotism. (a) All appointments in the national, provincial, city an m!nicipal "overnments or in any #ranch or
instr!mentality thereo$, incl!in" "overnment%o&ne or controlle corporations, mae in $avor o$ a relative o$ the appointin" or
recommenin" a!thority, or o$ the chie$ o$ the #!rea! or o$$ice, or o$ the persons e'ercisin" immeiate s!pervision over him, are here#y
prohi#ite.
As !se in this Section, the &or (relative( an mem#ers o$ the $amily re$erre to are those relate &ithin the thir e"ree either o$
consan"!inity or a$$inity.
(#) The $ollo&in" are e'empte $rom the operation o$ the r!les on nepotism) (*) persons employe in a con$iential capacity, (+)
teachers, (,) physicians, an (4) mem#ers o$ the Arme -orces o$ the .hilippines
The position of %rovincial Administrator is embraced within the (areer Service under Section D
5
of
%#-# :o# .;< as evidenced b) the 'ualications prescribed for it in the Eanual of %osition
-escriptions#
*udging from the above-cited description, the position is in the career service which, is
characteri7ed b) 2a4 entrance based on merit and tness to be determined as far as practicable
b) competitive examinations, or based on highl) technical 'ualications, 2b4 opportunit) for
advancement to higher career positions, and 2c4 securit) of tenure# Eore specicall), it is an
open career position, for appointment to it re'uires prior 'ualication in an appropriate
examination# As such, it cannot be a primaril) condential position#
Another obstacle to Benjamin=s appointment as %rovincial Administrator is contained in Section
582f4 of 0#A# :o# 55/; which provides that no person appointed to a position in the non-
competitive service 2now non-career4 shall perform the duties properl) belonging to an) position
in the competitive service 2now career service4## At the time he was designated as Acting
%rovincial Administrator, he was holding the position of Senior Executive Assistant in the ,"ce of
the Governor, a primaril) condential position# $e was thereafter promoted as (ivil Securit)
,"cer, also a primaril) condential position# Both positions belong to the non-career service
under Section / of %#-# :o# .;<#
2. Designation is also dened as Fan appointment or assignment#@Section 89 of %#-# :o# .;< does
not suggest that designation should be di!erentiated from appointment# 0eading this section
with Section 5D of said decree, career service positions ma) be lled up onl) b) appointment,
either permanent or temporar)G hence a designation of a person to ll it up because it is vacant,
is necessaril) included in the term appointment, for it precisel) accomplishes the same purpose#
Eoreover, if a designation is not to be deemed included in the term appointment under Section
89 of %#-# :o# .;<, then the prohibition on nepotism would be meaningless and toothless# An)
appointing authorit) ma) circumvent it b) merel) designating, and not appointing, a relative
within the prohibited degree to a vacant position in the career service#
6# %- ./. vesting in the %resident the exclusive authorit) to declare a position polic)-
determining, highl) technical or primaril) condential latter merel) refers to the initial
determination of the Executive, which in no case forecloses judicial review# A rule that exclusivel)
vests upon the Executive the power to declare what position ma) be considered polic)-
determining, primaril) condential, or highl) technical would subvert the provision on the civil
service#
*O$ORABLE S"#PL"!"O !. GR",O, S"-(O P. +E#A"S"P, SA$(OS B. AGUA+ERA, #A$UEL
B. (RAV",A an% #A$UEL #. !ASU#PA$G vs. !S!, (EO("#O ARA$+ELA, !"R"LO
GELVE&O$, (EO+UL'O +A(O.O$, an% $ELSO$ GE+USPA$
'A!(S) Sixto -emaisip was the %rovincial Attorne) of Cloilo# Hpon the latter=s recommendation,
Senior +egal ,"cer Teotimo Arandela as promoted to %rovincial Attorne)# 0espondent (irilo
Gelve7on, on the other hand, was promoted from +egal ,"cer CC to Senior +egal ,"cer#
0espondents Teodolfo -ato-on and :elson Geduspan were appointed to the position of +egal
,"cer CC#
The newl)-elected Governor Grino however terminated the services of Arandela, Gelve7on, -ato-
on and Geduspan in relation to an article pertaining to the Cloilo o"ce of the %rovincial Attorne)
which appeared in the Panay News and which and which undermined that trust and condenceF
2
E!cation ) /achelor0s e"ree pre$era#ly in 1a&2.!#lic or /!siness Aministration.
E'perience ) Si' years o$ pro"ressively responsi#le e'perience in plannin", irectin" an aministration o$ provincial "overnment
operations. E'perience in private a"encies consiere are those that have #een more or less $amiliar level o$ aministrative pro$iciency.
Eli"i#ility ) 3A *454 (/A3)2.ersonnel 6ana"ement O$$icer2Career Service (.ro$essional)2-irst 7rae2S!pervisor).
DEFINITION: 8ner the irection o$ the .rovincial 7overnor, responsi#le $or the overall coorination o$ the activities o$ the vario!s
national an local a"encies in the province9 an "eneral plannin", irection an control o$ the personnel $!nctions an the
aministrative services o$ the 7overnor0s O$$ice.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS: This is the class $or top pro$essional level mana"ement, aministrative an or"ani:ational
&or; in the operation o$ provincial "overnment &ith hi"hly comple', involve relationships &ith consiera#le ele"ation o$ a!thority
an responsi#ility an a hi"h e"ree o$ p!#lic contact.
