Estrellado vs. David

The next-in-rank status of a government employee is not a guarantee of fitness for the position aspired for; the appointing authority retains the right of choice, exercised through a screening and selection process that each department or agency formulates and administers in accordance with the standards and guidelines set by the Civil Service Commission, and screening does not, as a matter of course, require examination and interview. Corollarily, an agency that has not secured approval of a new Merit Promotion Plan may continue to apply its existing approved plan in the interim, and the three-salary grade limitation on promotion is merely an indicator of possible abuse of discretion rather than an absolute bar, where the appointee passed through a deep selection process.

Petitioners Eric N. Estrellado and Jossie M. Borja were, respectively, Transportation Regulation Officer I and Records Officer III in the Land Transportation Office, while respondents Hipolito R. Gaborni and Roberto S. Se were the appointees whose promotions were challenged. The controversy implicated the screening and selection process conducted by the LTO Central Office Selection and Promotion Board for vacancies in the LTO Law Enforcement Service, and the standards governing that process under the Civil Service Commission's Revised Policies on Merit Promotion Plan, the Merit Promotion Plan and System of Ranking Positions of the LTO, and Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987), which vests in each department or agency the formulation of its own screening process subject to CSC standards and guidelines. Republic Act No. 7041, requiring regular publication of existing vacant positions in government offices, was likewise invoked in relation to the validity of the appointments.

Eric N. Estrellado, Transportation Regulation Officer I, and Jossie M. Borja, Records Officer III, were employees of the Land Transportation Office who applied, in their alleged capacities as next-in-rank employees, for the vacant positions of Transportation Regulation Officer II and Administrative Officer IV within the LTO Law Enforcement Service. Hipolito R. Gaborni and Roberto S. Se were the other applicants for the same positions, and both were ultimately appointed to them.

On January 15, 2004, the LTO Central Office Selection and Promotion Board screened the applicants and, after deliberation, recommended to the LTO the appointment of Gaborni and Se to the vacant positions. The Board's deliberations of that date recorded that Gaborni "has excellent qualifications being a Bachelor of Laws graduate," and was given the maximum score on Outstanding Accomplishment and Potential because of his performance as an effective and efficient Hearing Officer, while Se was "given a rating of 5% on Outstanding Accomplishment in recognition of his performance, which resulted in the success in the Cabinet Meeting." The Human Resource Management Assistant/Secretariat presented a study on the Comparative Assessment of Candidates for Promotion, the results of which showed that Gaborni ranked second for the TRO II position and Se ranked first for the AO IV position.

Contending that Gaborni and Se did not meet the requirements for the positions, Estrellado and Borja filed with the CSC-National Capital Region a petition to declare the LTO-CO-SPB selection procedure null and void. The CSC-NCR referred the petition to the LTO Grievance Committee, which found no merit in the grievances and dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated August 12, 2004. The petitioners appealed to the LTO Assistant Secretary, who dismissed the appeal in an Order dated September 27, 2004 and directed the Grievance Committee to issue a Certificate of Final Action on Grievance; the certificate was issued on October 4, 2004. Gaborni was thereafter appointed TRO II on October 1, 2004, and Se was appointed AO IV on October 25, 2004.

On October 28, 2004, the petitioners re-filed with the CSC-NCR their petition to declare the selection procedure null and void and to recall the approval of the appointments. The CSC-NCR dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a Decision dated December 28, 2004, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration in a Decision dated May 5, 2005. In resolving the motion for reconsideration, the CSC-NCR noted from the Board's January 15, 2004 deliberations that the Board had given its reasons for the appointees' ratings, and observed that the appointments had been made in accordance with the existing Merit Promotion Plan and System of Ranking Positions approved by then CSC Chair Patricia A. Sto. Tomas on August 1, 1990 and August 23, 2000, respectively, which remained effective in the absence of a newly approved plan. The CSC-NCR further held that the rule on the three-salary grade limitation should not be interpreted in its strict sense and that the circumstances of Se's appointment fitted the term "meritorious cases," noting that Se had completed the academic requirements in Master's in Business Administration, which was rated 13% as against 10% for Borja, and that he was rated a maximum of 5% under Outstanding Accomplishment while there was none for Borja.

