Mathay vs. Civil Service Commission

An initially approved appointment that violates applicable civil service qualification standards may be recalled by the CSC, and local qualification standards may not be lower than those prescribed by the CSC. Once the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration became final for failure to timely seek the available remedy, successive pleadings and a late certiorari petition could not revive it.

Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. was the City Mayor of Quezon City exercising the power to appoint personnel to positions in the city government. The Civil Service Commission exercises constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe qualification standards, hear contested appointments, and review actions of its field offices and attached agencies. Under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Republic Act No. 7160, qualification standards for offices created by local governments must be governed by civil service laws and must not be lower than those prescribed by the CSC.

On 26 November 1992, the Quezon City Council enacted City Ordinance No. SP-33, S. 92, creating an Electrical Division under the Engineering Department with thirty-six new plantilla positions. One of the new positions was Electrical Engineer V, described in the ordinance as requiring a Professional Electrical Engineer. Two licensed professional electrical engineers competed for the post: Olegario S. Tabernilla, then an Engineer II, and Jose I. Enriquez, then an Electrical Engineer III of the existing Electrical Division under the City Fire Department. Pursuant to the city's policy of preferential consideration for Quezon City residents, the Personnel Selection Board recommended Tabernilla, a Quezon City resident.

On 22 August 1994, Mayor Mathay extended to Tabernilla a permanent appointment, which Acting Director II Ligaya I. Caya of the CSC Regional Field Office approved on 15 September 1994. Tabernilla thereafter took his oath of office and assumed the duties of the new position effective 1 October 1994. Enriquez disputed the promotional appointment before the CSC, claiming violation of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 42, s. 1991, which prescribed a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering as the educational requirement for the service-wide position of Engineer V. Tabernilla was only a graduate of Associate in Electrical Engineering and had not obtained a bachelor's degree, as reflected in the evaluation sheet submitted by Mathay.

Requested to comment, Mathay maintained that Tabernilla's assumption of office mooted the protest and that his appointee met the minimum requirements under the city ordinance and hiring policies. In Resolution No. 95-1218 dated 10 January 1995, the CSC recalled and revoked the approval of Tabernilla's appointment for non-compliance with the education, and experience standards for Engineer V. Mathay moved for reconsideration and later filed a supplemental motion invoking Republic Act No. 184, under which only two years of resident collegiate engineering training was required for admission to the Electrical Engineering board examinations, which Tabernilla had completed and passed. The CSC denied reconsideration on 9 March 1995, and subsequently denied Tabernilla's own petition for review on 13 June 1996 and Mathay's further petition for review and reconsideration on 14 April 1997. Mathay then filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals on 17 June 1997, nineteen days after receipt of the last CSC resolution, which the appellate court dismissed as the wrong remedy and time-barred, and denied reconsideration thereof.

• Qualification Under Ordinance: Petitioner maintained that the ordinance creating the office unequivocally specified a Professional Electrical Engineer as its only requirement, so Tabernilla needed only to comply therewith.
• Appointing Discretion: Petitioner argued that while appointments in local governments are subject to civil service laws, such subjection cannot override the essentially discretionary power of the appointing authority to choose his appointee.
• Completed Appointment and Security of Tenure: Petitioner maintained that confirmation by the CSC field office, taking of the oath, and assumption of duties completed Tabernilla's title, creating a legal right removable only for cause with notice and hearing.
• Board Eligibility Under R.A. No. 184: Petitioner argued that Tabernilla's completion of the two-year Associate course and passing of the board examinations qualified him for the contested position.
• Lack of Notice and Hearing: Petitioner intimated that Tabernilla was not notified of the protest and no hearing was conducted thereon, in violation of due process.
• CSC Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the CSC had no jurisdiction or authority to revoke or cancel an approved and completed appointment, making the resolutions void, incapable of becoming final, and attackable at any time.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner maintained that Rule 65, not appeal under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, applied because an error of jurisdiction was raised, and that he was not barred by laches or estoppel.

• Revisory Power Over Subordinate: Respondent countered that no jurisdictional error was committed because reversal of the field office's erroneous approval was merely enforcement of the CSC's revisory power over a subordinate.
• Ultra Vires Ordinance and Controlling Standards: Respondent argued that the Quezon City ordinance was ultra vires for prescribing a qualification standard lower than that set for the position, in contravention of Section 78 of R.A. No. 7160 requiring human resources matters in local governments to be governed by civil service laws.