that he reposed on them F# %etitioner -emaisip was reappointed b) Governor GriIo as the
%rovincial Attorne)#
The respondents appealed to the Eerit S)stems %rotection Board of the (S( which declared their
termination illegal and ordered their reinstatement# The (S( denied their E0# $ence the petition
to the S(# 0espondents argue that the (S( had alread) classied the 'uestioned positions as
career positions#
"SSUE)
3# A,: the position of a provincial attorne) is primaril) condential in nature so that his services
of can be terminated upon loss of condence
5# A,: the position of the legal subordinates are condential in nature
*EL+)
3#Bes, 5# :o
RA("O)
3# A cit) legal o"cer appointed b) the ma)or to wor& for the cit) has for its counterpart in the
province a provincial attorne) appointed b) the governor# The positions of cit) legal o"cer and
provincial attorne) were created under Sec 39
6
of 0epublic Act :o# D3.D which categori7ed them
as positions of FtrustF# B) virtue of 0#A# D3.D, both the provincial attorne) and cit) legal o"cer
serve as the legal adviser and legal o"cer for the civil cases of the province and the cit) that
the) wor& for# Their services are precisel) categori7ed b) law to be Ftrusted services#F
(adiente vs# Santos held that the position of a (it) +egal ,"cer is one re'uiring that utmost
condence on the part of the ma)or# The relationship existing between a law)er and his client,
whether a private individual or a public o"cer, is one that depends on the highest degree of trust
for the counsel selected#
The attorne)-client relationship is strictl) personal because it involves mutual trust and
condence of the highest degree, irrespective of whether the client is a private person or a
government functionar)#
/
The personal character of the relationship prohibits its delegation in
favor of another attorne) without the clientJs consent# $owever, the legal wor& involved, as
distinguished from the relationship, can be delegated#
5# Ct is possible to distinguish between positions law)ers in condential and non-condential
positions b) loo&ing at the proximit) of to that of the appointing authorit)# ,ccupants of such
positions would be considered condential emplo)ees if the predominant reason the) were
chosen b) the appointing authorit) is the belief that he can share a close intimate relationship
with the occupant which measures freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment or
misgivings of possible betra)al of personal trust on condential matters of state# There is no
need to extend the professional relationship to the legal sta! who assist the condential
emplo)er# Since the positions occupied b) these subordinates are remote from that of the
appointing authorit), the element of trust between them is no longer predominant# At this level,
impairment of the appointing power=s interests thru the acts of the lower in ran& ma) be
prevented b) the condential emplo)ee#
Aith respect to the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorne) namel), (irilo
Gelve7on, Teodolfo -ato-on and :elson Geduspan, the Cadiente and Besa rulings cannot appl)#
The) have been emplo)ed due to their technical 'ualications# Their positions are highl)
technical in character and not condential, so the) are permanent emplo)ees, and the) belong
to the categor) of classied emplo)ees under the (ivil Service +aw#
PA+"LLA, J., concurring and dissenting1
C concur with the majorit) opinion in its classication of the positions of legal assistants or
subordinates of the %rovincial Attorne) as highl) technical in character, falling under the
categor) of permanent emplo)ees, with securit) of tenure under the civil service s)stem# C
dissent, however, from the majorit) opinion in its treatment of the position of %rovincial Attorne)#
Although the power to appoint the %rovincial Attorne) is vested in the Governor, however, the
said local public o"cer is an emplo)ee of the provincial government to which he owes his lo)alt),
and not to the elected Governor, for he is not part of the latterJs personal or condential sta!# As
a provincial public o"cer, the %rovincial Attorne)Js suspension, removal or transfer is subject to
3
Sec. *9. Creation of positions of Provincial Attorne an! Cit "e#al officer. To ena#le the provincial an city "overnments to avail
themselves o$ the $!ll time an tr$ste! services o$ le"al o$$icers, the positions o$ provincial attorney an city le"al o$$icer may #e create
an s!ch o$$icials shall #e appointe in s!ch manner as is provie $or !ner Section $o!r o$ this Act. -or this p!rpose the $!nctions
hitherto per$orme #y the provincial an city $iscals in servin" as le"al aviser an le"al o$$icer $or civil cases o$ the province an city
shall #e trans$erre to the provincial attorney an city le"al o$$icer, respectively.
the provisions of the civil service law, rules and regulations# $e ma) be removed from o"ce for
incompetence, dishonest), or other misconduct but not for the GovernorJs loss of condence in
him#
Abuse of power in the termination andKor suspension of an appointee to the position of %rovincial
Attorne) or of a similar position on the basis of Floss of condenceF which is not dul)
substantiated should not be allowed#
SAR#"E$(O, J., concurring L dissenting1
C can not agree with the second part of the decision when it refused to appl) the same
aforementioned ruling to the case of legal assistants or subordinate law)ers on the justication
that the earlier cases of Cadiente and Besa onl) specicall) dealt with the positions of cit) legal
o"cer and %:B chief legal counsel, respectivel), and that the positions of legal assistants or
subordinate law)ers are highl) technical in character and not condential#
Anent the claim that the positions of assistant legal o"cers or subordinate law)ers is highl)
technical and not condential, this contention is not supported b) an) evidence on record or an)
basis in law# ,n the contrar), the function of an assistant or a subordinate legal o"cer, as can be
gleaned from the +ocal Government (ode, is to Fassist the chief o"cer and perform such duties
as the latter ma) assign him#F Absent an) showing of substantial distinctions between the nature
of the wor& or function of the provincial attorne) and that of the legal assistants or subordinate
law)ers, it is logical to presume that both public o"cers handle condential matters relating to
the legal aspect of provincial administration and that their relationship with their appointing
power is that of a law)er and his client re'uiring utmost condence and the highest degree of
trust# Both should be primaril) condential#
!S! an% PAG!OR vs. RA'AEL #. SALAS
'A!(S) Salas was appointed b) the %AG(,0 (hairman as Cnternal Securit) Sta! 2CSS4 member