The petitioners appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which dismissed the appeal in Resolution No. 06-0252 dated February 10, 2006, and denied their motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 06-0835 dated May 9, 2006. In affirming the promotional appointment of Se, the CSC emphasized that the three-salary grade limitation on promotion should not be the sole basis for the disapproval of an appointment but should be taken as an indicator of possible abuse of discretion in the appointment process, and that a thorough and deeper evaluation would be made where the issuance of the appointment fell under any of the meritorious cases. The CSC was convinced that Se's appointment fell under the fifth exception of CSC Resolution No. 03-0106, the agency's Personnel Selection Board having conducted a deep selection process showing that Se had superior qualifications than the other applicants. Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by petition for review, asserting that the CSC had erred in sustaining the validity of the selection procedure and in validating the appointments.

• Screening Versus Comparative Assessment: Petitioners maintained that the comparative assessment conducted by the LTO-CO-SPB was not the same as screening, insisting that the comparative assessment based on paper qualifications was only for purposes of preliminary ranking, and that the LTO-CO-SPB merely made preparations prior to the required examination and interview of the applicants, as evident in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001. They cited CSC Resolution No. 04-0835 and contended that the CSC had declared therein the need for interview and written examination as a matter of policy instruction.
• Composition of the PSB and the MPP-SRP: Petitioners argued that the LTO-PSB composition and the Merit Promotion Plan–System of Ranking Positions did not bear the approval of the CSC as required by Section 21 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001; that the circular effectively amended the 1990 and 2000 MPP of the LTO; that the LTO had no authority to appoint Gaborni and Se because it did not submit the MPP-SRP to the CSC for approval; and that the absence of any provision allowing the use of the 1990–2000 MPP-SRP in lieu of the 2003 required submission rendered the challenged appointments invalid. They further submitted that the CA erred in applying CSC MC No. 4, Series of 2005, which required only reporting of changes in the PSB's composition, contrary to CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, which required approval; and that because laws should have prospective application, the reduced requirement of reporting in 2005 did not cure the CSC's lack of approval of the PSB's composition in 2001.
• Lapse of Publication: Petitioners asserted that the questioned appointments were illegal or void ab initio because they were made in violation of the last paragraph of item 4 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, which provides that the publication of a particular vacant position shall be valid until filled up but not to extend beyond six months reckoned from the date the vacant position was published. They claimed that the publication lapsed under Sections 2 and 3 of Republic Act No. 7041, considering that the published positions remained vacant for nine months from publication, that is, from January 15, 2004 until October 15, 2004. They disagreed with the CA's rejection of the issue as belatedly raised, positing that they had raised the issue but that both the CSC-NCR and the CSC did not deal with and rule on it, and alternatively arguing that even if they did not seasonably raise the issue, the lapse of the publication still negated the intrinsic validity of the appointments.

• No CSC Approval Required for PSB Composition: Respondent countered, as observed by the Office of the Solicitor General, that the CSC's approval was not required because CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, did not demand such approval, the circular having provided in item 6(a), (b), (c) and (d) for the PSB's composition without mentioning any requirement for prior approval; hence, approval was necessary only for the Merit Promotion Plan.

• Screening Process: Whether the comparative assessment conducted by the LTO-CO-SPB constituted the screening contemplated by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001, or whether screening necessarily required the conduct of examination and interview of the applicants.
• Composition of the PSB and the MPP-SRP: Whether the appointments of Gaborni and Se violated the rule on the composition of the Personnel Selection Board and the rule on the Merit Promotion Plan–System of Ranking Positions, and whether the absence of CSC approval of the LTO-PSB composition and of a newly submitted MPP-SRP invalidated the appointments.
• Lapse of Publication: Whether the appointments were void ab initio because the publication of the vacant positions had lapsed under item 4 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 and Republic Act No. 7041, and whether the Court of Appeals could pass upon this issue notwithstanding that it was raised for the first time on appeal.
• Three-Salary Grade Limitation: Whether the promotion of Se from Engineer II (SG 16) to Administrative Officer IV (SG 22), a movement of six salary grades upward, transgressed the three-salary grade limitation on promotion.

