ABILA v CSC
G.R. No. 92573/ June 3, 1991
FACTS:
PARTIES INVOLVED:
 AMADO VILLAFUERTE: retiree for the position as Administrative
Officer IV in the Health Department of QC City Government
 ALEX ABILA: Successor of Villafuerte; one who will replace Villafuerte
 BRIGIDO SIMON JR.: One who appointed Abila
 FLORENTINA ELERIA: Protested the appointment of Abila
HOW THE CASE STARTED
 Villafuerte retired from his post as Admin. Officer IV in the Health
Department of QC City Government
 To replace Villafuerte, Simon appointed Abila for the post that will be
vacated by Villafuerte
 By virtue of such assumed the post of Administrative Officer IV on
December 2, 1987 and abandoned his previous position as Acting
Assistant Civil Security Officer
ELERIA, the ADMIN. OFFICER III, PROTESTED THE APPOINTMENT OF
ABILA BEFORE THE MERIT AND PROTECTED BOARD
 The Board REVOKED the appointment of Abila and it ordered the QC
OIC or the Mayor to appoint Eleria instead of Abila on the grounds that:
a. Under Section 4 of CSC Reso. 83-343, Eleria being the holder of a
position NEXT IN RANK to that of the vacancy, she has
“promotional priority” over Abila
b. Eleria met the minimum eligibility and education requirements for
Admin Officer IV
c. Eleria had the edge in terms of rank and experience as Admin
Officer
ABILA APPEALED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD TO THE CSC
 CSC’s RULING: It affirmed in toto the Board’s decision
- Since Eleria possessed the minimum qualification and holds the
position next in rank to the vacancy, Eleria shall be appointed and
not Abila
NOTE: Despite CSC’s affirmation that Eleria is the proper appointed personnel,
the City Mayor of QC AFFIRMED the appointment of Abila.
THOUGHT PROCESS: The Board and CSC DOES NOT like Abila to be appointed
as Admin Officer IV BUT the City Mayor like Abila and not Eleria
ARGUMENTS OF ABILA
 CSC has no authority to compare the parties’ qualifications and
choosing the person that it believed to be the appropriate appointee
 In other words, CSC has no appointing power over the position being
filled up. The proper appointing power is the City Mayor and NOT the
CSC
ISSUES:
 WON CSC has authority to substitute the judgment of the City Mayor
(the appointing authority) with regard to the appointment to the
government service based on appointee’s qualification and fitness for
the position.
 WON Eleria shall be promoted since she is the officer next in rank to the
vacancy.
HELD:
NO. CSC HAS NO AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXCEPT OVER ITS OWN
PERSONNEL
 RULE: The appointing power is vested by law in the head of the office
concerned and it is essentially discretionary.
- Further, CSC does not have the authority to review the
appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the
appointee possess the required qualifications.
- Thus, the determination of who among aspirants with the
minimum statutory qualifications should be preferred belongs to
the appointing authority and not the CSC.
 IN THIS CASE: CSC itself acknowledged that Abila and Eleria are legally
qualified for the position. However, CSC had exhausted its powers and
may not act any further except to affirm the validity of Abila’s
appointment.
- Furthermore, CSC had no authority to revoke Abila’s appointment
on the ground that CSC believed that Eleria was better qualified for
the position involved.
- As a result, CSC act of substituting the judgment of the City Mayor
constituted an encroachment upon the discretionary authority of
the City Mayor.
SECOND ISSUE
NO. THE NEXT-IN-RANK RULE DOES NOT APPLY
 RULE: The next-in-rank rule applies only where the vacancy is filled by
PROMOTION.
- However, even if the vacancy had been filled by promotion, 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
  In layman’s term: Hindi ‘matic na kapag ikaw yung next in
rank, ikaw na agad ang mag fi-fill sa vacancy (Wag assuming
please!)
 IN THIS CASE: There was no promotion to speak of.
- Abila’s appointment was effected through LATERAL TRANSFER
from a position in one department of the city government to a
position of greater responsibility in another department of the
same government.
- With such manner of appointment, it is concluded that there was
no SCALAR ASCENT to another position higher in rank or salary in
this case. Thus, NO PROMOTION

ELERIA DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE PROMOTED TO THE VACANT

POSITION DESPITE BEING THE NEXT-IN-RANK EMPLOYEE
 RULE: As provided in Section 2 of Rule 3 of CSC Resolution 89-779, the
persons next in rank who are qualified “shall only be considered for
promotion”. It only gave such person a “preferential consideration”
 IN THIS CASE: Although Eleria is the person next in rank, it does not
follow that she shall automatically promoted to the vacant position.
- The City Mayor shall be the only authority that would determine
whether the personnel shall be appointed or not