and assigned to the casino at the Eanila %avilion $otel# $is emplo)ment was terminated b) the
%AG(,0 Board for loss of condence, after a covert investigation )ielded an alleged involvement
of Salas in prox) betting#
Salas re'uested reinvestigation from the %A(G,0 Board, which was denied# Appeals to the E%SB
and (S( were denied sa)ing that being a condential emplo)ee b) operation of law 2%-3./94 his
term onl) in fact expired upon loss of condence b) the appointing power# The (A however
reversed the mentioned rulings and adjudged Salas to not be a condential emplo)ee after
appl)ing the ?proximit) rule@#
%etitioners raise 8 grounds1 234 Sec 3/# %-# 3./9 creating the %A(G,0 expressl) provides that all
emplo)ees of the casinos and related services shall be classied as condential appointeesG 254
PAGCOR vs# Court o Appeals! et al# which classied %AG(,0 emplo)ees as condential
appointeesG 264 (S( 0esolution :o# 93-.6; declared emplo)ees in casinos and related service as
condential appointees b) operation of lawG and 284 $is functions as a member of the CSS
"SSUE) A,: Salas, a member of the %A(G,0=s Cnternal Securit) Sta! is a condential emplo)ee
*EL+) :o
RA("O) FSection 3/
8
of %- 3./9 insofar as it exempts %AG(,0 positions from the provisions of
(ivil Service +aw and 0ules has been modied b) the 39.< (onstitution and E, 595# $owever,
the same cannot be said with respect to the last portion of Section 3/, which provides that Fall
emplo)ees of the casino and related services shall be classied as JcondentialJ appointees#F
There were two instances when a position ma) be considered primaril) condential1 "irst, when
the %resident, upon recommendation of the (S( (ommissioner has declared the position to be
primaril) condentialG and, second, when b) the nature of the functions of the o"ce there exists
Fclose intimac)F between the appointee and appointing power which insures freedom of
intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betra)als of personal trust or
condential matters of state# At rst glance, it would seem that the instant case falls under the
rst categor) b) virtue of the express mandate under Section 3/ of %residential -ecree :o# 3./9#
4
All positions in the corporation, &hether technical, aministrative, pro$essional or mana"erial are e'empt $rom the provisions o$ the
Civil Service 1a&, r!les an re"!lations, an shall #e "overne only #y the personnel mana"ement policies set #y the /oar o$ <irectors.
All employees o$ the casinos an relate services shall #e classi$ie as (con$iential( appointees.
#$n Nature%
The (ourt explicitl) decreed that executive pronouncements, such as %residential -ecree :o#
3./9, can be no more than initial determinations that are not conclusive in case of conMict#
According to the transcripts in the passage of the bill, it is the nature of the position that
determines whether it is polic)-determining or primaril) condential#F The matter should be left
to the Fproper implementation of the laws, depending upon the nature of the position to be
lledF, and if the position is Fhighl) condentialF then the %resident and the (S( (ommissioner
must implement the law# The words ?in nature@ is used in Section 5, Article NCC- of the old
(onstitutions, Section D of 0epublic Act :o# 55/; and Section 3 of the General 0ules in the
implementing rules of %#-# .;<# -espite the deletion of the phrase ?in nature@ in the 39.<
(onstitution and the 0A(, the %inero doctrine still applies, as can be gleaned from the
deliberations b) the (onstitutional (ommission# The (S( itself ascribes to this view as ma) be
gleaned from its resolution which stated that Fthe declaration of a position as primaril)
condential if at all, merel) exempts the position from the civil service eligibilit) re'uirement#
Pro&imity Rule
Ahere the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authorit), the element of trust
between them is no longer predominant# The functions of Salas1 to prevent irregularities,
misbehavior, illegal transactions and other anomalous activitiesG report unusual incidents and
related observations in accordance with established proceduresG prevention, documentation or
suppression of an) unwanted incidents at the gaming and non-gaming areas etc do not involve
Fsuch close intimac)F between him and the appointing authorit) O the (hairman of %AG(,0, as
would insure Ffreedom from misgivings of betra)als of personal trust, albeit re'uiring honest)
and integrit) in their exercise# The fact that, sometimes, private respondent ma) handle
ordinaril) Fcondential mattersF or papers which are somewhat condential in nature does not
su"ce to characteri7e his position as primaril) condential# The case of %AG(,0 vs# (A upheld
the dismissal of %AG(,0 emplo)ees declared to be condential simpl) because the validit) of
the %- 3./9 was not 'uestioned therein#
Although appointed b) the (hairman, CSS members do not directl) report to the ,"ce of the
(hairman in the performance of their o"cial duties# An CSS member is subject to the control and
supervision of an Area Supervisor who, in turn, onl) implements the directives of the Branch
(hief Securit) ,"cer# The latter is himself answerable to the (hairman and the Board of
-irectors# The position of an CSS member belongs to the bottom level of the salar) scale of the
corporation, being in %a) (lass 5 level onl), whereas the highest level is %a) (lass 35#
V"(UG, J., conc0rrin)
C agree with the thorough and exhaustive ponencia of Er# *ustice >loren7 -# 0egalado supporting
the theor) of the appellate court that Salas, not being a condential emplo)ee, ma) not
dismissed for mere lac& of trust or condenceG nevertheless, C should li&e to bring into focus the
phrase, Fwithout prejudice to the ling of administrative charges against Salas if warranted#F
JESUS AR#A$+O (ARROSA vs. GABR"EL !. S"$GSO$ an% *O$. SALVA+OR #. E$R"1UE&
"""
'A!(S) 0espondent Singson was appointed Governor of the Bang&o Sentral b) %resident >idel P#
0amos on *ul) 5, 3996, e!ective on *ul) /, 3996# %etitioner led a petition for 'uo warranto, The
petition see&s to enjoin respondent Singson from the performance of his functions as such o"cial
until his appointment is conrmed b) the (ommission on Appointments and respondent Salvador
E# Enri'ue7, Secretar) of Budget and Eanagement, from disbursing public funds in pa)ment of
the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson# The petition is anchored on the provisions
of Section / of 0#A# :o# </D6, establishing the Bang&o Sentral as the (entral Eonetar) Authorit)
of the %hilippines which provides that ?the Governor of the Bang&o Sentral shall be head of a
department and his appointment shall be subject to conrmation b) the (ommission on
Appointments#@
0espondents allege that the (ongress exceeded its legislative power in re'uiring (,A
