1 |Page

SALVADOR C. FERNANDEZ and ANICIA M. DE LIMA, petitioners, vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, Chairman, and HON. RAMON B. ERENETA, Commissioner, Civil Service Commission,

FACTS: Petitioners in the instant case, Salvador Sanchez here serving as Director of the Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while petitioner de Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission. Petitioners assailed the validity of the resolution promulgated by the CSC and its authority to issue such, the Resolution No. 934710 resolves to effect changes in the organizations specifically Central Offices ( re arranged and merged some offices. It also allocated some functions ( internal organizations). The objective which is to improve on the delivery of services ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue Resolution No. 94-3710 to the extent it merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], the OPIA [Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO [Research and Development Office]; HELD: YES. Examination on the statutory provisions specifically The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292 dated 25 July 1987) sets out, in Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, the internal structure and organization of the Commission Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission reveals that the OCSS, OPIA and OPR, and as well each of the other Offices listed in Section 16 above, consist of aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a grouping of Sections. In short these offices constitute administrative subdivisions of the CSC. Legislative Authority have validly delegated to CSC by Sec. 17 and also Sec 1 of 1997 Revised Administrative Code. The reorganization of offices is moved by legitimate considerations of administrative efficiency and convenience. ISSUE 2: Whether the reorganization abolished offices?

HELD: It did not abolished any public office nor terminate relationship whatsoever employees by the Civil Service Commission Office or any of its officers and employees.

RATIONALE why CSC can validly reorganized: Because only CSC knows the ever changing needs with the call of times or demand of times, as long as this will not involve any reduction in rank or status or neither the salaries of such employees and it is not amounting to removal nor constructive dismissal.

2 |Page
HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. A student of a state university is known as a government scholar. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term. Petitioner here asked the former president Estrada to fund th renovations of a hall in Up Diliman and president gave 15 MILLION but it did not materialized. One of the student from another council filed a complaint alleging act of Malversation of Public Funds and Property. The Ombudsman also after due investigation found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother for estafa. Petitioner moved to quash the said complaint as she contended SB has no jurisdiction over estafa cases and that the money came from the president and since she is just a student register and is not considered a public officer and she did not even received any salary. ISSUES: (a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; (b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees; (c) the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; (d) the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government. HELD: A. YES The SB has jurisdiction. It is set by PD No. 1606 and not RA 3019 because Sec 4 of RA 3019 does not deal with any jurisdiction but with prohibitions on certain individuals. Se. 4 (B) of PD 1606- estafa is included as one of the other felonies mentioned. The two requisites are: 1) The offense is committed by public officials 2) The offense is committed in relation to office Including crimes committed by public officials and in conspiracy with private oersons- the crimes are treated alike. B. Petitioner here as a UP student regent is considered as public officer Private Officers are individuals invested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government to be exercised for public benefit of public. The right to hold public office is not a natural right. It exist by virtue of a law creating it. Petitioner falls under trustees, or managers of educational institutions or foundations. C. She committed offense not in private capacity but in relation to her office D. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public ([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). The right to hold a public office under our political system is therefore not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it (Mechem Ibid., Sec. 64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary. Compensation is not essential element but only incidental to public office. Admin of UP is a sovereign function in line with Article XIV of the constitution- it is maintained by the government and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation created by profit.

3 |Page
ACCEPTANCE G.R. No. 92403 April 22, 1992 VICTOR A. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LEONARDA D. DE LA PAZ FACTS:
Petitioner here is designated as OIC of the division supply office of the DECS. Prior to such designation, or from the period February 16, 1984 to June 16, 1984, petitioner was designated as Property Inspector and In-Charge of the Supply Office performing the duties and responsibilities of the Supply Officer. He filed a protest with the DECS Secretary questioning the qualification and competence of private respondent here named Leonardo Dela Paz as he was the one promoted as Supply Officer I. He contended that he is more qualified than Dela Paz who was holding a position of Clerk II prior to his appointment. So upon his petition, the DECS ruled on his favour and revoked the appointment to the PR and gave instead to Aquino the permanent position of Supply Officer I. The PR opposed and appealed with the decision of DECS but was denied. He then appealed to MPSB but the same was also denied. Finally to CSC and CSC found his appeal meritorious and revoked the appointment of Aquino. Hence, this petition seeking the reversal of public respondent Commission's action on petitioner's appointment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not public respondent Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment of petitioner Victor A. Aquino as Supply Officer I in the DECS Division of San Pablo City as it found private respondent Leonarda de la Paz better qualified.

HELD:
NO. The CSC did not committed grave abuse of discretion. It is actually a settled rule that Civil Service Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment simply because it (CSC) believed that another person is better qualified than the appointee for it would constitute an encroachment on the discretion solely vested on the appointing authority. The situation is different as in the instant case, as CSC merely restored the appointment of PR who was first appointed to the position. It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right (to the position), which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing. The head of a department or office making the appointment and the Commissioner of Civil Service acting together, makes the appointment extended to an appointee and once accepted by the appointee and done what is required of him upon its acceptance, , his title to the office becomes complete, and he can then be removed only in the regular way. The appointing power cannot effect his removal indirectly by rescinding or revoking his appointment after it is complete. Otherwise, the security of tenure guaranteed by Article IX-B, Section 2 par. (3) of the 1987 Constitution would be rendered meaningless if the appointing authority is allowed to flip-flop in exercising its discretionary power of appointment. He can only be removed by just cause or predicated on those grounds provided for under Section 19 par. (6) of the Civil Service Law (P.D. 807), namely: (1) that the appointee is not qualified; (2) that the appointee is not the next-in-rank; and (3) in case of appointment by transfer, reinstatement, or by original appointment, that the protestant is not satisfied with the written special reason or reasons given by the appointing authority. With regards to qualifications the PR have sufficiently qualified based on the foregoing: EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree with training in Supply Management EXPERIENCE: None required ELIGIBILITY: Supply Officer; Career Service (Professional) An appointment to an office which is not vacant is null and void ab initio: CSC Resolution No. 83-343 provides thus; An appointment though contested shall take effect immediately upon issuance if the appointee assumes the duties of the position and (the) appointee is entitled to receive the salary attached to the position. Likewise such appointment shall become ineffective in case the protest is finally resolved in favor of the protestant, in which case the protestee shall be reverted to his former position.