Aquino vs CSC

G.R. No. 92403 April 22, 1992

Facts:
Petitioner Victor A. Aquino was designated as OIC of the Division Supply Office of San Pablo City by the then
DECS Regional Director. Two years after his designation, private respondent Leonarda D. de la Paz was
appointed as as Supply Officer I in the DECS Division of San Pablo City. Her appointment was approved by the
Civil Service Regional Office. After one month, petitioner filed a protest before the DECS Secretary questioning
the qualification and competence of private respondent for the position of Supply Officer I.
The DECS Secretary sustained the protest of the petitioner and revoked the appointment of the private
respondent. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Having her appeal with
motion to maintain status quo denied by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), private respondent
appealed to CSC. Pending resolution, petitioner was appointed as Supply Officer I and said appointed was
approved by the Civil Service Regional Office. CSC, however, ruled in favor of the private respondent, revoked
petitioners appointment and restored the private respondents previous appointment as Supply Officer I. CSC
held that the private respondent is more qualified for the position that the petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied. Hence this present petition.
Issues:
WON the CSC has the authority in the selection and appointment of qualified persons to vacant positions in the
civil service.
WON private respondents designation is permanent.
Held:
First Issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC has authority in the selection and appointment of qualified
persons to vacant positions in the civil service. It is a well-settled rule that the CSC has no authority to revoke an
appointment simply because it (CSC) believed that another person is better qualified than the appointee for it
would constitute an encroachment on the discretion solely vested on the appointing authority. However, in the
case at bar, the CSC revoked the appointment of the petitioner because the right to security of tenure of the
private respondent to the contested position had already attached. It must be noted that public respondent CSC
did not direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. It merely restored the appointment of private
respondent who was first appointed to the contested position.
Second Issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent was issued a permanent appointment. On the
basis of the of said appointment which was approved by the Civil Service Regional Office private respondent
assumed and performed the duties and functions of the position as Supply Officer I and received the
compensation and benefits of the said position. Hence, she had acquired a legal, not merely equitable right to the
position, which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away from him
either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing.
Furthermore the SC ruled that the appointment of the petitioner is null and void for it was done before the before
the finality of the decision on the protest in violation of CSC Resolution No. 83-343 which prohibits the
issuance of an appointment to the petitioner if the protest case is not yet finally resolved, since there is no
vacancy in the position pending resolution of the protest case. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant
position. The incumbent must first be legally removed or his appointment validly terminated.
Wherefore the petition was denied and the CSC decision was affirmed.