ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 01-1-07-MTCC.February 19, 2002]
RE:PROTEST OF ADAMAS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF FERNANDEZ
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 19 2002.
A.M. No. 01-1-07-MTCC (Re:Protest of Abundio C. Adamas on the Appointment of Maria Elena P. Fernandez as Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Ozamiz City.)
On 31 March 1998 the position of Clerk of Court IV in the Office of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Ozamiz City, was declared vacant due to the retirement of its incumbent, Mr. Filomeno V. Araya.
Two (2) applicants were considered for appointment, namely:(a) Mr. Abundio C. Adamas and (b) Ms. Maria Elena P. Fernandez.Mr. Adamas is Clerk of Court III of MTCC-Br. 3, Ozamiz City.He has been in the judiciary for twenty-eight (28) years when he was recommended to the vacant position by Executive Judge Priscilla Tapang-Hernandez.By now he must have served the MTCC of Ozamiz City for thirty (30) years.
On the other hand, Ms. Maria Elena P. Fernandez is Clerk of Court III of MTCC-Br. 1, Ozamiz City, and has been in the judiciary for sixteen (16) years.She was recommended to the same position by retired Executive Judge Ruben R.A. Cagas.
After considering the qualifications and length of service of the applicants, the Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts "resolved to recommend the approval of the appointment of Mr. Abundio C. Adamas to the position of Clerk of Court IV, OCC, MTCC, Ozamiz City." [1] cralaw
Thereafter, the Office of the Court Administrator supposedly received various objections on the recommendation for appointment of Mr. Adamas allegedly questioning his integrity and competence.
On 6 December 1999 Ms. Fernandez requested for reconsideration of Mr. Adamas' recommendation claiming that she should have been recommended instead as she had been performing the duties and functions of the Office since February 1998 and retired Executive Judge Ruben R.A. Cagas and Judge Ricardo Salvanera, vouching for her efficiency, competenceand integrity, had duly recommended her for the position.
To settle the controversy, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Chairman of the Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts, together with the Members of the Board, instead of looking into the factual basis of the report, decided to interview both applicants.According to the Court Administrator, the Board interviewed them one at a time and that the questions were very basic and dwelt more on the duties and functions of the Clerk of Court.However, "Mr. Adamas could not express himself clearly and was groping for answers, clearly showing that he did not know the basic duties and functions of the office he was applying for.Ms. Fernandez, on the other hand, was straightforward and eloquent in her answers.She appeared to know the 'ins' and 'outs' of the office as there were no questions left unanswered."On the basis thereof, the Board resolved to reconsider its previous action and recommended the appointment of Ms. Maria Elena P. Fernandez for the position.
Hence, on 3 April 2000 Mr. Adamas filed his protest.He emphasized that he had been with the judiciary since 29 July 1971 and that he met the qualification requirements set forth for the position of Clerk of Court IV provided under Civil Service Resolution No. 991772 of 10 August 1999, namely, (a) Bachelor of Laws, (b) Career Service Professional, (c) two (2) years relevant experience, and, (d) eight (8) hours relevant training.Moreover, he insisted on the application of Circular No. 7, Re:Appointments to Vacant Positions in the Judiciary, issued on 27 April 1987 -
Rule 2. Recommendations for appointment of court personnel in all other courts shall be submitted to the Supreme Court by the Presiding Judges thereof, through their respective Executive Judges, insofar as they involve their respective branches.
Recommendations to all other positions shall be made by the Executive Judges concerned,
and Administrative Order No. 10, Re:Guidelines in the Appointment of Personnel to the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, issued on 9 March 1983 by then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando -
Rule 6.In the choice of employees for appointment to any position in any court, integrity, performance and seniority, are prime considerations.
Rule 9.All personnel of the Offices of the Clerk of Court shall be recommended for appointment by the Executive Judge of the court concerned to the Supreme Court thru the Office of the Court Administrator.
On 27 April 2000 Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug referred to the Honorable Chief Justice the letter of Executive Judge Priscilla Tapang-Hernandez, MTCC, Ozamiz City, relative to the protest of Mr. Adamas.She claimed in her letter that there was an injustice done to protestant Abundio C. Adamas when Ms. Fernandez was appointed Clerk of Court IV of MTCC, Ozamiz City.Executive Judge Hernandez maintained inter alia that "[t]he actuation of Assistant Court Administrator Atty. Jose P. Perez in mailing the papers at the protestant's residence caused [her] to wonder, considering that the protestant's application and pertinent papers were endorsed by [her] to the Selection and Promotion Board (for Lower Courts) and it was only proper that any communication regarding any action taken on that application must be made through [her]."She claimed that she was puzzled by the decision of the Board in recommending Ms. Fernandez as the latter's "application and pertinent papers were already returned to [her] by Justice Bernardo T. Ponferrada, the Deputy Court Administrator, when he informed [her] that protestant was the one recommended to fill the vacancy in his letter dated 24 November 1999."According to her, Ms. Fernandez should not have been considered for the position as her application therefore was already returned to her.Executive Judge Hernandez invoked the proper implementation of Circular No. 7 as well as Administrative Order No. 10.She emphasized that Mr. Adamas should be the one to fill the position as he is "really qualified and [has] the ability as well as credibility to do the job."