• Screening Process: No. Screening under CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 requires neither interview nor examination; each department or agency formulates and administers its own screening process in accordance with the standards and guidelines set by the CSC, and the appointing authority freely exercises its best judgment in determining the best-qualified applicants.
• Composition of the PSB and the MPP-SRP: No. The LTO's 1990 and 2000 MPP/SRP remained effective pending submission and approval of a new plan, and CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 required approval only for the MPP, not for the PSB's composition.
• Lapse of Publication: No. The issue of the lapse of publication, raised for the first time on appeal and involving a question of fact, could not be properly dealt with and resolved in the appeal.
• Three-Salary Grade Limitation: No. Se's promotion fell under the fifth exception of CSC Resolution No. 03-0106, the LTO having conducted a deep selection process showing his superior qualifications, and the three-salary grade limitation is not the sole basis for disapproving an appointment but only an indicator of possible abuse of discretion.

• Screening Process: CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 uses the words "screening" and "screened" six times without requiring interviews or examinations; it provides that all candidates for appointment to first and second level positions shall be screened by the PSB, and that only substitute appointments due to short duration and emergency nature need not be screened. This provision must be read with Sections 21 and 32 of Executive Order No. 292, which direct that each department or agency shall evolve its own screening process, which may include tests of fitness, in accordance with standards and guidelines set by the Commission, and that merit promotion plans shall include provisions for a definite screening process, which may include tests of fitness, with promotion boards formed to formulate criteria for evaluation, conduct tests or interviews, and make systematic assessment of training experience. Because neither the law nor the implementing rules define in specific terms the particulars of the screening process, each agency or department is empowered to formulate its own screening processes subject to CSC standards and guidelines; the CA thus correctly concluded that the appointing authority exercised the right of choice in determining the best-qualified applicants from those with the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. The petitioners' reliance on CSC Resolution No. 04-0835 was misplaced because that resolution pertained to the violation of the three-salary grade rule, not to the screening done during the selection process, and the disapproval of the appointments involved therein was solely due to the exclusion from the selection process of the petitioners despite their being next in rank. Screening should be viewed as the procedure by which the Personnel Selection Boards undertake to determine the merit and qualification of the applicants to be appointed to the positions applied for. The CSC-NCR, upon review of the appointments, concluded that Gaborni and Se met the qualification standards, and the CSC declared that the appointments had resulted from a deep selection process that considered the appointees' superior qualities in educational achievements, highly specialized trainings, relevant work experience, and consistent high performance rating/ranking.
• Composition of the PSB and the MPP-SRP: The 1990 and 2000 MPP/SRP of the LTO remained effective, as pronounced by the CSC-NCR, which noted that in the absence of a newly approved Merit Promotion Plan and System of Ranking Positions, the Board made use of the MPP and SRP approved by then CSC Chair Patricia A. Sto. Tomas on August 1, 1990 and August 23, 2000, respectively, and that a review of the MPP showed the selection was conducted in accordance with the policies set therein. The last sentence of Section 21 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 — "All subsequent amendments shall take effect immediately upon approval by the Civil Service Commission" — reveals that the phrase "all subsequent amendments" referred to the new MPPs submitted by the departments and agencies to the CSC for approval; what is envisioned is the situation in which departments and agencies that had not submitted and secured approval of their new MPPs could still apply their existing MPPs in the interim. To adopt the petitioners' arguments would give rise to a situation in which no appointments could be made in the meantime, thereby creating a vacuum in government offices that would likely cause a hiatus in the delivery of services to the public. Accordingly, CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 did not and could not amend the MPP/SRP of the LTO, and the lack of an MPP could not be the basis for the recall of the approval of the appointments of Se and Gaborni, although the LTO was enjoined to come up with its new MPP and have it approved by the Commission. As to the PSB's composition, the CSC's approval was not required because CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 did not demand such approval, providing in item 6(a), (b), (c) and (d) for the PSB's composition without mentioning any requirement for prior approval; approval was necessary only for the MPP. The CSC Central Office, in Resolution No. 06-0252, confirmed the required LTO-CO-SPB's composition in accordance with item 6 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001. At any rate, changes in the PSB composition only needed to be reported to the CSC Regional Office or Field Office concerned in accordance with a recent amendment to CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, rendering it immaterial whether CSC MC No. 4, Series of 2005 was misapplied or should be prospectively applied, since the PSB's recommendation needed no approval from the CSC, only compliance with the required composition.
