CSC v.

Dela Cruz Facts:

Saturnino de la Cruz is an employee of the Air Transportation Office, DOTC, presently holding the position of Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer of the Aviation Safety Division. Saturnino was promotionally appointed to the said position on November 28, 1994, duly attested by the Civil Service Commission. But prior thereto, he was a Check Pilot II in the Air Transportation Office (ATO). In a letter, Annabella A. Calamba of the Aviation Security Division of the ATO formally filed with the DOTC her protest against the promotional appointment of Saturtino. o Claiming that Saturtino did not meet the four-year supervisory requirement for said position. DOTC Secretary Garcia rendered a decision finding the protest without merit. Calamba appealed to the CSC-NCR. CSC-NCR upheld the protest of Calamba and recalling the approval of Saturtinos appointment. Jan. 5, 1998 - CSC-NCR Director Acebedo ruled that there is no cogent reason to disturb earlier rulings on the matter. He also denied ATO Director Gilos request, for lack of merit. Strangely, in a letter dated January 13, 1998, CSC-NCR Director Acebedo granted Director Gilos request and affirmed the approval of respondents appointment. In a letter dated January 26, 1998, Calamba requested the CSC to implement the January 5, 1998 ruling of the CSC-NCR. When asked by the CSC to clarify the conflicting rulings, CSC-NCR Director Acebedo explained that the January 5, 1998 ruling is unofficial and inexistent. The CSC treated Calambas request as an appeal. On November 13, 1998, the CSC rendered its Resolution granting Calambas appeal recalling Saturtinos appointment. Acting on the request for reconsideration filed by Dela Cruz, the CSC denied it. Dela Cruz filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals assailing the CSC Resolution. CA granted the petition by setting aside CSC Resolution Nos. 98-2970 and 99-1451 and approving Saturtinos appointment as Chief of the Aviation Safety Regulation Office. CSC MR was denied.

Issue: WON Saturtino is qualified to be appointed as the Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer despite his failure to meet the minimum four-year managerial and supervisory qualification for the position? YES. Held: Dela Cruz has sufficiently complied with the required experience standards. He would indeed lack the required years of work experience to qualify for the contested position if the managerial standards in the first clause above were to be strictly followed (4 yr managerial and supervisory qualification). At the time of his permanent appointment on November 28, 1994 as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer, Saturtino had a little over one year of managerial experience from his designation as Acting Chief of the Aviation Safety Division during the latter part of 1993. However, the work he already rendered in the ATO at the time of his appointment was well within the supervisory standard in the second clause. Planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and supervising the enforcement of air safety laws, rules and regulations pertaining to licensing, rating and checking of all airmen and mechanics and regulation of the activities of flying schools were part of the work performed by respondent for more than 13 years prior to his appointment. It is elementary in the law of public officers that the power to appoint is in essence discretionary on the part of the proper authority. In Salles vs. Francisco, et al., we had occasion to rule that, in the appointment or promotion of employees, the appointing authority considers not only their civil service eligibilities but also their performance, education, work experience, trainings and seminars attended, agency examinations and seniority. Consequently, the appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his best judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. The final choice of the appointing authority should be respected and left undisturbed. Judges should not substitute their judgment for that of the appointing authority. In the appointment of division chiefs, as in this case, the power to appoint rests on the head of the department. Sufficient if not plenary discretion should be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the offices concerned. They are in a position to determine who can best fulfill the functions of the office vacated. Not only is the appointing authority the officer primarily responsible for the administration of the office, he is also in the best position to determine who among the prospective appointees can efficiently discharge the functions of the position.

Dela Cruz, was the uncontested choice of the appointing authority. Then DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia dismissed the protest against respondents appointment. ATO Executive Director Gilo also noted respondents full compliance with the qualifications for the position. CSC-NCR Director Acebedo, who previously recalled respondents appointment, later affirmed it after a re-evaluation of the case and declared his previous ruling unofficial and inexistent. There is no reason to disapprove the appointment of respondent as Chief of the Aviation Safety Regulation Office considering that he is fully qualified and evidently the choice of the appointing authority. Between the Commission and the appointing authority, we sustain the latter. Every particular job in an office calls for both formal and informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age, number of academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may be valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy, initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future and best interest of the service. Given the demands of a certain job, who can do it best should be left to the head of the office concerned provided the legal requirements for the office are satisfied. The reckoning point in determining the qualifications of an appointee is the date of issuance of the appointment and not the date of its approval by the CSC or the date of resolution of the protest against it.