Sinon v.

Civil Service Commission

G.R. 101251 – 5 November 1992
J. Campos, Jr.

Topic: Power to Reorganize

Doctrine/s: The whole purpose of reorganization is that it is a "process of restructuring the bureaucracy's
organizational and functional set-up, 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

Petitioners: Eliseo Sinon

Respondents: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Department of Agriculture Reorganization Appeals
Board (DARAB), and Juana Banan

Case Summary: Sinon and Banan were competing for the 29th spot for the position of MAO of Region
II. Sinon initially received an appointment as MAO, as approved by the regional director based on the
list by the placement committee. Banan opposed this, insisting she, and not Sinon, was qualified for the
position, citing the DARAB’s list. CSC granted Banan’s motion and gave due course to her
appointment. The Court upheld the decision of the CSC in appointing Banan, giving more credence to
the list issued by DARAB which favored Banan.

Facts:
• Before the reorganization of Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF), Banan was the incumbent
Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) in Region II, Cagayan while Sinon was the Fisheries Extension
Specialist (FES) II in the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of Region II.
• 30 Jan 1987 – EO 116 was issued, reorganizing the MAF into the Department of Agriculture (DA)
• The EO also called for the evaluation of employees for the 29 MAO positions in Cagayan (“first list”;
included Sinon (29th) but excluded resp. Banan)
• Banan filed an appeal with the DARAB for reevaluation of the list
• 23 Aug 1989: DARAB released Resolution No. 97 in which the ranking for 29 MAO positions was
reevaluated by the placement committee (“second list”; Banan replaced Sinon in the 29th spot)
• The list was approved by DA Sec. Carlo Dominguez
• 30 Aug 1988: Sinon received an appointment as MAO for Region II as approved by the regional director
based on the first list made by the placement committee
• 22 Nov 1989: Sinon filed an appeal with the CSC  Granted for the ff. reasons:
1. DARAB failed to file comment
2. Evaluation of the qualification of employees is a question of fact which the appointing authority or
the placement committee assisting him is in a better position to determine
• 19 Mar 1990: Banan filed motion for reconsideration, comparing her qualifications against Sinon for the
29th slot in the available MAO positions
• Insisted that to allow the findings of the placement committee to supersede the DARAB resolution
which the DA Sec. approved would be tantamount to giving precedence to the Placement Committee
over the head of the agency
• 8 Feb 1991: CSC granted Banan’s MfR and gave due course to her appointment by the DARAB
• 21 Mar 1991: Sinon filed MfR of the Feb. 8 resolution  Denied by the CSC:
• There was a conflict between the DARAB and the placement committee’s findings as to the
assessment of Sinon and Banan’s qualifications
• The placement committee’s function is recommendatory in nature
• The Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB) was created by a Circular of the Office of the President
conferred with authority to review appeals and complaints of officials and employees affected by the
reorganization
• Decision of RAB has the imprimatur of the Secretary of the agency and is controlling in matters of
appointment
• RAB decision > placement committee
Issues + Held:
W/N CSC committed GAD in reviewing and re-evaluating the rating/qualification of Sinon – NO
o With the reorganization of the MAF to DA, it became imperative to protect the security of tenure of
civil service officers in the implementation of government reorganization hence Congress passed
RA 6656, which created the Placement Committee (PC) to assist the appointing authority in the
judicious selection and placement of personnel
 Assist: lend, aid, contribute effort in the accomplishment of the task
 Recommend: Present advice or choice; implies another person has the final say
o PC 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
o RA 6656 also allows any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments to file an appeal with
the appointing authority, then to the CSC
 The creation of the RAB was also to address the problem of employees affected by the
reorganizations
o The appointment paper received by Sinon on 30 Aug 1989 for the position of MAO had not
conferred any permanent status and was still 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
o For as long as the re-evaluation of the qualifications filed by Banan was pending, the petitioner
cannot claim he had been issued with a "complete" appointment. Neither is there any point in
asserting his appointment had "cured" whatever change was subsequently recommended by the
DARAB
o CSC only affirmed the findings of DARAB – NO GAD
o CSC also did not direct the appointment of Banan (no usurpation of appointing power)
 In affirming appointment of Banan, CSC is only being consistent with the law
 Section 4 of R.A. 6656 mandates 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 petitioner Sinon whose
appointment was never confirmed completely
 Position of MAO in the old staffing pattern is most comparable to the MAO in the new
staffing pattern
o In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture himself affixed his approval on the DARAB findings;
Sinon knew as the head of agency, the Secretary was the appointing authority
o See doctrine

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against the petitioner