G.R. No.

85479 March 3, 1992

PERFECTO ESPAÑOL, petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. FEDERICO N. ALDAY, JR., in his capacity as ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION; and ORLANDO L. BULSECO, respondents.

Regalado, J.:

Doctrine:

Facts:

The position of Regional Manager of National Irrigation Administration of Cauayan, Isabela is vacant. Petitioner
Espanol was Chief of the Engineering Division while Private Respondent Bulseco was Chief Design Engineer. The
position of Espanol is considered as next-in-rank to the position of Regional Manager. On the other hand, Bulseco’s
position is under the Chief of the Engineering Division as under the Organizational Chart of NIA.

Bulseco was then appointed in the vacant position of Regional Manager and Espanol protested to said appointment
to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but it was referred to NIA Administrator later, alleging that the petitioner is the
employee next-in-rank to the position vacant hence he has promotional priority. The NIA Administrator dismissed the
protest ruling that Bulseco has advantage over Espanol on the factors of performance and potential.

On appeal to MSPB it ruled that both officers exceed the requirements of being a regional manager, however, by
virtue of ranking in the organizational chart of NIA, it ruled to appoint Espanol instead of Bulseco.

Bulseco appealed to the CSC and the decision was reversed sustaining the appointment of bulseco on the following
grounds:

Without further delving into the detailed comparative qualifications of the contestants,
the Commission considers this an indication or an admission that Engr. Bulseco
indeed possesses superior qualifications than Español, not discounting his relevant
experience abroad. It is shown, however, that the MSPB accorded more weight to
the finding that Español is the one next-in-rank to the contested position and
pursuant to Section 4. of CSC Resolution No. 83-343, which states:

Section 4. An employee who holds a next-in-rank position who is

deemed the most competent and qualified . . . shall be promoted to
the position when it becomes vacant.

Español has an edge and promotional priority over Enqr. Bulseco. But granting
arguendo that Bulseco is not really the person next-in-rank, the MSPB seems to
have missed the second paragraph of the same section which provides:

However, the appointing authority may promote an employee not

next-in-rank who possesses superior qualification and competence
compared to a next-in-rank.
 This Commission, in several occasions, resolved the issue in favor of employees
who were not next-in-rank but were promoted to the contested position. In the case
of Corpuz vs. Lopez, Jr., March 1, 1982, the then Commission ruled that:

Although both may be considered for promotion and that the next-in-
rank should be given preference for promotion, the appointing
authority may appoint an employee who is not next-in-rank so as to
choose only the most competent and best qualified for the position.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Commission resolved to find as

it hereby finds the appeal meritorious. Accordingly, the decision of MSPB dated April
14, 1988 is therefore set aside and the appointment of Orlando L. Bulseco as
Regional Manager, Cauayan, Isabela, is thus confirmed.

Hence the petition before SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the position of Mr. Espanol being next-in-rank gave him priority on the vacant position.

RULING:

The SC affirm the act of CSC reversing the decision of MSPB and in confirming the appointment of Bulseco.

The SC cited its ruling in Taduran which is as follows:

We find no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in the foregoing provision that persons next-in-
rank are entitled to preference in appointment. What it does provide is that they would be among the
first to be considered for the vacancy if qualified, and if the vacancy is not filled by promotion, the
same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of apppointment. . . .

And in Medenilla vs. CSC the SC ruled that the next-in-rank-rule is not absolute; it only applies in
case of promotions . . . . And even in promotions, it can be disregarded for sound reasons made
known to the next-in-rank. The appointing authority, under the Civil Service Law, is allowed to fill
vacancies by promotion, transfer of present employees, reinstatement, reemployment, and
appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility, not necessarily in that order. . .
. There is no legal fiat that a vacancy must be filled only by promotion; the appointing authority is
given wide discretion to fill a vacancy from among the several alternatives provided for by law.

The SC noted further "that even if the vacancy here had been filled by promotion rather than by
lateral transfer, the concept of "next-in-rank" does not import any mandatory or peremptory
requirement that the person next in rank must be appointed to the vacancy. What Section 19(3) of
P.D. No. 807, the Civil Service Law, provides is that if a vacancy is filled by a promotion, the person
holding the position next in rank thereto "shall be considered for promotion.""

FALLO:

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, no abuse of discretion being imputable to public
respondents in this case, the petition at bar is hereby DISMISSED.