289 Phil.

887

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 101251, November 05, 1992 ]

ELISEO A. SINON, PETITIONER, VS. THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-
REORGANIZATION APPEALS BOARD AND JUANA BANAN,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the following Resolutions of the public
respondents Civil Service Commission (the "CSC")* and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Appeals Board (the "DARAB"),** to wit:

1. Resolution No. 97 dated August 23, 1989, issued by respondent DARAB

which revoked petitioner's permanent appointment as Municipal Agriculture
Officer (MAO) and appointed, in his stead, private respondent Juana Banan
(Rollo 17);

2. Resolution dated February 8, 1991 issued by the respondent CSC affirming

the aforementioned Resolution of respondent DARAB (Rollo 22);

3. Resolution dated July 11, 1991 issued by the respondent CSC which denied
petitioner's motion for the reconsideration of the respondent Commission's
Resolution dated February 8, 1991.[1]

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Prior to the reorganization of the then Ministry of Agriculture and Food (the "MAF"), the
private respondent Juana Banan was the incumbent Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO)
of the aforesaid Ministry in Region II, Cagayan, while the petitioner Eliseo Sinon occupied
the position of Fisheries Extension Specialist (FES) II in the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) in the same region.

However, the reorganization of the MAF into the Department of Agriculture (the "DA")
with the issuance of Executive Order No. 116 dated 30 January 1987, called for the
evaluation of the following employees for the twenty nine positions of MAO in Region II,
Cagayan. The list as prepared by the Placement Committee included the herein petitioner
Sinon but excluded the respondent Banan:

1. Binoya, Vicente 76.20%

2. Cabana, Isidro S. 75.01%

3. Sebastian, Alice 74.18%

4. Zingapan, Benjamin 70.73%

5. Guzman, Wilhelmina de la P. 70.50%

6. Gervacio, Agnes 69.86%

7. Somera, Hilario S. 68.13%

8. Tolentino, Julian R. 67.64%

9. Guillermo, Pedro 67.22%

10. Tambio, Rodolfo 67.00%

11. Aquino, Martina 66.94%

12. Bassig, Pio P. 66.84%

13. Rumpon, Danilo P. 65.61%

14. Zareno, Bernardo 65.57%

15. Madrid, Angel S. 65.57%

16. Callangan, Napoleon 65.45%

17. Fiesta, Felicisimo 65.29%

18. Alvarez, Benefranco 64.99%

19. Baggayan, Samuel 64.42%

20. Umbay, Pedro T. 64.01%

21. De la Cruz, Florencio M. 62.07%

22. Leonador, Ernesto T. 61.88%

23. Miguel, Jose 61.86%

 24. Berlan, Herminia C. 61.76%

25. Soliman, Clemente 61.52%

26. Llopis, Lino 61.47%

27. Baliuag, Felicidad C. 61.39%

28. Aresta, Leticia 60.67%

29. Sinon, Eliseo A. 60.66%[2]

(Underscoring supplied).

Thus, respondent Banan filed an appeal with the DARAB for re-evaluation of the
qualifications of all those included in the aforementioned list made by the Placement
Committee.

On August 23, 1989, the DARAB released Resolution No. 97 in which the ranking for 29
MAO prepared by the Placement Committee was re-evaluated as follows:

1. Binoya, Vicente 76.20%

2. Cabana, Isidro 75.01%

3. Sebastian, Alice 72.18%

4. Zingapan, Benjamin 70.73%

5. Guzman, Wilhemina de la P. 70.50%

6. Gervacio, Agnes 70.04%

7. Somera, Hilario S. 68.13%

8. Tolentino, Julian Jr. 67.64%

9. Guillermo, Pedro 67.22%

10. Tambio, Rodolfo 67.00%

11. Aquino, Martina D. 66.94%

12. Bassig, Pio P. 66.84%

13. Rumpon, Danilo P. 65.61%

14. Madrid, Angel 65.57%

 15. Callangan, Napoleon 65.45%

16. Fiesta, Felicisimo 65.29%

17. Alvarez, Benefranco 64.99%

18. Baggayan, Samuel O. 64.42%

19. Umbay, Pedro T. 64.01%

20. De la Cruz, Florencio M. 62.07%

21. Leonador, Ernesto T. 61.88%

22. Miguel, Jose L. 61.86%

23. Berlan, Herminia C. 61.76%

24. Soliman, Clemente 61.52%

25. Zareno, Bernardo 61.50%

26. Llopis, Lino 61.47%

27. Baliuag, Felicidad 61.39%

28. Rosario, Jaime C. 60.18%

29. Banan, Juana 59.32%[3]

(Underscoring supplied).

In this re-evaluation, petitioner Sinon was displaced by the respondent Banan and this same
resolution was duly approved by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Carlos G.
Dominguez, who also affixed his signature on the same date.

However, on August 30, 1988, Sinon received an appointment as MAO for Region II in
Cagayan as approved by Regional Director Gumersindo D. Lasam on the basis of the first
evaluation made by the Placement Committee.

Thus, Sinon filed an appeal docketed as Civil Service Case No. 573 on November 22, 1989
to the CSC. This appeal was granted mainly for two reasons: first, the respondent DARAB
failed to file its Comment within the period required; and second, the evaluation of the
qualification of the employees is a question of fact which the appointing authority or the
Placement Committee assisting him is in a better position to determine. Hence, the
Resolution dated 28 February 1989 of the DARAB was set aside.[4]

On March 19, 1990, Banan filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which she pitted her
qualifications against Sinon for the last slot in the 29 available MAO positions. At the same
time, she pointed out that to allow the findings of the Placement Committee to supercede
the DARAB resolution which the Secretary of Agriculture had approved would be
tantamount to giving precedence to the Placement Committee over the head of the agency.

Finally, on February 8, 1991, CSC, after reviewing the Comment filed by the DARAB
which had not been considered earlier in the Civil Service Case No. 573, the CSC granted
respondent Banan's Motion for Reconsideration and gave due course to her appointment by
the DARAB.

On March 21, 1991, Sinon filed Motion for Reconsideration of the February 8, 1991
Resolution which however was denied by the CSC in its assailed Resolution dated July 11,
1991.

According to the respondent CSC:

Mr. Sinon strongly argued that the findings of the Placement Committee on the
qualifications of the parties should be accorded deference and greater weight
over that of the RAB. Under the Placement Committee's evaluation, Mr. Sinon
garnered 60.66 while Ms. Juana Banan earned 57.32 after assessing the
contending parties qualification in education, relevant experience, eligibility and
other factors. Following the request of several parties for reevaluation, the RAB
in their decision gave Mr. Sinon 57.66 while Ms. Banan obtained 59.32.
Seemingly the findings of the two bodies are in conflict. Mr. Sinon argues that
the findings of the Placement Committee should prevail since it is specially
mandated by RA 6656.

We disagree. The Placement Committee's function is recommendatory in nature.

The agency's Reorganization Appeals Board was specially created by the
Circular of the Office of the President dated October 2, 1987 and conferred with
authority to review appeals and complaints of officials and employees affected
by the reorganization. The decision of the agency RAB has the imprimatur of
the Secretary of that agency and is therefore controlling in matters of
appointment. Under this principle, the decision of the DARAB in this case
enjoys precedence over the Placement Committee.[5]

Hence, this petition was filed with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and/or
restraining order to enjoin the execution of the assailed resolutions.

Without giving due course to the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court
required the parties to file their respective Comments.[6]

On 12 November 1992, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to
submit their respective Memoranda.[7]

The main issue for Our consideration is this: whether or not the CSC committed grave
abuse of discretion in reviewing and re-evaluating the rating or qualification of the
petitioner Sinon.