conrmation of the BS% Governor, the latter not being among those enumerated in Section 3/ of
Article PCC of the (onstitution# The) also aver that the Bang&o Sentral has its own budget and
accordingl), its budgetar) re'uirements are not subject to the provisions of the General
Appropriations Act#
"SSUE) A,: a petition for 'uo warranto is the proper remed) b) a taxpa)er to see& ouster of
Singson
*EL+) :o#
RA("O) Such a special civil action can onl) be commenced b) the Solicitor General or b) a
person claiming to be entitled to a public o"ce or position unlawfull) held or exercised b)
another and since Tarrosa is not lawfull) entitled to the same, he cannot avail of the said remed)#
Cn Greene v. 'no&, 3<D :#B# 865 239;64, /< :#E# 93;, it was held that the 'uestion of title to an
o"ce, which must be resolved in a (uo warranto proceeding, ma) not be determined in a suit to
restrain the pa)ment of salar) to the person holding such o"ce, brought b) someone who does
not claim to be the one entitled to occup) the said o"ce# To uphold the action would encourage
ever) disgruntled citi7en to resort to the courts, thereb) causing incalculable mischief and
hindrance to the e"cient operation of the governmental machiner)
Ahile the (ourt refused to rule on the (onstitutionalit) of 0#A# </D6, it called attention to the
ruling in (alderon vs# (arale that (ongress cannot b) law expand the conrmation powers of
(,A and re'uire conrmation of appointment of other government o"cials not mentioned in the
rst sentence of Section 3/ of Article PCC of the (onstitution#
PE+RO #E$+O&A vs. RA2 ALLAS an% GO+O'RE+O OLORES
'A!(S) %etitioner Eendo7a joined the Bureau of (ustoms in 39<5# $e held various positions until
he was appointed as (ustoms Servcie (hief of the (ustoms Cntelligence and Cnvestigation Service
in 39.9, such position conse'uentl) categori7ed as -irector CCC, (CCS# %etitioner was temporaril)
designated as Acting -istrict (ollector, (ollection -istrict N, (aga)an de ,ro (it)# Cn his place,
respondent 0a) Allas was appointed as FActing -irector CCCF of the (CCS# Allas was appointed b)
%resident 0amos as -irector CC of (CCS, the position previousl) held b) Eendo7a while the latter
was altogether terminated from the Bureau of (ustoms#
Eendo7a led a petition for 'uo warranto against Salas which was granted b) the 0T( nding
that 34 the petitioner was illegall) terminated and deemed not to have vacated his o"ce, 54 the
appointment of Salas was void ab initio# Ahile the appeal b) Allas was pending, %resident 0amos
appointed him to the position of -eput) (ommissioner of (ustoms for Assessment and
,perations, causing Eendo7a to as& for the dismissal of the appeal since the issue had become
moot# Ct was dismissed#
Eendo7a as&ed for an execution of the decision but the (ourt denied it due to the fact that
Godofredo ,lores, who was not part) to the 'uo warranto proceeding was alread) holding the
contested position# $e alleges that he should have been reinstated despite respondent ,loresJ
appointment because the subject position was never vacant to begin with# >urthermore, he
claims that the nullit) of Allas= appointment extended to his successor ,lores#
"SSUE) A,: the favorable ruling in the 'uo warranto proceeding can be executed against the
subse'uent appointee to the o"ce who was not part) thereto
*EL+) :o#
RA("O) Hnder 0ule //, )uo warranto is a demand made b) the state upon some individual or
corporation to show b) what right the) exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the
state which, according to the (onstitution and laws of the land, the) cannot legall) exercise
except b) virtue of a grant or authorit) from the state#

Cn other words, a petition for (uo warranto
is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or o"ce
and to oust the holder from its enjo)ment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited
his right to enjo) the privilege# Ct ma) be commenced for the Government b) the Solicitor
general against individuals who usuro public o"ce# Ct ma) also be instituted b) an individual in
his own name who claims to be entitled to the public o"ce or position usurped or unlawfull) held
or exercised b) another#
Ahere the action is led b) a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the
controverted position, otherwise respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the
o"ce# The character of the judgment to be rendered in (uo warranto rests to some extent in the
discretion of the court and on the relief sought# Cn the present case, the court found that Allas
usurped the position of -irector CC and ordered that Allas be ousted from the position and
Eendo7a reinstated to the same#
A judgment against a public o"cer in regard to a public right binds his successor in o"ce# This
rule, however, is not applicable in (uo warranto cases# A judgment in (uo warranto does not bind
the respondentJs successor in o"ce, even though such successor ma) trace his title to the same
source# This follows from the nature of the writ of 'uo warranto itself# Ct is never directed to an
o"cer as such, but alwa)s against the person Q to determine whether he is constitutionall) and
legall) authori7ed to perform an) act in, or exercise an) function of the o"ce to which he la)s
claim#
!O$!*"(A RO#UAL+E&.2AP vs.(*E !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% P$B
'A!(S) (onchita 0omualde7-Bap started wor&ing with the %:B on 5; September 39<5 as special
assistant with the ran& of Second Assistant Eanager assigned to the o"ce of the %:B %resident#
After several promotions, she was appointed in 39.6 as Senior Pice %resident assigned to the
>und Transfer -epartment#
%etitioner led several applications for leave of absence which were dul) approved# Ahile she
was on leave, Executive ,rder :o# .; 20evised (harter of the %:B4 was approved authori7ing the
reorgani7ation and rehabilitation of %:B# %ursuant to the reorgani7ation plan, the >und Transfer
-epartment was abolished and its functions transferred to the Cnternational -epartment#
(onchita was notied of her separation from service thru a letter# (onchita see&s immediate
reinstatement to her former position as senior vice president and head of the >und Transfer
-epartment, or reappointment to a position of comparable or e'uivalent ran& without loss of
seniorit) rights and pa), etc#, under the ban&Js new sta"ng pattern#
She appealed to the (S( which upheld her separation# $ence the petition#
"SSUES)
3# A,: there was bad faith on the %:B=s part
5# A,: the doctrine in -ario vs# Eison was incorrectl) applied#
6# A,: the 3 )ear prescriptive period for (uo warranto proceedings should appl) in this case#
*EL+)
3# :o
5# :o
6# Bes
RA("O)
3 4 5
As held in -ario vs# Eison, reorgani7ations are regarded as valid provided the) are pursued in