• Lapse of Publication: The CA rejected the assignment of error for being belatedly raised, observing that the claim that the publication was made on January 15, 2004 but the vacancies were filled only on October 15, 2004 was a factual matter not raised at any stage of the proceedings before the CSC-NCR or the CSC, and that facts or issues not raised at the administrative level cannot be reviewed for the first time by the court. To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenge the position he had accepted at the administrative level would sanction a procedure whereby the court, supposed to review administrative determinations, would not review but determine and decide for the first time a question not raised at the administrative forum; this cannot be permitted for the same reason underlying the requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies and the rule that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The lapse of the publication was not among the issues resolved by the CSC-NCR and the CSC in all their resolutions and was not discussed or tackled at the administrative levels; the only issues consistently raised below related to the three-salary grade limitation rule, the PSB's composition, and the lack of the MPP/SRP on the part of the LTO. To consider the effect of the lapse of publication for the first time in the appeal would violate the basic principle of appellate adjudication that only issues raised and dealt with by the lower courts or tribunals or offices, as to which the parties and said bodies were given the fullest opportunity to ventilate their respective sides, should be considered and decided. The matter likewise involves a question of fact, which the Court, not being a trier of facts, cannot concern itself with in the appeal; to deal at that stage with anything the lower bodies did not consider and pass upon, and reverse or modify them thereon, would essentially be unfair, and deciding such new issue would deprive the parties of the fullest ventilation of their cases in respect of each other in the lower courts or administrative levels.
• Three-Salary Grade Limitation: The limitation was unquestionably subject to exceptions, and Se's promotion was made under the fifth exception stated in CSC Resolution No. 03-0106 dated January 24, 2003, which treats as a meritorious case excepted from the three-salary grade limitation on promotion and transfer the situation where the candidates passed through a deep selection process, taking into consideration the candidates' superior qualifications in regard to educational achievements, highly specialized trainings, relevant work experience, and consistent high performance rating/ranking. After the LTO-CO-SPB considered Se's appointment to fall under the fifth exception, the petitioners challenged the promotion, but the CSC-NCR affirmed it, opining that the rule should not be interpreted in its strict sense and that the circumstances of Se's appointment would fit the term "meritorious cases." The CSC, affirming the promotional appointment, emphasized that the three-salary grade limitation on promotion should not be the sole basis for the disapproval of an appointment but should be taken as an indicator of possible abuse of discretion in the appointment process, and that if the issuance of the appointment falls under any of the meritorious cases or is based on meritorious consideration, the appointment should be approved; the Commission was convinced that Se's appointment fell under the fifth exception, the agency's PSB having conducted a deep selection process showing that Se had superior qualifications than the other applicants. Borja did not dispute the findings on Se's more meritorious qualifications, focusing only on the three-salary grade limitation rule and on her being next-in-rank; as to the next-in-rank contention, neither Borja nor Se was the next-in-rank in the context of the approved Occupational Grouping and Ranking of Positions. Se's superior qualifications, as compared to those of Borja, were the basis for his appointment, and a relevant inquiry into their qualifications convinced the Court that Se's appointment should be upheld because he was better qualified than Borja despite the fact that he was not next in rank or that his promotion would require moving him six salary grades higher. The petitioners did not refute the conduct of the deep selection process, claiming only that the comparative assessment was not the screening contemplated by CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, which presupposes that the LTO established the bases for choosing Se instead of Borja; the CSC approved the exception in favor of Se, and the allegation of abuse of discretion, least of all grave, remained unsubstantiated.