The arguments of the petitioner can be summed up as follows:

1). In issuing the Resolution of 8 February 1991, the CSC in effect revoked the
appointment that the petitioner received as early as 30 August 1989 and which
was deemed permanent by virtue of the approval of the Regional Director of the
Department of Agriculture;

2). In giving petitioner a rating of only 57.66%,[8] from his previous rating of
60.66% and at the same time according a rating of 59.32% to private respondent
from a rating of only 57.32%, the CSC departed from its power which is limited
only to that of "review", and hence encroached upon the power of appointment
exclusively lodged in the appointing authority;

3). In giving due course to the appointment of respondent Banan in its

Resolution of 8 February 1991, CSC was directing the appointment of a
substitute of their own choice when the power to appoint was exclusively
lodged in the appointing authority.

We rule as follows.

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by
law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[9]

Contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, We do not find any evidence of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CSC when it issued Resolution dated 8 February 1991 which
in effect approved the appointment of respondent Banan over petitioner Sinon.

With the reorganization of the MAF into the DA with Executive Order No. 116, it became
imperative to "protect the security of tenure of Civil Service Officers and employees in the
implementation of government reorganization". Thus, Congress passed Republic Act No.
6656.[10]

It was under the same law of R.A. 6656 that the Placement Committee was created:

Section 6. In order that the best qualified and most deserving persons shall be
appointed in any reorganization, there shall be created a Placement Committee
in each department or agency to assist the appointing authority in the judicious
selection and placement of personnel. The Committee Shall consist of two (2)
members appointed by the head of the department or agency, a representative of
the appointing authority, and two (2) members duly elected by the employees
 holding positions in the first and second levels of the career service: Provided,
that if there is a registered employee association with a majority of the
employees as members, that employee association shall also have a
representative in the Committee: Provided, further, that immediately upon the
approval of the staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned, such
staffing pattern shall be made known to all officers and employees of the agency
who shall be invited to apply for any of the positions authorized therein. Such
application shall be considered by the committee in the placement and selection
of personnel. (Underscoring ours).

To "assist" means to lend an aid to,[11] or to contribute effort in the complete

accomplishment of an ultimate purpose intended to be effected by those engaged.[12]

In contrast, to "recommend"[13] is to present one's advice or choice as having one's approval

or to represent or urge as advisable or expedient. It involves the idea that another has the
final decision.

Clearly, the Placement Committee was charged with the duty of exercising the same
discretionary functions as the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement
of personnel when the law empowered it to "assist" the appointing authority.

The same law also allows any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments to file an
appeal with the appointing authority who shall make a decision within thirty (30) days
from the filing thereof. If the same employee is still not satisfied with the decision of the
appointing authority, he may further appeal within ten (10) days from the receipt thereof to
the CSC.[14]

In the case at bar, the Circular dated October 2, 1987 of the Office of the President created
the agency Reorganization Appeals Board to address the problem of employees affected by
the reorganizations.

The foregoing legal measures spell out the remedies of aggrieved parties which make it
impossible to give the status of finality to any appointment until all protests or oppositions
are duly heard.

Thus, while it is true that the appointment paper received by petitioner Sinon on 30 August
1989 for the position of MAO had not conferred any permanent status and was still subject
to the following conditions attached to any appointment in the civil service:

"Provided that there is no pending administrative case against the appointee, no

pending protest against the appointment, nor any decision by competent
authority that will adversely affect the approval of the appointment."[15]

Hence, for as long as the re-evaluation of the qualifications filed by Banan was pending,
the petitioner cannot claim that he had been issued with a "complete" appointment. Neither
is there any point in asserting that his appointment had "cured" whatever change was
subsequently recommended by the DARAB.[16]

The fact that the DARAB is capable of re-evaluating the findings of the Placement
Committee only to find that Sinon is not qualified should not be taken as a grave abuse of
discretion.

We cannot subscribe to petitioner Sinon's insistence that the public respondent CSC had
disregarded the findings of the Placement Committee. The truth is, these findings were re-
evaluated and the report after such re-evaluation was submitted to and approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture. The CSC affirmed the findings of the DARAB.

