Next in rank rule: 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. 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. Vacant position: e!ional "ana!er of the #ational $rri!ation Administration %&evel '() *hief of the +n!ineerin! ,ivision: -erfecto +spa.ol *hief ,esi!n +n!ineer %&evel '/): 0rlando &. 1ulseco 0r!ani2ational chart3 position of +spanol is hi!her than 1ulseco4s 1efore left for abroad3 he was a 5ob level ''. Notably, the position is of job level 223 as compared to that of a ,ivision "ana!er %level '/) and e!ional "ana!er %level '(). . When Bulseco came back from abroad in 19 1, he !as offered the only available, position of "hief #esi$n %n$ineer of N&', (e$ion 2) 6hus we find merit as to +spa.ol7s contention that 1ulseco was under him because insofar as actual plantilla position is concerned3. the position of 1ulseco is still *hief ,esi!n +n!ineer3 a position really under +spa.ol. *o!ever Bulseco, because of his desi$nations, performed the duties and functions appurtenant to that of +&, and "oordinator of N&-&+ !hich positions are of e.ual and next/in/rank, respectively, to the contested position) So that prior to his appointment to the contested position3 he was actually the *oordinator of #$S$-. 0n the other hand3 the 0r!ani2ational *hart of #$A shows that there are six %8) nextin-rank positions to the contested position of e!ional "ana!er and that3 all these are held by other employees3 includin! "r. +spa.ol. both contestants meet the qualification requirements for the position. In fact their individual qualifications exceed those requirements especially that (sic) of Engr. Bulseco)

+n!r. 1ulseco indeed possesses superior qualifications than +spa.ol3 not discountin! his relevant experience abroad. $t is shown3 however3 that the "S-1 accorded more wei!ht to the findin! that +spa.ol is the one next-in-rank to the contested position 9owever3 the appointin! authority may promote an employee not next-inrank who possesses superior qualification and competence compared to a next-in-rank :undamental is the rule that appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in whom it is vested accordin! to his best li!hts3 the only condition bein! that the appointee shall possess the qualifications required by law. $f he does3 then the appointment cannot be faulted on the !round that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. 6his is a political question involvin! considerations of wisdom which only the appointin! authority can decide. *onsequently; it was further held that where respondent commission has acknowled!ed that both the petitioner and the private respondent !ere .ualified for the contested position that reco$nition alone rendered it functus officio in the case and prevented it from actin$ further thereon except to affirm the validity of the appointment made by the head of the office) $n the case at bar3 there is no dispute that both petitioner +spa.ol and private respondent 1ulseco exceed the qualification standards for appointment to the position of e!ional "ana!er. $t is likewise not denied that3 as ori!inally found by the Administrator3 respondent 1ulseco is more qualified than petitioner. 6he fact alone that both contestants meet the minimum qualifications required by law should have restrained "S-1 from actin! on3 much less in !rantin!3 the appeal of herein petitioner except3 of course3 to affirm the appointment of private respondent . 0ime and a$ain !e have held on to the principle that the determination of !ho amon$ several candidates for a vacant position has the best .ualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the department head or appointin$ authority and not in the "ivil -ervice "ommission) <e find no mandatory nor peremptory requirement in the fore!oin! provision that persons next-in-rank are entitled to preference in appointment. <hat it does provide is that they would be amon! the first to be considered for the vacancy if qualified3 and if the vacancy is not filled by promotion3 the same shall be filled by transfer or other modes of appointment Shall only be considered= 0he rationale advanced for the limitation imposed on the next/in/rank rule is because the rule neither $rants a vested ri$ht to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty

on the appointin$ authority to promote such person to the next hi$her position) 9ence3 to apply the next-in-rank rule peremptorily would impose a ri!id formula on the appointin! power contrary to the policy of the law that amon! those qualified and eli!ible3 the appointin! authority is !ranted discretion and prero!ative of choice of the one he deems fit for appointment.
-evilla v) 1ocon 1)() No) 12 223 4ebruary 15, 2662 4'"0-: Sevilla and &imbo was char!ed of falsification of official document3 dishonesty and conduct pre5udicial to the best interest of the service. 1ocon3 >uidance *ounselor $$$3 was desi!nated as *hairman of the Values +ducation ,epartment in ?@A@. 7imbo was a former *ead 0eacher &&& in the +ractical 'rts #epartment Bof the Cue2on #ational 9i!h School in &ucena *ityD. espondent Sevilla requested for the reclassification of ei!ht %A) items of Secondary 9ead 6eacher $$$ to Secondary 9ead 6eacher V$. o Apparently3 said request contains super impositionsEerasures3 specifically item F wherein the +ractical 'rts #epartment was replaced to 8alues #epartment !ith 7imbo as the '77%1%# -econdary *ead 0eacher 9*ead 0eacher &&&: when in truth he was the 9ead 6eacher of the -ractical Arts ,epartment which was later mer!ed with the 9ome +conomics ,epartment. -evilla3 in his capacity as +rincipal &83 requested the 0ffice of the e!ional ,irector3 ,+*S e!ion $V3 for the up!radin! of >ocon4s position of >uidance *ounselor $$$ to 9ead 6eacher V$ for Values +ducation. ,+*S denied the request. >ocon discovered that &imbo was appointed as 9ead 6eacher V$ for Values +ducation o <hen he asked about said appointment3 -evilla explained to 1ocon that 7imbo !as temporarily desi$nated as *ead 0eacher for 8alues %ducation so that all *ead 0eacher items !ould be reclassified by #%"- (e$ional ;ffice &8) >ocon filed a complaint and requested the intercession of the then ,+*S Secretary re!ardin! the matter. o ,+*S claimed amon! others3 as follows: I strongly deny the allegation of Mr. Sevilla that I suggested to him to temporarily designate Mr. Lim o!s appointment item as "alues item#$ I do not know personally Mr. Sevilla% hence% I have no reason to make such suggestion to him knowing that such act is a clear falsification of pu lic documents. &nd I do not remem er having met him.! &imbo acknowled!ed that he was the one who made alterations in the request for reclassification. o 9e stressed3 however3 that he initialed all the corrections he made to show that he was in !ood faith in doin! so and that he acted upon the su!!estion of "onina 1elen3 as staff of &eovi!ildo Arellano at the ,+*S "ana!ement ,ivision.

