[37] MANTALA V SALVADOR  Regino filed an MR which was denied. No appeal was taken from the Resolution.

GR NO. 101646 | FEBRUARY 13, 1992  Regino instituted an action of quo warranto and mandamus in the RTC of Quezon City
C.J. NARVASA against Mantala, Secretary Bengzon and other officials of the DOH.
o She claimed that she had an established right to the position of Division
TOPIC: Objections to Appointment: Quo Warranto? Chief.
 RTC ruled in Regino’s favor.
CASE SUMMARY: Dr. Mantala was given a temporary appointment for Division Chief. Regino  This is a petition for review on certiorari.
made a formal protest with the Committee on Evaluation and Protest of the DOH and
appeled to the Merit Systems Board of the CSC which ruled in her favor. The DOH then ISSUES AND RULING:
appealed to the CSC. Meanwhile, Secretary Bengzon made Mantala’s appointment 1. W/N the Regional Trial Court had the jurisdiction to decide on the protest cases – NO,
permanent. He then filed an MR before the Board which was denied and elevated the case to Protest cases are decided in the first instance by the head of the Department or
the CSC which dismissed his appeal. Upon MR, CSC set aside the resolution of the Board and agency, subject to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, whose decisions are
upheld Mantala’s appointment. After filing an MR to no avail, Regino filed an action for quo in turn subject to appeal to the CSC. The latter’s decision may be brought to the SC.
warranto and mandamus before the RTC of QC. o Disciplinary cases, and cases involving "personnel actions" affecting employees in
the civil service — including "appointment through certification, promotion,
DOCTRINE: Protest cases are decided in the first instance by the head of the Department or transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion and
agency, subject to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, whose decisions are in turn separation," and, of course, employment status and qualification standards — are
subject to appeal to the CSC. The latter’s decision may be brought to the SC. within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
 The Constitution declares the Commission to be "the central personnel
FACTS: agency of the Government," having power and authority to administer the
 Petitioner Dr. Mariquita Mantala was a private medical practitioner. The Secretary of civil service; to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice
Health gave her a temporary appointment to the then vacant position of Division Chief, before it or before any of its offices; and to render decision in "any case or
Medical Division III, Monitoring and Evaluation Division of the TB Control Service, Office matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
of Public Health, of the Department of Health decision or resolution," which decision, or order or ruling "may be brought to
 Dr. Julia Regino made a formal protest with the Committee on Evaluation and Protest of the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
the DOH. from receipt of a copy thereof."
o Dr. Regino claimed that the appointment should have been extended to  CSC Resolution No. 88-779 provided: Sec. 3. Final Appellate Jurisdiction. —
her since the post of Medical Officer III was held by her next-in-rank. The Civil Service Commission shall exercise final and exclusive appellate
o She had been in service for 35 years. jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and
 Dr. Regino appealed to the Merit Systems Board of the CSC. The Board rendered a the Civil Service Regional Offices involving contested appointments or
verdict in favor of Regino. The DOH appealed to the CSC. promotions.
 Secretary Bengzon made Mantala’s appointment as Division Chief permanent. He filed  Protest cases were described as:
an MR before the Board which was denied.  (a) An appointment made in favor of another next-in-rank employee
 Secretary Bengzon then took the case up to the CSC which dismissed the appeal and who is not qualified;
affirmed the decision of the Board in Regino’s favor.  (b) An appointment made in favor of one who is not next-in-rank;
 Upon MR, the CSC set aside the resolution of dismissal and upheld Mantala’s  (c) An appointment made in favor of one who is appointed by transfer
appointment. and not next-in-rank, or by reinstatement or by original appointment,
o Insofar as overall rating of the qualification, attitude and performance if the employee making the protest is not satisfied with the written
was concerned, Mantala outscored REgino. special reason or reasons given by the appointing authority for such
o Appointing authority is not limited to promotion in filling up vacancies bu appointment.
may opt to fill them by the appointment of persons with civil service o RTC should not have taken cognizance of the quo warrant and mandamus action as
eligibility appropriate to the position it was a protest against the appointment of Dr. Mantala. The protest was already
 submitted by Regino herself to the civil service adjudicatory system. IT was only
after the Resolution in Dr. Mantala’s favor became final and executory, that the
latter thought of filing her quo warranto and mandamus action.
o Even on the merits, Regino’s cause fails. The Commission’s conclusion that Mantala
outscores Regino is a factual issue which may not be reviewed on certiorari.
 Also the legal opinion that the appointing authority is not limited to
promotion in filling up vacancies buy may op to fill them by the
appointment of persons with CSE is in accord with law.
 For another, the now firmly established doctrine is that the discretion
exercised by the appointing power in extending an appointment to a given
position to one of two or more employees possessing the requisite
minimum qualifications for the position, will not generally be interfered
with and must be sustained, and the Civil Service Commission has no
authority to revoke the said appointment simply because it believes that
another employee is better qualified, for that would constitute an
encroachment on the discretion vested sole in the appointing authority

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of August 30, 1991, is hereby
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, and Resolution No. 90-1012 dated November 14, 1990 of the
Civil Service Commission upholding Dr. Mantala's appointment to the contested position,
which has long since become final and executory, is hereby declared to be determinative
and conclusive of the controversy at bar and, if not yet carried out, must now be forthwith
executed. Costs against private respondent.