Mathay, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Quezon City Council created an Electrical Division with a position for Electrical Engineer V. Petitioner Ismael A. Mathay, Jr., then Mayor of Quezon City, appointed Olegario S. Tabernilla to this position. Tabernilla was an Associate Electrical Engineer. Jose I. Enriquez, an Electrical Engineer III and a licensed professional electrical engineer, also vied for the position. Mathay recommended Tabernilla, citing a city policy of preferring Quezon City residents. Procedural History: Enriquez protested Tabernilla's appointment, alleging it violated CSC MC No. 42, s. 1991, which requires a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering for an Engineer V position. Mathay countered that Tabernilla met the requirements specified in the City Ordinance and that his assumption of duty mooted the protest. The CSC, in Resolution No. 95-1218, recalled Tabernilla's appointment, finding he lacked the required Bachelor's Degree. Mathay moved for reconsideration, arguing the City Ordinance only required a Professional Electrical Engineer and that Tabernilla's appointment was confirmed and he had assumed office, acquiring a legal right. He also argued Tabernilla was not notified of the protest and no hearing was conducted. Mathay later filed a supplemental motion, citing R.A. No. 184 which allegedly only required two years of resident collegiate engineering training for board examination admission. The CSC denied the motion in Resolution No. 95-1743, reiterating its authority under the Local Government Code of 1991 to set qualification standards and that an Engineer V must possess a Bachelor's Degree. Tabernilla filed a petition with the CSC, which was denied for lack of legal personality to file a motion for reconsideration. Mathay then filed another petition with the CSC, which was treated as a second motion for reconsideration and denied for being prohibited and filed late. Mathay then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for being the wrong remedy and time-barred. Mathay's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Mathay filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' resolutions and arguing that the CSC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Civil Service Commission has the jurisdiction to recall an appointment after it has been approved by its Regional Field Office and the appointee has assumed office. Whether the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy and was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the qualification standards set by the Quezon City Ordinance for the position of Electrical Engineer V were valid and complied with by the appointee. Whether the Civil Service Commission violated due process in recalling the appointment without prior notice and hearing to the appointee.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The challenged resolutions of the Civil Service Commission are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the CSC to recall an appointment: The Supreme Court affirmed the CSC's authority to recall an appointment even after initial approval and assumption of office. Citing Section 12(11) of Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules, the Court held that the CSC is empowered to hear and decide contested appointments and review actions of its agencies. Furthermore, an appointment initially approved may be recalled for violation of civil service laws and regulations. The Court cited Debulgado v. Civil Service Commission to support the principle that the CSC can recall an appointment approved in disregard of applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the CSC did not lack jurisdiction or gravely abuse its discretion in recalling Tabernilla's appointment, which violated the prescribed qualification standards. On the propriety and timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court found that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was an improper remedy and was time-barred. The CSC's Resolution of March 9, 1995, denying Mathay's motion for reconsideration, became final on April 4, 1995. At that time, judgments of the CSC were subject only to the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which allowed appeals to the Court of Appeals, took effect on June 1, 1995. Mathay failed to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court within thirty days from notice of the CSC's resolution. His subsequent filings with the CSC were treated as prohibited second motions for reconsideration. Even if the resolutions were not yet final and the second motion was allowed, the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, filed nineteen days after receipt of the denial of the second motion, was filed beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period for appeal under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. A certiorari action cannot substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. On the qualification standards: The Court upheld the CSC's determination that Tabernilla did not meet the qualification standards for Electrical Engineer V. The CSC's Resolution No. 95-1218 clearly stated that the qualification standard required a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, which Tabernilla lacked, being only an Associate Electrical Engineer. The Court reiterated that local government units, in creating new positions, must adhere to qualification standards set by the CSC, which must not be lower than those prescribed by civil service laws. The fact that Tabernilla met the educational requirements for admission to the Electrical Engineering Board Examination under R.A. No. 184 did not exempt him from complying with the CSC's prescribed qualification standards for the specific position. On the alleged violation of due process: The Court found no violation of due process. It clarified that the CSC's action on an appointment is not a disciplinary case requiring a formal hearing for the appointee. The CSC's role is to examine the conformity of the appointment with law and whether the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications. The Court noted that petitioner Mathay was requested to comment on the protest and did so, and he also filed a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, he was afforded an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Main Doctrine
The Civil Service Commission has the authority to recall an appointment initially approved if it is found to be in violation of applicable civil service laws and regulations, even after the appointee has assumed office. The power to appoint is not absolute and must conform to prescribed qualification standards.