• Next-in-rank is not a guarantee of promotion — The next-in-rank status of a government employee is not a guarantee of one's fitness to the position aspired for; the applicant must go through the rigors of a screening and selection process as determined and conducted by a department or agency, subject only to the standards and guidelines set by the Civil Service Commission. This keeps with the ideal of promoting through merit rather than entitlement, ensuring that government service is rewarded with the best fit. In this case, the Court held that neither Borja nor Se was in fact the next-in-rank in the context of the approved Occupational Grouping and Ranking of Positions, and that Se's superior qualifications, as compared to Borja's, were the basis for his appointment.
• Agency-formulated screening process — Screening is the procedure by which Personnel Selection Boards undertake to determine the merit and qualification of the applicants to be appointed to the positions applied for. Where neither the law nor the implementing rules and regulations define in specific terms or criteria the particulars of the screening process, each agency or department is empowered to formulate its own screening processes subject to the standards and guidelines set by the CSC. Screening under CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 does not require interviews and examinations; the appointing authority exercises the right of choice, freely exercising its best judgment in determining the best-qualified applicants from those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities.
• Interim effectivity of an existing Merit Promotion Plan — An agency that has not submitted and secured approval of a new Merit Promotion Plan may continue to apply its existing approved MPP in the interim. The phrase "all subsequent amendments shall take effect immediately upon approval by the Civil Service Commission" in Section 21 of CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 refers to the new MPPs submitted by departments and agencies for approval; a contrary interpretation would create a vacuum in government offices and cause a hiatus in the delivery of public services.
• No CSC approval required for PSB composition — CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001 requires CSC approval only for the Merit Promotion Plan, not for the composition of the Personnel Selection Board; item 6(a) to (d) of the circular provides for the PSB's composition without requiring prior approval. Changes in the PSB composition need only be reported to the CSC Regional Office or Field Office concerned.
• Three-salary grade limitation as indicator, not absolute bar — The three-salary grade limitation on promotion should not be the sole basis for the disapproval of an appointment but should be taken as an indicator of possible abuse of discretion in the appointment process; where the issuance of the appointment falls under any of the meritorious cases or is based on meritorious consideration, the appointment should be approved. Among the exceptions enumerated in CSC Resolution No. 03-0106 is the fifth: the candidates passed through a deep selection process, taking into consideration their superior qualifications in regard to (a) educational achievements, (b) highly specialized trainings, (c) relevant work experience, and (d) consistent high performance rating/ranking.
• Rule against new issues and questions of fact on appeal — Only issues raised and dealt with by the lower courts or tribunals or offices, as to which the parties and said bodies were given the fullest opportunity to ventilate their respective sides, should be considered and decided on appeal. Facts or issues not raised at the administrative level cannot be reviewed for the first time by the court, for the same reason that underlies the requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies; and a question of fact may not be raised for the first time in an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts.

• "The next-in-rank status of a government employee is not a guarantee to one's fitness to the position aspired for, and the applicant must go through the rigors of a screening and selection process as determined and conducted by a department or agency, subject only to the standards and guidelines set by the Civil Service Commission." — This is the Court's opening statement of the governing principle and the case's central doctrine, framing the entire disposition sustaining the challenged promotional appointments.
• "Indeed, screening should be viewed as the procedure by which the Personnel Selection Boards (PSBs) undertake to determine the merit and qualification of the applicants to be appointed to the positions applied for." — This passage supplies the Court's canonical definition of "screening" under CSC MC No. 3, Series of 2001, and is the ratio for rejecting the petitioners' claim that screening necessarily imports examination and interview.
• "The Commission has emphasized in a string of cases that the three (3) salary grade limitation on promotion should not be the sole basis for the disapproval of an appointment but should be taken as an indicator of possible abuse of discretion in the appointment process." — Quoted with approval from the CSC's resolution, this passage states the controlling standard for evaluating the three-salary grade limitation and explains why Se's six-grade promotion was sustained under the fifth exception of CSC Resolution No. 03-0106.
• "To allow a litigant to assume a different posture when he comes before the court and challenge the position he had accepted at the administrative level would be to sanction a procedure whereby the court - which is supposed to review administrative determinations - would not review but determine and decide for the first time a question not raised at the administrative forum." — This passage, adopted by the Court in disposing of the lapse-of-publication issue, articulates the rationale for the rule against raising new issues on appeal and its kinship with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