$n the *S* case3 respondents Sevilla and &imbo were formally char!ed by the *ivil Service *ommission e!ional 0ffice #o. $V of falsification of official documents3 dishonesty and conduct pre5udicial to the best interest of the service.

&--<%: <hether or not the acts or omissions of petitioner Sevilla amounted to dishonesty *%7#: #o 0he omission of petitioner -evilla: 4ailure to inform respondent of 7imbo=s appointment 0he conduct is $rossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service> it affected the other faculty members of ?N* ;mission of petitioner -evilla @ did N;0 amount to dishonesty o B<0: he is administratively liable for that omission B'-&-: 0he "ode of "onduct and %thical -tandards of +ublic ;fficials and %mployees ,ishonesty is intentionally makin! a false statement in any material fact3 or practicin! or attemptin! to practice any deception or fraud in securin! his examination3 re!istration3 appointment or promotion. ,ishonesty was understood to imply a disposition to lie3 cheat3 deceive3 or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of inte!rity. $t was &imbo who had made the alterations in the letter of petitioner3 who never represented him to anyone as the head teacher of the Values +ducation ,epartment. o 6he records show that the item of &imbo was reclassified from 9ead 6eacher $$$ %-ractical Arts) to 9ead 6eacher V$ %Values +ducation)3 without petitioner misrepresentin! the former as the one performin! the functions of head teacher of the Values +ducation ,epartment. o Althou!h &imbo was appointed as 9ead 6eacher V$ %Values +ducation)3 after his previous item had been reclassified as such3 he continued performin! the functions of head teacher of the -ractical Arts ,epartment. o *ence, there !as no misrepresentation of him as the head teacher of +ractical 'rts 9Boys:) 6he above circumstances3 however do not totally absolve petitioner from liability. o 6he meat of the an!uished *omplaint of respondent was the concealment from her and the entire school of &imbo4s appointment as 9ead 6eacher V$ for Values +ducation 0rdinarily3 no one would assume the heavy duties and responsibilities of a position without receivin!3 or at least expectin! to receive in the future3 the correspondin! compensation therefor. >ood faith demanded that petitioner should have revealed &imbo4s appointment to respondent. &t !as improper for him to expect her to continue performin$ the functions of a values education head teacher, !hen someone else had already been appointed to that position and !as receivin$ the correspondin$ salary) 0hus, he is administratively liable for his omission !hich, ho!ever, did not amount to dishonesty, as he had made no false statement) 0n his part3 no deliberate intent to mislead3 deceive or defraud can be read from the circumstances of this case. 's a public school principal, petitioner is bound by a hi$h standard of !ork ethic)

G6he *ode of *onduct and +thical Standards for -ublic 0fficials and +mployees % A 8F?()3 enunciates inter alia3 the State policy of promotin! a hi!h standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. o Section 4 of the *ode commands that A9p:ublic officials and employees at all times respect the ri$hts of others, and refrain from doin$ acts contrary to la!, $ood morals, $ood customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest)= By his omissions, petitioner failed to live up to such standard) 9is failure to inform respondent of &imbo4s appointment and to promptly remedy the resultin! pre5udice a!ainst her may be characteri2ed as conduct !rossly pre5udicial to the best interest of the service3 since such conduct affected not only her but also all the other faculty members of C#9S. o

AS 60 69+ SA&A $+S: o 6he conduct !rossly pre5udicial to the best interest of the service is penali2ed under Section ''%t) of the 0mnibus ules $mplementin! 1ook V of +xecutive 0rder #o. '@' and 0ther -ertinent *ivil Service &aws by suspension 6he suspension is for six %8) months and one %?) day to one %?) year for the first offense. *;W%8%(, petitioner has already reached the compulsory a$e of retirement durin$ the pendency of this case o *e is no lon$er in the $overnment service 0*<- it !ould be more appropriate to impose on him a fine e.uivalent to his salary for six 95: months, instead of a suspension) o 6his penalty is allowed under Section ?@ of the same ules.