good faith# As a general rule, a reorgani7ation is carried out in Fgood faithF if it is for the purpose
of econom) or to ma&e bureaucrac) more e"cient#
%:BJs reorgani7ation, to repeat, was b) virtue of a valid law# At the time of reorgani7ation, due to
the critical nancial situation of the ban&, departments, positions and functions were abolished
or merged# The abolition of the >und Transfer -epartment 2>T-4 was deemed necessary# This, to
the (ourtJs mind, was a management prerogative exercised pursuant to a business judgment#
The foregoing rebut the allegation of bad faith#
6. The pra)er in the petition at bar see&s petitionerJs immediate reinstatement to her former
position as senior vice president and head of the >und Transfer -epartment, or reappointment to
a position of comparable or e'uivalent ran& without loss of seniorit) rights and pa), etc#, under
the ban&Js new sta"ng pattern#
An action for (uo warranto should be brought within one 234 )ear after ouster from o"ce# The
failure to institute the same within the reglementar) period constitutes more than a su"cient
basis for its dismissal
,
since it is not proper that the title to a public o"ce be subjected to
continued with uncertaint)# An exception to this prescriptive period lies onl) if the failure to le
the action can be attributed to the acts of a responsible government o"cer and not of the
dismissed emplo)ee# Based on her allegations, the action is one for 'uo warranto which
prescribes after 3 )ear from the ouster# She claims that the action is one for separation rom
service without *ust cause with a prescriptive period of 8 )ears under Article 338/ of the (ivil
(ode and that there is no claim of usurpation# This cannot be upheld because her separation
from service was due to the abolition of her o"ce in implementation of a valid reorgani7ation#
This is not the unjustiable cause whichresults in injur) to the rights of a person contemplated b)
Article 338/#
Pigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt 2+aws come to the assistance of the vigilant, not
of the sleeping4
0estoring petitioner to her previous position with bac&wages would be unjust enrichment to her,
considering that she had abandoned or showed lac& of interest in reclaiming the same position
when the ban& was not )et full) rehabilitated and she onl) insisted on reinstatement in August
39.9 or two 254 )ears after her alleged unjustied separation#
PE("("O$ +"S#"SSE+.
JA"#E (. PA$"S vs. !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% BELLA V. VELOSO
'A!(S) The ((E(, formerl) &nown as the (ebu (it) $ospital, is operated and maintained b) the
local government of (ebu (it)# %etitioner was emplo)ed as Administrative ,"cer of the $ospital,
while private respondent was Administrative ,"cer of the (it) $ealth -epartment detailed at
the said hospital#
,rdinance :o# 353/ amending the (harter of (ebu changed the name of the hospital to ((E(
and under such ordinance, the (it) Ea)or appointed respondent Peloso as of Assistant (hief of
$ospital for Administration# %anis assails this appointment sa)ing that1 34 34 the position of
Assistant (hief of $ospital for Administration was not legall) createdG 254 assuming that it was,
there was no 'ualication standard nor valid screening procedureG and 264 the seniorit) and next-
in-ran& rules were disregarded#
%anis protested the appointment which was however denied at all levels#
"SSUES7
3# A,: the o"ce was validl) created
5# A,: Peloso was validl) appointed to the position ta&ing into consideration 'ualications
*EL+)
3# Bes
5# Bes
RA("O)
3# ,rdinance :o# 353/ for the purpose of correcting the deciencies and improving the
performance of said institution amending the (harter of (ebu provided for an ,"ce of $ospital
Administrator, granted such powers as were deemed in line with the objectives of the ,rdinance#
The title of $ospital Administrator was later found to be a misnomer and thus was properl)
classied b) the *oint (ommission on +ocal Government %ersonnel Administration as one of
Assistant (hief of $ospital for Administration# This classication was subse'uentl) approved b)
the -epartment of Budget Eanagement# The position of Assistant (hief of $ospital for
Administration is the ver) same position of $ospital Administrator created b) ,rdinance :o#
353/# The ,"ce of $ospital Administrator was not extinguished, the designation thereof was
merel) corrected to reMect the proper classication of the position under existing rules#
5# Both candidates possess the minimum 'ualications for the position# The determination of
among the 'ualied candidates should be preferred belongs to the appointing authorit)# The
Fnext in ran&F rule specicall) applies onl) in cases of promotion# This case however involves a
new o"ce and a position created in the course of a valid reorgani7ation# Hnder the law, a
vacanc) not lled b) promotion ma) be lled b) transfer of present emplo)ees in the
government service, b) reinstatement, b) reemplo)ment of those separated from the service,
and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibilit), but not necessaril) in
this order# Ct cannot be said that private respondent was an outsider# Although directl) emplo)ed
b) the (it) $ealth -epartment, she actuall) wor&ed at the ((E( prior to her appointment to the
subject position# Besides, even, if she was an outsider, the law does not prohibit the emplo)ment
of persons from the private sector so long as the) have the appropriate civil service eligibilit)#
The concept of Fnext in ran&F does not impose an) mandator) or peremptor) re'uirement to
appoint the person occup)ing the next lower position in the occupational group of the o"ce#
Ahat the (ivil Service +aw and the Administrative (ode of 39.< provide is that if a vacanc) is
lled up b) the promotion, the person holding the position next in ran& thereto Fshall be
considered for promotion# ,ne who is Fnext in ran&F to a vacanc) is given preferential
consideration for promotion to the vacant position, but it does nor necessaril) follow that he
alone and no one else can be appointed# There is no vested right granted the next in ran& nor a
ministerial dut) imposed on the appointing
authorit) to promote the holder to the vacant position
An appointment, whether to a vacanc) or to a newl) created position, is essentiall) within the
discretionar) power of whomsoever it is vested# ,nce a candidate possesses the minimum
'ualities re'uired b) law, su"cient discretion, if not plenar), is granted to the appointing
authorit)# whom to appoint among those 'ualied is an administrative 'uestion involving
considerations of wisdom for the best interest of the service which onl) the appointing authorit)
can decide#
+EL'"$ $. +"V"$AGRA!"A, JR., A$+ ALE-"S +. SA$ LU"S vs# *O$. PA(R"!"A A. S(O.
