Lustre v. Civil Service Commission Task Force On Reorganization Appeals

GANCAYCO, J.:

The position of municipal agriculture officer (MAO) after a reorganization under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6656 is the subject of this controversy. Pursuant to the reorganization in Region XII of the Department of Agriculture under R.A. No. 6656 (An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization), petitioner was appointed Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) in Tubao, Lanao del Norte, effective July 1, 1988.1 Upon protest filed by private respondent, the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Appeals Board (DA-RAB) issued on March 26, 1990 Resolution No. 58 upholding the protest and thereby ordering the recall of petitioner's appointment.2 Petitioner filed a request for reconsideration with public respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC), which treated said motion as an appeal, and thereafter promulgated a resolution on August 2, 1990 dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.3 A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied by respondent CSC on November 6, 1990.4 Thus, this petition for review on certiorari predicated on the following assigned errors: I THAT THE RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT OBSERVING THE GUARANTEES PROVIDED FOR UNDER RA 6656 (AN ACT TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF TENURE OF CIVIL SERVICE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION) IN DENYING THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL, WHICH DENIAL CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE.

II THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND CONSIDER THE CERTIFICATES OF TRAINING MUCH THE PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY EARNED PRIOR TO 1988 AND MUCH HE WAS ABLE TO SECURE FROM HIS FORMER PLACES OF ASSIGNMENT ONLY DURING THE APPEAL.5 Petitioner contends that his security of tenure as mandated under Section 1 of R.A. No. 6656 and under the Constitution,6 was violated inasmuch he had been holding the contested position for more than two (2) years under a "permanent" status. Prior to the reorganization, petitioner was holding the position of supervising fishery officer which is equivalent to the contested position of MAO, so petitioner alleges he has priority to said post in accordance with Section 4 of R.A. No. 6656.

He questions the conditional approval of his appointment subject to the final decision of the agency Reorganization Appeals Board, although the same is allegedly a permanent appointment. Moreover, he contends that under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6656, such an appeal must be decided within 30 days from the filing thereof and that in this case the lapse of two (2) years is too much. He decries the denial by the CSC of his request for a period of 30 days within which to produce certificates of training to show that he had more hours of training than private respondent.

The petition is devoid of merit. True it is that petitioner was extended a permanent appointment as MAO by the Regional Director, CESO II, Department of Agriculture on July 1, 1988 but it was "without prejudice to the final outcome of the protest filed against this appointment."7 Verily on March 26, 1990, the DA-RAB resolved the protest of private respondent against petitioner's appointment to the contested position, together with other similar protest. Under Resolution No. 58, whereby, among others, it was found that the protest was meritorious, the appointment of petitioner was ordered recalled and it was held that private respondent should be appointed to the contested position.8 This is predicated on an evaluation of the qualifications of the two as follows: J. Tahir (Protestant) C.

Lustre (Protestee) Education 10.00% 4.00% Performance 16.00% 16.02% Relevant Experience 6.00% 15.00% Training 10.00% 5.00% Examination 16.82% 16.50% TOTAL