• Finality and Successive Motions: Whether the CSC Resolutions of 10 January 1995 and 9 March 1995 had become final so as to bar Tabernilla's petition and Mathay's subsequent petition treated as a second motion for reconsideration.
• Proper Remedy and Timeliness: Whether certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy and whether the petition filed before the Court of Appeals was time-barred, or was merely a substitute for a lost appeal.
• Power to Recall Approved Appointment: Whether the CSC had jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in recalling an appointment initially approved by its field office after the appointee had taken his oath and assumed duties.
• Minimum Qualification: Whether Tabernilla met the minimum educational qualification for Engineer V despite being a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer under R.A. No. 184 and meeting the ordinance requirement.
• Due Process: Whether recall without notice to the appointee and without hearing violated due process.

• Finality and Successive Motions: Yes. The 10 January and 9 March 1995 resolutions became final upon failure to file certiorari to the Supreme Court within 30 days from 4 April 1995, and only one motion for reconsideration is allowed.
• Proper Remedy and Timeliness: No. Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only where no appeal or plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists, and it cannot substitute for a lost appeal, here filed 19 days after notice under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.
• Power to Recall Approved Appointment: Yes. The CSC is empowered to hear contested appointments, review actions of its agencies, and recall appointments initially approved in violation of civil service laws and regulations.
• Minimum Qualification: No. Tabernilla's Associate degree and board eligibility did not satisfy the CSC-prescribed Bachelor's degree in Engineering, and local standards may not fall below CSC standards.
• Due Process: No. Approval or disapproval examines only conformity with law and minimum qualifications, not a disciplinary case requiring hearing, and petitioner was in fact asked to comment and moved for reconsideration.

• Finality and Successive Motions: At the time petitioner received the 9 March 1995 denial on 4 April 1995, CSC judgments or final orders were unappealable and subject only to certiorari to the Supreme Court within 30 days under Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX of the Constitution, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Failure to file rendered the 10 January and 9 March 1995 resolutions final before Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 took effect on 1 June 1995. Tabernilla's petition was therefore properly treated as a motion for reconsideration barred by Memorandum Circular No. 38, s. 1993, which reserves such requests to the appointing officer, and by finality. Mathay's 25 July 1996 petition was correctly treated as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, being a rehash filed with the same body, barred by Section 9 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations and Section 17, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292; even if allowed, it was filed more than a year late.
• Proper Remedy and Timeliness: Even assuming the resolutions were not final and the second motion was allowed and timely, dismissal of the Court of Appeals certiorari petition was still required. Under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, appeal to the Court of Appeals from CSC judgments, final orders or resolutions was available within 15 days from notice of denial of a duly filed motion for reconsideration. Mathay filed 19 days after receipt, and settled doctrine prohibits use of Rule 65 certiorari as a substitute for a lost or lapsed appeal.
• Power to Recall Approved Appointment: Section 12(11), Book V of Executive Order No. 292 authorizes the CSC to hear and decide administrative cases including contested appointments and to review decisions and actions of its agencies. Section 20, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules expressly permits recall of an initially approved appointment for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations. Following Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, such power includes recalling an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable civil service law and regulations. No lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion was thus shown.
• Minimum Qualification: The CSC qualification standard for Engineer V requires a Bachelor's degree in Engineering relevant to the job and four years in positions involving management and supervision. The records and Mathay's own evaluation sheet showed Tabernilla held only an Associate in Electrical Engineering. Under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of R.A. No. 7160, the CSC determines qualification standards and local standards for newly created offices must not be lower. Meeting R.A. No. 184's two-year requirement for board examination admission and passing the examination did not constitute compliance with the degree requirement.
• Due Process: The proceeding was not a disciplinary case requiring full opportunity to be heard. Under Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, approval or disapproval only examines conformity with applicable law and whether the appointee possesses minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications. In any event, Mathay was requested to comment on the protest, filed comment, and later moved for reconsideration. The appointee's protection lies in reversion: under Section 19, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules and Sections 43 and 48 of the Uniform Rules, an appointment resolved against the protestee becomes ineffective and he reverts to his former position, not removal from service.