(O#AS, RA#O$ P. ERE$E(A, JR., an% PRES!"LLA B. $A!AR"O
'A!(S) Eancita was appointed Eunicipal -evelopment (oordinator 2E-(4 of %ili, (amarines Sur,
in a permanent capacit)# Ahen the old +G( too& e!ect in 39.6, the o"ce was renamed as
Eunicipal %lanning and -evelopment (oordinator, to which position, then Eunicipal Budget
,"cer %rescilla B# :acario was appointed and Eancita relieved from service b) Gov# %rila# The
local Budget ,"ce, was nationali7ed and placed under the -BEand Alexis -# San +uis was
temporaril) appointed Eunicipal Budget ,"cer of %ili b) -BE Secretar) (arague and was
subse'uentl) appointed to said position in a permanent capacit), b) petitioner -eln :#
-ivinagracia, Ea)or of %ili#
,n appeal to the E%SB, Eancita received judgment ordering her reinstatement after nding her
removal to be illegal# The decision was appealed b) -ivinagracia to the (S( but was denied# As a
result of the denial, :acario was terminated from o"ce in order to e!ect the reinstatement of
Eancita# (S( held that the reinstatement of Eancita was not a valid cause for the removal of
:acario, and since she was the former Eunicipal Budget ,"cer she had the right to return to
that position# Sto Tomas denied a re'uest for reconsideration b) -ivinagracia#
%rivate respondent claims that she did not voluntaril) appl) for transfer from the Budget ,"ce to
the ,"ce of E%-( but was constrained to FacceptF the new position because of her deference to
then Ea)or %rila# Cn fact, according to her, she applied for the position of Budget ,"cer with the
-epartment of Budget and Eanagement while she was E%-( indicating that she did not
abandon or relin'uish her former position#
"SSUES)
3# A,: Sec 36 0ule PC of the C00 of B& D E, 565 is applicable
5# A,: the lateral transfer of :acario was validl) made
*EL+)
3# :o, 5# :o
RA("O)
3# Sec# 36 of the ,mnibus 0ules Cmplementing Boo& P of E#,# 595 has the ! re'uisites1 3
st
1 before
a public o"cial or emplo)ee can be automaticall) restored to her former position, there must
rst be a series of promotionsG 5nd all appointments are simultaneousl) submitted to the (S( for
approvalG and 6rd the (S( disapproves the appointment of a person proposed to a higher
position# The essential re'uisites under Sec# 36 do not avail in the case# The movement of
:acario from the Budget ,"ce to the ,"ce of E%-( cannot be considered a promotion for the
term connotes an increase in duties and responsibilities as well as a corresponding increase in
salar)# Ct was movement of a lateral transfer#
5# The unconsented lateral transfer of :acario from the Budget ,"ce to the ,"ce of E%-( was
arbitrar), amounting to removal without cause, invalid as it is anathema to securit) of tenure#
Ahen :acario was extended a permanent appointment and she assumed the position, she
ac'uired a legal, not merel) an e'uitable right# Such right to securit) of tenure is protected not
onl) b) statute, but also b) the (onstitution and cannot be ta&en awa) from her either b)
removal, transfer or b) revocation of appointment, except for cause, and after prior notice#
Sec# D, par# 6, 0ule PCC, ,mnibus 0ules Cmplementing Boo& P of E#,# 595 provides that transfer
shall not be considered disciplinar) when made in the interest of public service, in which case,
the emplo)ee concerned shall +e inormed o the reasons thereor# Cf the emplo)ee believes that
there is no justication for the transfer, he ma) appeal his case to the commission# A transer is a
Fmovement from one position to another which is of e'uivalent ran&, level and salar), without
brea& in service#F Promotion is the Fadvancement from one position to another with an increase
in duties and responsibilities as authori7ed b) law, and is usuall) accompanied b) an increase in
salar)F# A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, advancement or reduction or a transfer
that aims to Flure the employee away rom his permanent position!F cannot +e done without the
employees, consent# That would constitute removal rom o-ce# :o permanent transfer can ta&e
place unless the o"cer or emplo)ee is rst removed from the position held, and then appointed
to another position#
Ct could not be said that :acario vacated her former position as Budget ,"cer or abdicated her
right to hold the o"ce when she accepted the position of E%-(# The principle of estoppel cannot
bar her from returning to her former position because of the fact that she reluctantl) accepted
the second o"ce#
The appointment of San +uis is is with a condition1 .a /ondisyon nasa ayos ang pag/a/atiwalag
sa tung/ulin ng dating nanunung/ulan, which when translated means FProvided that the
separation of the former incumbent is in order#F (onsidering that the separation of :acario who
was the former incumbent was not in order, San +uis should relin'uish his position in favor of
private respondent :acario# This is, of course, without prejudice to San +uisJ right to be
reinstated to his former position as (ashier CC of the -E:0, he being also a permanent appointee
e'uall) guaranteed securit) of tenure#
$AR!"SO 2. SA$("AGO vs# !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$ an% LEO$AR+O A. JOSE
'A!(S) Santiago held the position of (ustoms (ollector before he was extended a permanent
promotional appointment b) then (ustoms (ommissioner Aigberto Tanada to the ran& of
(ustoms (ollector CCC# +eonardo *ose opposed the appointment before the E%SBsa)ing that he
was next-in-ran&, being a (ustoms (ollector CC#
E%SB referred the protest to Tanada who upheld the appointment sa)ing that1 234 the next-in-
ran& rule is no longer mandator)G 254 the protestee is competent and 'ualied for the position 264
existing law and jurisprudence give wide latitude of discretion to the appointing authorit)# The
E%SB however ruled di!erentl) and revo&ed the appointment of Santiago, directing that *ose be
appointed in his stead#
The (S( invo&ed its power to enforce the merit s)stem under the (onstitution and held *ose to
