Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VS.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GR NO. 130214, August 9, 1999
FACTS:
Quezon City enacted an Ordinance creating an Electrical Division under the Engineering Dept
with 36 new plantilla positions, including Electrical Engr V, which required a Professional Electrical
Engr to fill it up. This position was the subject of a competition between the two licensed electrical
engineers, Tabernilla and Enriquez. Tabernilla was an Engineer II and Enriquez was an Electrical
Engineer III of the existing Electrical Division under the City Fire Department, which was
previously part of the QC Govt but which was later transferred to the Bureau of Fire Protection,
QC Fire Station.
Conformably to the long existing city policy of providing preferential consideration to QC residents
in the filling up of positions in the city office, the Personnel Selection Board of the city govt
recommended the appointment of Tabernilla, who had in his favor the advantage of being a QC
resident.
Enriquez disputed the promotional appointment to the CSC for violation of a CSC Memorandum
Circular, which prescribes a Bachelors Degree in Engineering as the educational requirement for
the position of Engineer V. He alleged that Tabernilla is a mere Associate Electrical Engr, not a
Bachelors Degree holder in Engineering.
On Jan 10 1995, In a Resolution, CSC recalled and revoked the appointment of Tabernilla since
there were 2 requirements for the Electrical Engr V position: (1) Education- BS in Engineering
and (2) Experience- 4 yrs in Mgt and Supervision; Tabernilla failed to qualify on the 1st
requirement.
Whether or not CSC had jurisdiction to recall and revoke a completed appointment.
RULING:
YES. SC cited Admin Code, Omnibus Rules and Jurisprudence to prove that CSC has jurisdiction.
It held that CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and other
personnel actions and such power includes the authority to recall an appointment initially
approved in disregard of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and regulations.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the CSC did not have jurisdiction or gravely abused its
discretion in recalling the appointment of TABERNILLA, which was issued in violation of existing
civil service rules prescribing a Bachelors Degree in Engineering as one of the minimum
qualifications for the questioned position.
a. Sec.12 (11) of Book V Admin Code: the CSC has the power to [h]ear and decide
administrative cases instituted before it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and review decisions and actions of its agencies and of the agencies attached
to it.
b. Sec. 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V Admin Code and Other
Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides that notwithstanding the initial approval of an
appointment, the same may be recalled for [v]iolation of other existing Civil Service laws,
rules and regulations.
c. Debulgado v. CSC, the CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments
and other personnel actions and that such power includes the authority to recall an
appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and
regulations.
First, what was lodged before CSC was not a disciplinary case wherein petitioner should
have been afforded an opportunity to be heard. As ruled in Debulgado, the CSC, in approving or
disapproving an appointment, only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable
provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications and none of
the disqualifications.
Second, at any rate, petitioner was requested to comment on the protest; and he did file
comment and, later, an MR of the revocation of the initially approved appointment.