• Benguet Corporation vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R. No. 100959, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA 579, 584 — Cited by the Court of Appeals, and adopted by the Supreme Court in disposing of the third assignment of error, for the rule that facts or issues not raised at the administrative level cannot be reviewed for the first time by the court, and that issues not raised in the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Section 21, Chapter 5, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Provides that each department or agency shall evolve its own screening process, which may include tests of fitness, in accordance with standards and guidelines set by the Commission, and that promotion boards shall be formed to formulate criteria for evaluation, conduct tests or interviews, and make systematic assessment of training experience. The Court relied on this provision to hold that the particulars of the screening process are left to the agency, subject to CSC standards, and that screening does not necessarily require examination and interview.
• Section 32, Chapter 5, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Requires each department or agency to establish merit promotion plans administered in accordance with the Civil Service law and the rules, regulations and standards promulgated by the Commission, and provides that such plans shall include provisions for a definite screening process, which may include tests of fitness, with promotion boards organized subject to criteria drawn by the Commission. Cited in conjunction with Section 21 to sustain the LTO's screening procedure.
• Item 4, last paragraph, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001 (Revised Policies on Merit Promotion Plan) — Provides that the publication of a particular vacant position shall be valid until filled up but not to extend beyond six months reckoned from the date the vacant position was published. Invoked by the petitioners to argue that the appointments were void ab initio because the vacancies were filled only after nine months; the Court declined to resolve the issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal and involved a question of fact.
• Item 6, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001 — Prescribes the composition of the Personnel Selection Board through sub-items (a) to (d) without requiring prior CSC approval thereof. The Court relied on the absence of any approval requirement to hold that only the Merit Promotion Plan required CSC approval, and that the CSC Central Office confirmed the LTO-CO-SPB's composition in accordance with this item.
• Section 21, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001 — Requires all government agencies to submit their Merit Promotion Plan to the Civil Service Commission, effective immediately upon approval, and provides that all subsequent amendments shall take effect immediately upon approval by the Commission. The Court construed the phrase "all subsequent amendments" as referring to new MPPs submitted for approval, thereby allowing agencies to continue applying their existing approved MPPs in the interim.
• CSC Resolution No. 03-0106 dated January 24, 2003 — Enumerates the meritorious cases excepted from the three-salary grade limitation on promotion and transfer, including the fifth exception where the candidates passed through a deep selection process taking into consideration their superior qualifications in regard to educational achievements, highly specialized trainings, relevant work experience, and consistent high performance rating/ranking. The Court held that Se's promotion from Engineer II (SG 16) to Administrative Officer IV (SG 22) fell squarely under this fifth exception.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 2005 — Requires only reporting to the CSC Regional Office of changes in the PSB's composition, without need of approval. The Court held it immaterial whether this circular was misapplied or should be applied prospectively, since the PSB's recommendation needed no CSC approval in any event.
• Republic Act No. 7041 (An Act Requiring Regular Publication of Existing Vacant Position in Government Offices, Appropriating Funds Therefore, and for Other Purposes) — Invoked by the petitioners, through its Sections 2 and 3, to argue that the publication of the vacant positions had lapsed. The Court did not resolve the merits of the argument, the issue having been raised only on appeal.
• CSC Resolution No. 04-0835 — Cited by the petitioners for the supposed policy requirement of interview and written examination. The Court held the reliance misplaced, the resolution having pertained to the violation of the three-salary grade rule rather than to the screening done during the selection process.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. Brion, J., was on leave; Peralta, J., took no part; and Caguioa, J., was on official leave.