be better 'ualied for his educational attainment, civil service eligibilities, relevant seminars and
training courses ta&en, and holding as he does b) permanent appointment a position which is
higher in ran& and salar) range#
$ence the petition b) Santiago#
"SSUE) A,: *ose being next-in-ran& should be appointed to the contested position
*EL+) :,
RA("O) Cn 0aduran vs. Civil .ervice Commission it was held that there is Fno mandator) nor
peremptor) re'uirement in the 2(ivil Service +aw4 that persons next-in-ran& are entitled to
preference in appointment# Ahat it does provide is that the) would be among the rst to be
considered for the vacanc), if 'ualied, and if the vacanc) is not lled b) promotion, the same
shall be lled b) transfer or other modes of appointment# ,ne who is next-in-ran& is entitled to
preferential consideration for promotion to the higher vacanc) but it does not necessaril) follow
that he and no one else can be appointed# The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder
nor imposes a ministerial dut) on the appointing authorit) to promote such person to the next
higher position#
(S( 0esolution :o# .6- 686 Sec 8 provides An emplo)ee who holds a next-in- ran& position who
is deemed the most competent and 'ualied, possesses an appropriate civil service eligibilit),
and meets the other conditions for promotion shall be promoted to the higher position when it
becomes vacant# $owever, the appointing authorit) ma) promote an emplo)ee who is not next-
in-ran& but who possesses superior 'ualications and competence compared to a next-in-ran&
emplo)ee who merel) meets the minimum re'uirements for the position#
Tanada justied the appointment he made b) comparing the credentials and wor& experience of
the two# Ahile *ose was a (ustoms c(ollector, there was no o"cial record of activit)
recommending him for promotion# ,n the other hand, after the >ebruar) revolution, the
%rotestee was immediatel) designated b) the undersigned as (hief of a tas& force which has
been credited with the sei7ure of millions of pesos worth of smuggled shipments# Each one was
dul) recorded, not onl) in the o"cial les, but also in the media# %rotestee has been the recipient
of citations awarded b) the (ustoms (ommissioner for the two consecutive )ears 39.8 and
39.D, for exemplar) performance of o"cial duties, particularl) investigation and prosecution#
Eore specicall), the latest citation commends the %rotestee for his pivotal role in the sei7ure
and forfeiture of an ocean-going vessel upheld b) the Supreme (ourt, which constituted a rst in
the histor) 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 'ualied for the position# To appl) the next-in-ran& rule peremptoril)
would impose a rigid formula on the appointing power contrar) to the polic) of the law that
among those 'ualied and eligible, the appointing authorit) is granted discretion and prerogative
of choice of the one he deems t for appointment#
The (ommission 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 eligibilit) or re'uired 'ualication# $owever, Fall the commission is actuall) allowed
to do is chec& whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibilit) or
the re'uired 'ualications# it has no authorit) to revo&e the said appointment simpl) because it
believed that the private respondent was better 'ualied for that would have constituted an
encroachment on the discretion vested solel) in the appointing authorit)#F
G#0# :o# 95./< 1UE&O$ !"(2 vs# !S! an% 'LORE$("$A E. ELER"A
'A!(S) Ahen the incumbent Administrative CP ,"cer of the $ealth -epartment retired, Abila
was appointed b) R( ,C( Brigido Simon to the position# Before that, Abila occupied the positions
of Acting Assistant (ivil Securit) ,"cer, (ivil Cntelligence and Securit) -epartment of the
Rue7on (it) Government# 0espondent Eleria, Administrative ,"cer CCC led a protest with E%SB
which the latter decided in Eleria=s favor- revo&ing Abila=s appointment and directing the Ea)or
to appoint Santiago# The Board sustained Eleria for 34 having higher ran& and better experience
than Santiago, 54 being next-in-ran& to the vacanc) which gave her promotional priorit) over
Abila#
Abila appealed to the (S( but the latter a"rmed the E%SB=s ruling# $ence the petition# The (it)
Government of R( led an identical petition, see&ing annulment of respondent (ommissionJs
resolution and upholding the validit) of the appointment of petitioner Abila#
"SSUES)
3#A,: (S( has authorit) to substitute its own judgment for that of the o"cial authori7ed b) law
to ma&e an appointment
5#A,: the next-in-ran& rule principle applies in this case
*EL+)
3# :o, 5# :o#
RA("O)
3# The (S( itself ac&nowledged that both petitioner Abila and respondent Eleria are legall)
'ualied for the position# $aving made the determination, the (S( ma) not act an) further
except to a"rm the validit) of petitionerJs appointment# The (S( had no authorit) to revo&e
petitionerJs appointment because it believed Eleria to be better 'ualied for the position# the
(ommissionJs acts in this respect constituted an encroachment upon a discretionar) authorit)
vested b) law in the Rue7on (it) Ea)or##
5# A vacant position in the (ivil Service ma) be lled b) promotion, transfer of present
emplo)ees, reinstatement and re-emplo)ment or appointment of outsiders who have the
necessar) eligibilit)# The next-in-ran& rule invo&ed b) respondent (ommission applies onl) where
a vacanc) is 1lled +y promotion! a process which denotes a scalar ascent of an o"cer to another
position higher either in ran& or salar)# A promotion involves a situation 'uite di!erent from the
situation in the case at bar where the appointment of petitioner Abila was e!ected through
lateral transfer from a position in one department of the cit) government to a position of greater
responsibilit) in another department of the same government# Also, even if the vacanc) here had
been lled b) promotion rather than b) lateral transfer, the concept of Fnext in ran&F is not
