You are on page 1of 2

ISMAEL MATHAY JR.

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.

Subsequently, Mayor Mathay extended to Tabernilla a permanent appointment, which was


approved by the CSC Regional Field Office Acting Director II. He took his oath of office and
assumed his new duties.

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.

Mathay filed an MR of the said resolution, arguing that:


the Ordinance that created the office specified a Professional Electrical
Engineer as its only requirement
While conceding that appointment in LGUs are subject to civil service laws,
rules and regulations, such truism cannot override the appointing power to
choose his appointee, considering that the power of appointment is
essentially discretionary
Tabernillas title to the office became complete with the confirmation by the
CSC Regional Field Office of Tabernillas appointment and his subsequent
taking of the oath of office and assumption of duties. Tabernilla then acquired
a legal right which canno be taken away by etiher revocation or removal
except for cause and with previous notice and hearing. Here, Tabernilla was
not notified of the protest, nor was a hearing conducted thereon
Mathay filed a supplemental motion arguing that as per RA 184,
the educational requirement for admission to the Electrical
Engineering Board Exams is only two years of resident collegiate
engineering training. Since Tabernilla completed the two-year
Associate in Electrical Engineering course and passed the board
exams, he was qualified for the contested position

On Mar 9 1995: CSC denied the MR, holding that:


Under Secs. 76-78 of the LGC, the CSC has the power to determine the
qualification standards for the various positions in the local govt and review
whether the appointments meet these standards. Qualification standards for
new offices must not be lower than those prescribed by the CSC.
CSC laws and rules provide that an appointee to Engineer V must possess
a Bachelors Decree in Engineering. Tabernilla failed to qualify therefor.
That Tabernilla met all the requirements for admission to the Electrical
Engineernig Board Exam under RA 184 and passed the exam does not
mean compliance with the prescribed qualification standards.
ISSUE:

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.

As to violation of due process

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.

You might also like