Sinon v. CSC November 5, 1992 ELISEO A. SINON, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REORGANIZATION APPEALS BOARD and JUANA BANAN, respondents. Campos, Jr., J. NATURE: Petition for certiorari to enjoin the execution of CSC resolutions. FACTS Position in issue: Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO), Region II, Cagayan Contesting parties: Incumbent MAO Juana Banan and erstwhile-Fisheries Extension Specialist II Eliseo Sinon (who was under the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) Jan. 30, 1987 – The Ministry of Agriculture and Food was reorganized into the Department of Agriculture (DA). o Additionally, EO 116 was issued, calling for the evaluation of employees for the 29 MAO positions in Cagayan. o To protect the security of tenure of Civil Service members in government reorganization, RA 6656 was passed, creating Placement Committees in the reorganized government agencies and departments. In the ranking made by the DA Placement Committee (PC), Sinon came in 29th of 29. Banan was not included in the list. She thus filed an appeal with the DA Reorganization Appeals Board (DARAB), wherein she asked for the re-evaluation of the 29 candidates in the PC’s list. Aug. 23, 1989 – Upon re-evaluation, DARAB issued a new ranking. Banan came out 29th, ousting Sinon. The DARAB resolution containing the new ranking was duly signed and approved by the DA Secretary. Aug. 30, 1989 – Despite his removal from the list, Sinon was appointed MAO on the basis of the original PC evaluation. His appointment was approved by the DA Regional Director. Nov. 22, 1989 – Sinon appealed to the CSC. His appeal was granted for two main reasons: o The DARAB failed to file a timely Comment o The evaluation of employees’ qualifications is a question of fact which the appointing authority or his assisting PC is in a better position to determine. Mar. 19, 1990 – Banan filed an MR, asserting that she is more qualified than Sinon; and that the DARAB ranking should prevail over the PC ranking because the DARAB ranking was approved by the DA Secretary who is the agency head. CSC granted the MR and gave due course to Banan’s appointment. Mar. 21, 1991 – Sinon filed an MR of the resolution giving due course to Banan’s appointment; denied. Hence the present petition. ISSUE (HELD): W/N the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in reviewing and reevaluating Sinon’s rating or qualification (NO) RATIO SINON’S ARGUMENTS He had obtained a permanent appointment on Aug. 30, 1989 with the approval of the DA Regional Director. CSC exceeded its review power when it downgraded his score from 60.66% to 57.66% and changed Banan’s score from 57.32% to 59.32%. This amounts to an encroachment on the exclusive power of appointment. CSC directed the appointing authority to appoint their own substitute when it gave due course to Banan’s appointment. SINON’S AUG. 30, 1989 APPOINTMENT DID NOT CONFER PERMANENT STATUS It was subject to the condition “that there is no pending administrative case against the appointee, no pending protest against the appointment, nor any decision by competent authority that will adversely affect the approval of the appointment”. CAB: Banan’s pending request for re-evaluation meant that Sinon’s appointment has not been completed yet. It also cannot be said that the appointment cured the subsequent adverse recommendation by the DARAB. The creation of an appeal mechanism for appointments under EO 116, RA 6656 (which created the Placement Committees), and OP Circular dated Oct. 2, 1987 implies that it is “impossible to give the status of finality to any appointment until all protests or oppositions are duly heard”.
As correctly noted by the OSG, the DARAB findings were signed and approved by the DA Secretary, who, as the agency head, is the appointing authority. FUNCTION OF PLACEMENT COMMITTEES IS TO ASSIST THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, I.E., DISCRETIONARY BUT SUBJECT TO RE-EVALUATION BY DARAB RA 6656, which created the Placement Committees, was intended to protect the security of tenure of Civil Service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganization. Under §6 of that law, Placement Committees were created in each department or agency, “to assist the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel”. “To assist” vs. “To recommend”: Assisting denotes a contribution of effort towards a common ultimate purpose while recommending denotes representation of approval; it implies the idea that another has the final decision. “Clearly, the Placement Committee was charged with the duty of exercising the same discretionary functions as the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel when the law empowered it to "assist" the appointing authority.” RA 6656 also allows any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments to appeal to the appointing authority and further to the CSC (if not satisfied). Under Presidential Circular dated Oct. 2, 1987, the Reorganization Appeals Boards were created to supplement the provisions of RA 6656. There is no GAD in the fact that the DARAB is capable of re-evaluating and reversing the PC findings. The DARAB did not disregard the PC findings. These were re-evaluated and the DARAB findings were submitted to and approved by the DA Secretary. The CSC upheld the DARAB findings. Based on these circumstances, the rulings in Luego v. CSC and allied cases is inapplicable. CSC DID NOT ORDER APPOINTMENT OF BANAN; ACT WAS OF MERE AFFIRMATION There was no statement in the assailed CSC resolution directing Banan’s appointment. It was simply an affirmation of Banan’s appointment as recommended by DARAB and approved by the DA Secretary. This is in compliance with §4 of RA 6656 which mandates that officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former positions. Also, the term “incumbent officer” and the privileges generally accorded to them would more aptly refer to Banan and not to Sinon whose appointment was never confirmed completely. There is no dispute that the position of MAO in the old staffing pattern is most comparable to the MAO in the new staffing pattern. PURPOSE OF REORGANIZATION: Restructuring the bureaucracy's organizational and functional setup, to make it more viable in terms of the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it more responsive to the needs of its public clientele, as authorized by law. DISPOSITION: Denied
