Unsatisfied, Elenita D.V. Alba, another applicant for the same position, filed a protest with the esc, the latter referring the matter to the National Museum for resolution. In a letter to the CSC, dated August 14, 2009 by Director IV Corazon S. Alvina, the National Museum dismissed the protest and

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the appeal of Elenita D.V. Alba, Curator II, National Museum (NM) is GRANTED . Accordingly, the dismissal ofher protest by NM Chairman Antonio 0. Cojuangco against the promotional appointment of Maharlika A. Cuevas as Director III under temporary status is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE . The approval of Cuevas' temporary appointment as Director III by the Civil Service Commission, National Capital Region is RECALLED . [3] Due to the above Resolution, Director Jocelyn Patrice L. Deco, Director II of the CSC Field Office-National Museum, sent a letter dated October 14, 2010 to Director Jeremy Barns, Director IV of the National Museum, forwarding the invalidated permanent appointment of petitioner as Director III contained in CSC Resolution No. 10-1438 dated July 27, 2010. [4] On October 21, 2010, Director Jeremy Barns wrote the CSC asking for a clarification and reconsideration of the October 14, 2010 letter. The CSC replied in a letter dated June 27, 2011 declaring that its resolution is final and executory because the proper party the appointing authority or the appointee, the petitioner, in this case, failed to appeal the resolution as provided by the CSC Rules. According to the CSC, the records showed that the National Museum duly received the October 14, 2010 letter, copy of which was furnished the petitioner and the appeal from CSC Resolution No. 10-1438 should have been made on or before October 29,2010. [5] On August 2, 2011, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the June 27, 2010 letter. He claimed that he received the letter dated June 27, 2010 on July 18, 2011, and it was the first time that he learned of the matter regarding his appointment. He also argued that his appointment was procedurally sound. [6] The National Museum then posted a bulletin of vacant positions, including that of petitioner's, on August 12, 2011. Petitioner, thereafter, wrote a letter to the National Museum clarifying that a motion for reconsideration had been filed before the CSC and it was pending resolution and as such, his position cannot be considered as vacant. [7] On October 12, 2011, petitioner received a copy of the CSC's letter dated September 26, 2011 denying his motion, thus: Please be informed that said letter to Director Barns is not the main action recalling and invalidating your appointment as Director III but a mere clarification on the effects thereof, hence, it is not the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration or appeal. xxxx Moreover, records of this Office clearly show that the invalidation of said appointments was duly received by the National Museum on October 14, 2010 and you were furnished a copy thereof. x x x Thus, your claim that you did not receive any information relative to the recall and invalidation of your appointments has no basis. [8] Petitioner then elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging that the CSC gravely abused its discretion when it sent