Because of all the foregoing circumstances, the Jurisprudence cited by the petitioner Sinon
appears to be incorrect.[17]

Neither do we find in the Resolution of 8 February 1991, any statement by the CSC
directing the appointment of the respondent Banan. Hence, there was no directive from the
CSC that may be misinterpreted as a usurpation of any appointing power.[18]

Besides, in affirming the appointment of Banan as recommended by the DARAB and

approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, the CSC is only being consistent with the law.
Section 4 of R.A. 6656 mandates that officers and employees holding permanent
appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the new positions in the
approved staffing pattern comparable to their former positions. Also, the term incumbent
officer and the privileges generally accorded to them would more aptly refer to Banan and
not to petitioner Sinon whose appointment was never confirmed completely.[19] There is no
dispute that the position of MAO in the old staffing pattern is most comparable to the
MAO in the new staffing pattern.

Finally, the Solicitor General in behalf of the CSC correctly noted that the petitioner Sinon
had conveniently omitted the then Secretary of Agriculture who had affixed his approval
on the findings of the DARAB. Petitioner Sinon knew fully well that as head of the agency,
the Secretary of Agriculture was the appointing authority.

It must be recalled that the whole purpose of reorganization is that it is a "process of

restructuring the bureaucracy's organizational and functional set-up, to make it more viable
in terms of the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it more responsive to the needs
of its public clientele, as authorized by law."[20] For as long as the CSC confines itself
within the limits set out by law and does not encroach upon the prerogatives endowed to
other authorities, this Court must sustain the Commission.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Acting C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon,
Bellosillo, and Melo, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., J., on official leave.
Bidin, J., in the result.
Griño-Aquino, J., In the result only for we ruled in Bustamante vs. Executive Secretary 186
SCRA 109 and Parian vs. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 772 that the
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture was null and void.
Medialdea, J., on leave.

*Penned by the Hon. Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Chairman; with Hon. Samilo N. Barlongay,
concurring.

Mr. Dante Q. Barbosa, Chairman; with Mr. Carlos A. Fernandez, Mr. Conrado C. Gozun,
**
Ms. Lourdes P. Santos, Mr. Apolonio V. Bautista, and Mr. Arturo T. Lising as members.
[1] Rollo, p. 25.
[2] Rollo, p. 18.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Rollo, p. 36.
[5] Rollo, p. 26.
[6] Rollo, p. 81.
[7] Rollo, p. 98.
[8] RAB Resolution No. 97, August 23, 1989; Rollo, p. 20.

Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 165 SCRA
[9]

284 (1988) and Litton Mills, Inc. vs. Galleon Trader, Inc., 163 SCRA 494 (1988).
[10] Approved on June 10, 1988.

Peabody vs. Town of Holland, 178 A. 888, 889 107 Vt. 237, 98 A.L.R. 866 cited in
[11]

"ASSIST" from 4A WORDS AND PHRASES 182 (1969).

However, the word "assist" in statutory construction and jurisprudence usually

appears in the statutes defining accessories after the fact.
[12] People vs. Thurman, 62 Cal. App. 147; 216 P. 394 (1923).

Cited in People of Virgin Islands vs. Price, C.A. Virgin Islands, 181 F. 2d 394, 396, in
[13]

"RECOMMEND", 36A WORDS AND PHRASES 17 (1969).

[14] R.A. 6656, Section 7 and Section 8.
[15] Rollo, p. 29.
[16] See Lustre vs. Civil Service Commission, 197 SCRA 295 (1991).

These are the cases of Gaspar vs. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 774 (1990); Gabriel vs.
[17]

Domingo, 189 SCRA 672 (1990); Orbos vs. Civil Service Commission, 189 SCRA 459
(1990); Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327 (1986); Central Bank vs.
Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744 (1989).
[18] See Cortez vs. Civil Service Commission, 195 SCRA 218 (1991).
[19] See Inocencio Pari-an vs. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 772 (1991).

Rules on Government Reorganization, June 30, 1988, released pursuant to the

[20]

provisions of Section 12 of R.A. 6656.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 02, 2017

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library