• CSC power to recall erroneous appointments — The CSC may hear and decide contested appointments, review decisions and actions of its field offices, and recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of civil service law and regulations, including for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations. Applied to sustain recall of Tabernilla's appointment despite prior field-office approval, oath-taking, and assumption of duties.
• Finality of CSC decisions and single reconsideration — Only one motion for reconsideration of CSC action on appointments may be entertained, and it must be filed by the appointing officer and within the reglementary period; failure to timely invoke the then-available certiorari remedy renders the CSC resolutions final and unreviewable by successive petitions. Applied to bar Tabernilla's petition and Mathay's second petition filed more than a year after denial of the first reconsideration.
• Certiorari not a substitute for lost appeal — A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and may not be used to replace a lost or lapsed appeal under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Applied to require dismissal of the Court of Appeals petition filed 19 days after notice instead of within 15 days for appeal.
• Supremacy of CSC qualification standards in local government — Qualification standards for positions in local government units are governed by civil service laws, and standards for locally created offices must not be lower than those prescribed by the CSC; the appointing power's discretion is confined to choosing among qualified eligibles. Applied to reject reliance on the city ordinance's Professional Electrical Engineer requirement and on R.A. No. 184 board eligibility as substitutes for the Bachelor's degree requirement.
• Nature of appointment review and reversion — In approving or disapproving an appointment, the CSC only examines conformity with law and possession of minimum qualifications and absence of disqualifications, not a disciplinary charge; if the protest is finally resolved against the protestee, the appointment becomes ineffective and he reverts to his former position. Applied to reject the due-process attack and the fear that Tabernilla would be thrown out of government service.

• "WHEREFORE, the approval of the appointment of Olegario S. Tabernilla as Engineer V dated August 22, 1994, is hereby recalled and revoked." — States the operative CSC revocation grounded on Tabernilla's lack of a bachelor's degree in engineering, which the Supreme Court affirmed.
• "the CSC is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions and that such power 'includes the authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and regulations.'" — Defines the controlling scope of CSC revisory power over field-office approvals, as restated from Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission.
• "a special civil action for certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal." — States the remedial rule requiring dismissal of the Rule 65 petition filed beyond the 15-day appeal period under Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.
• "only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications." — Defines the limited nature of CSC appointment review, negating the claim that notice and hearing for a disciplinary case were required.

• Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, 237 SCRA 184 [1994] — Controlling precedent followed for the CSC's authority to recall initially approved appointments and for the limited, non-disciplinary nature of appointment review.
• Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 [1989]; Lopez vs. CSC, 195 SCRA 777 [1991]; Mancita vs. Barcinas, 216 SCRA 772 [1992]; Rimonte vs. CSC, 244 SCRA 498 [1995] — Cited as the line holding CSC judgments or final orders unappealable before 1 June 1995 and subject only to certiorari to the Supreme Court within 30 days.
• Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413 [1997]; Javier vs. NLRC, 278 SCRA 632 [1997]; Fajardo vs. Bautista, 232 SCRA 291 [1994]; Paa vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 448 [1997] — Cited for the rule that Rule 65 certiorari requires absence of appeal or adequate remedy and cannot substitute for a lost appeal.

• Section 7, Subdivision A, Article IX, Constitution — Allows decisions, orders or rulings of each Constitutional Commission to be brought to the Supreme Court by certiorari within 30 days from receipt; applied to hold the 1995 CSC resolutions became final for failure to file within that period.
• Section 12(11), Book V, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Empowers the CSC to hear contested appointments and review decisions and actions of its agencies; applied to uphold jurisdiction to recall Tabernilla's appointment.
• Section 20, Rule VI, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Permits recall of an initially approved appointment for violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations; applied as basis for revocation.
• Sections 76, 77 and 78, R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Vest the CSC with power to determine qualification standards and require local human-resource matters to follow civil service laws with standards not lower than CSC-prescribed; applied to invalidate reliance on the lower ordinance standard.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 42, s. 1991 — Prescribes a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering as educational requirement for Engineer V; applied to find Tabernilla unqualified as an Associate degree holder.
• Part I(3), Memorandum Circular No. 38, s. 1993; Section 9, Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations; Section 17, Rule VI, Omnibus Rules — Limit reconsideration of CSC action on appointments to one motion filed by the appointing officer; applied to deny Tabernilla's petition and Mathay's second motion.
• Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95; Rule 65 and Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provide appeal from CSC final orders to the Court of Appeals within 15 days and define certiorari and review remedies; applied to hold the Court of Appeals petition was the wrong, late remedy.
• Section 19, Rule VI, Omnibus Rules; Sections 43 and 48, Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations — Provide that a protestee whose appointment fails reverts to his former position; applied to reject apprehension of dismissal from service.
• Republic Act No. 184 — Regulates electrical engineering practice and requires two years of resident collegiate engineering training for board examination admission; held insufficient to satisfy the degree qualification for Engineer V.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Santiago, JJ., concur. Pardo, J., took no part, being a close relative to a party.