mandator) or peremptor)# Ahat Section 39 264 of %#-# :o# .;< provides is that if a vacanc) is
lled b) a promotion, the person holding the position next in ran& thereto Fshall +e considered
or promotion#@
Sec 8 of (S( 0esolution .6-686
D
was superseded b) Section 5 of 0ule 6 of the respondent
(ommissionJs subse'uent 0esolution :o# .9-<<9 providing that when a vacanc) occurs in the
5
Section 4. An employee &ho hols a ne't in ran; position &ho is competent an =!ali$ie, possesses an appropriate civil service
eli"i#ility an meets the other conitions $or promotion s%all &e promote! to t%e %i#%er position' (%en it &ecomes vacant. (Emphasis
s!pplie)
second level of the career service as herein dened, the emplo)ees in the department who
occup) the next lower positions in the occupational group under which the vacant position is
classied, and in other functionall) related occupational groups, who are competent and 'ualied
and with appropriate civil service eligibilit) shall +e considered or appointment to the vacancy#
(S( will nd no comfort in 2eram v# 3dralin
36
which it cites# Cn that case, the (ourt a"rmed the
appointment of the next in ran& Fbecause the original appointeeJs appointment was made in
consideration of the political, ethnic, religious or blood ties totall) against the ver) purpose
behind the establishment of professionalism in the civil service#F Cn the case at bar, respondents
have not asserted the existence of an) circumstances which would have warranted intervention
b) the (ommission to correct an arbitrar) and merel) capricious exercise of power b) the
appointing authorit)#
AR+EL"&A #E+E$"LLA vs# !"V"L SERV"!E !O##"SS"O$, A#PARO +ELLOSA, ROSAL"$+A
JUR"A an% #AR"(A BUR+EOS
'A!(S) %etitioner Ardeli7a Eedenilla was a contractual emplo)ee of the -%A$ occup)ing the
position of %0, CC# $e was detailed as Technical Assistant in the ,"ce of Secretar) for
Administration and Eanpower Eanagement # %ursuant to E#,# 358, a reorgani7ation ensued
within the -%A$ and all the positions were abolished# $e was appointed to the position of
Supervising $uman 0esource -evelopment ,"cer#
0espondents who are emplo)ees in the $uman 0esource Training and Eaterial -evelopment
-ivision contested the appointment sa)ing that being next-in-ran& emplo)ees, one of them
should=ve been appointed to the position# The (S( sustained the protest sa)ing that the next in
ran& should as far as practicable be appointed# Ct also noted that while Eedenilla is a contractual
emplo)ee, the others are permanent# The E0 b) Eedenilla was denied#
"SSUES)
3# A,: Eedenilla was denied due process when (S( did not inform her of the appeal before it
5# A,: (S( acted with grave abuse of discretion in disapproving appointment of Eedenilla
6# A,: Eedenilla was validl) appointed b) the appointing authorit) based on 'ualications
*EL+)
3# :o
5# Bes
6# Bes
RA("O)
3# The essence of due process is the opportunit) to be heard# The presence of a part) is not
alwa)s the cornerstone of due process# Cn the case at bar, an) defect was cured b) the ling of a
motion for reconsideration#
5# Ahen the appointee is 'ualied, (S( has no choice but to attest to the appointment# Ct is not
within its prerogative to revo&e an appointee on the ground that another person is better
'ualied for the job# ,nce the function is discharged, the (S(=s participation in the appointment
process ceases#
6# %etitioner wasn=t onl) a cum laude graduate from the H%, she has also ac'uired plent) of
experience in the eld of $0-# She was ran&ed :o#3 in the TrainorJs Training %rogram, was a
recipient of a special commendationgiven b) Executive -irector of the :ational (ommission in
the 0ole of >ilipino Aoman, She obtained in her on-going EBA studies at the -+HS, which she
pursued as an entrance scholar# (S( failed to consider that the petitioner, in her 3 )ear < months
experience with Guthrie-*ensen was engaged in research relating to performance appraisal
s)stems and merit promotion s)stems which duties are all related to $uman 0esource
-evelopment# The disputed position re'uires of the holder of the o"ce, s&ills in human resource
developmental planning, research and statistics# The petitioner possesses these s&ills in more
than appropriate 'uantities#
,ld emplo)ees should be considered rst but it doesn=t follow that the) should automaticall) be
appointed# The preference given to permanent emplo)ees assumes that emplo)ees wor&ing in a
-epartment for longer periods have gained not onl) superior s&ills but also greater dedication to
the public service# This is not alwa)s true and the law does not preclude the infusion of new
blood, )ounger d)namism, or necessar) talents into the government service# Cf, after considering
all the current emplo)ees, the -epartment Secretar) cannot nd among them the person he
needs, there=s nothing in the (ivil Service +aw to prevent him from reaching out to other
-epartments or to the private sector provided all his acts are bona de for the best interest of
the public service and the person chosen has the needed 'ualications#
The reason behind %#-# :o# 9;< of attracting honor graduates into the public service would be
negated if the) alwa)s have to start as (ler& C and wait for hundreds of deadwood above them to
rst go into retirement before the) can hope for signicant and fullling assignments#
Cn this case, the contested position was created in the course of reorgani7ation# The position
appears to be a new one# The applicabilit), therefore, of the next-in-ran& rule does not come in
clearl)# Besides, as earlier stated, said rule is not absolute# There are valid exceptions#
Granting for the sa&e of argument that the case involves a promotional appointment, the next-in-
ran& rule must give wa) to the exigencies of the public service# The intent of the (ivil Service
+aws not merel) to bestow upon permanent emplo)ees the advantage arising from their long
emplo)ment but most speciall), it is to foster a more e"cient public service#