G.R. No. 184288 - ERIC N. ESTRELLADO AND JOSSIE M. BORJA, VS. KARINA CONSTANTINO DAVID, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HIPOLITO R. GABORNI AND ROBERTO S. SE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal of Eric N. Estrellado, Transportation Regulation Officer I, and Jossie M. Borja, Records Officer III, Land Transportation Office (LTO), is hereby DISMISSED . Accordingly, the Decision dated May 5, 2005 of the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR), Banawe, Quezon City, dismissing their petition to declare null and void the selection procedure conducted by the LTO-Central Office-Selection and Promotion Board (LTO-CO-SPB) and to recall the approval of the appointments of Hipolito R. Gaborni as Transportation Regulation Officer (TRO) II and Roberto S. Se as Administrative Officer (AO) IV, STANDS . Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CSC denied the same in its Resolution No. 060835 dated May 9, 2006. Thus: WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration of Eric N. Estrellado, Transportation Regulation Officer I, and Jossie M. Borja, Records Officer III, Land Transportation Office (LTO) is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, CSC Resolution No. 06-0252 dated February 10, 2006 dismissing their appeal from the Decision dated May 5, 2005 of the Civil Service Commission National Capital Region (CSC-NCR), Banawe, Quezon City, and affirming the approval of the appointments of Hipolito R. Garborni as Transportation Regulation Officer (TRO) II and Roberto S. Se, as Administrative Officer (AO) IV, STANDS . Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Civil Service Commission National Capital Region. [4] Still aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA by petition for review, asserting that the CSC had erred in sustaining the validity of the selection procedure undertaken by the Land Transportation Office's Promotion and Selection Board (LTO-PSB) resulting in the validation of the appointments of Hipolito R. Gaborni and Roberto S. Se as Transportation Regulation Officer II (TRO II) and Administrative Officer IV (AOIV), respectively. [5] In its assailed decision, [6] the CA ruled that petitioners' bare claim of nullity of the selection procedure did not overcome the specific factual findings of the CSC to the effect that Gaborni and Se had undergone screening on January 15, 2004 prior to their appointments, and that Garboni and Se had met the qualifications; that the LTO-PSB had conducted interviews, with the Human Resource Management (HEM) Assistant/Secretariat even presenting a study on the Comparative Assessment of Candidates for Promotion; and that the results showed that Gaborni had ranked second for the TRO II position and Se, first for the AO IV position. The CA opined that the CSC did not violate the rule on the three-salary grade promotion because Se's promotion from Engineer II (SG 16) to AO IV (SG22), or six steps upwards, came under one of the exceptions specified in CSC Resolution No. 03-0106 dated January 24, 2003; that the LTO-PSB, noting the CSC's findings, conducted a deep selection process that showed Se's superior qualifications compared to those of the other applicants for the same positi