Sison v. Commissioner of Civil Service
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Abraham C. Sison protested the appointment of private respondent Eureka F. Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor of Olongapo City, extended by the City Mayor on November 23, 1973. Petitioner alleged that as Chief Deputy Assessor, he exercised immediate administrative control and supervision over Maliwanag, who was Senior Deputy Assessor. Petitioner also claimed superior educational and civil service eligibilities. Procedural History: The Regional Director and the Commissioner of Civil Service attested to and affirmed Maliwanag's appointment, respectively. Petitioner's protest was dismissed by the Commissioner on May 3, 1974, and his motion for reconsideration was denied on June 24, 1974. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, quo warranto, and mandamus, seeking to annul the attestation and affirmation of Maliwanag's appointment, the Commissioner's decision dismissing his protest, and praying for his own appointment to the position and the declaration of Maliwanag's appointment as void.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of Eureka F. Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor violated the next-in-rank rule. Whether the actions of the Civil Service Commissioner were tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Whether the petition was filed within the prescriptive period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the next-in-rank rule: The Court found the issues raised by the petitioner to be controversial and difficult to categorize as tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The reasons provided by the City Assessor for recommending Maliwanag's appointment were deemed substantial and well-taken by the Commissioner. The Court was loath to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, who is primarily charged with the administration of the Civil Service Law and rules, absent a convincing showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the organization chart and position description prepared by the petitioner, which formed the basis of his claim, did not carry the approval of the Mayor as Department Head, contrary to the requirements of Memorandum Circular No. 5, S. 1963, and were therefore not necessarily controlling. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent public officials. The Commissioner's decision was based on substantial reasons reviewed and found sustainable. The Court reiterated its policy of non-interference with the findings of administrative agencies, particularly the Civil Service Commissioner, in matters within their expertise, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. On the prescriptive period: The Court held that the most fatal drawback of the petitioner's cause was that he came to the courts out of time. The appointment was made on November 23, 1973, and the petition was filed on March 13, 1975, which is clearly more than one year after the petitioner's pretended right to the office arose. This circumstance closed the door for any judicial remedy in his favor. The petitioner's contention that the one-year period for quo warranto does not apply to his petition for certiorari and mandamus was rejected, as his ultimate remedy was quo warranto. Even if viewed as mandamus, it is settled that this remedy also prescribes after one year. The resort to administrative remedies does not abate the period for judicial action.
Main Doctrine
A petition for quo warranto, certiorari, and mandamus, assailing an appointment, is dismissed if filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period, even if administrative remedies were pursued during the intervening period. The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Civil Service Commissioner absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.