On 27 April 2000 the Chief Justice referred the letter of Executive Judge Hernandez to the Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts and directed the Board to comment thereon as well as the protest.
On 30 June 2000 Court Administrator Benipayo, Chairman of the Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts, recommended the dismissal of the protest for lack of merit.He contended that the protest was simply based on the non-compliance by Ms. Fernandez with Circular No. 7 dated 27 April 1987 and Administrative Order No. 10 dated 9 March 1983; that the protestant never questioned the qualifications and/or competence of Ms. Fernandez; and that "while it is incumbent upon Executive Judges to recommend applicants to vacant positions at the OCC [Office of the Clerk of Court], the Selection and Promotion Board is not precluded from taking cognizance of matters which are referred to them for resolution."
After a careful examination of the records, this Court finds the protest of Mr. Abundio C. Adamas very much impressed with merit.Indeed, he should have been appointed to the position of Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Ozamiz City.Mr. Adamas complied with Circular No. 7 dated 27 April 1987 and Administrative Order No. 10 dated 9 March 1983 which provide that the applicant should be recommended by the Executive Judge concerned.Ms. Fernandez, on the other hand, was not recommended by the incumbent Executive Judge but by a retired Executive Judge.The Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts, in disregarding Circular No. 7 and Administrative Order No. 10, exercised grave abuse of discretion which should be curtailed.While the Board has the right to take cognizance of matters referred to it for resolution, it must be guided and should comply with the pertinent rules therefore.The Board should not abuse such prerogative, as it obviously did in this case.
The basic requirements for the vacant position should be the initial bases in determining who among the applicants should be considered for appointment.Upon initial study of the applications and after serious consideration, the Board recommended Mr. Adamas and returned the application of Ms. Fernandez to the Executive Judge.The recommendation was principally based on his length of service in the judiciary of twenty-eight (28) years.The Board failed to mention in its recommendation that, aside from his seniority (12 years longer in the service than Ms. Fernandez), Mr. Adamas is a Civil Service Eligible Stenographic Reporter, a Career Service Professional, a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree and was strongly recommended by Executive Judge Hernandez.In fact, concerned with the obvious injustice caused to Mr. Adamas, Executive Judge Hernandez even went to the extent of writing Mr. Justice Vitug to ensure that educational qualification, civil service eligibility and seniority in the service would be upheld.Ms. Fernandez was not recommended by the Executive Judge but by a retire Executive Judge.Worse, the records do not reflect at all her compliance with Civil Service Resolution No. 991772 providing for the qualification requirements for the position of Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Ozamiz City.Thus, it was highly irregular for the Board to have reversed itself and recommended instead Ms. Fernandez on the basis of a mere unreported, unrecorded interview supposedly conducted after allegedly receiving various objections from the different sectors in Ozamiz City and the request of Ms. Fernandez for reconsideration.No investigation to verify and validate the allegations was ever conducted.Plainly, the Board did not give Mr. Adamas a chance to defend himself against his alleged detractors - a clear violation of his constitutional right to due process.
If the Board had only taken steps to verify the objections, and if shown that Mr. Adamas was not qualified because of questionable integrity and competence, then the Board could very well withdraw its recommendation for his appointment.But, definitely, such withdrawal could not warrant the recommendation of Ms. Fernandez as she not only failed to comply with the basic requirements under Circular NO. 7 and Administrative Order No. 10, but also because her application had already been returned to the Executive Judge.
Finally, it may be relevant to note that prior to the appointment of Ms. Fernandez to the position of Clerk of Court IV, Mr. Adamas was designated by Executive Judge Hernandez as Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, [2] cralaw and had been performing his duties as such until Ms. Fernandez assumed office.Clearly, the Board could not claim that Mr. Adamas "did not even know the basic duties and functions of the office he was applying for."An interview would definitely not suffice in determining the competency of a candidate.At most, the interview would reveal proficiency in the English language or eloquence of the candidate, but it would certainly not per se show the candidate's capability to perform the duties and functions of the position applied for.Moreover, we can only wonder whether the strong recommendation of the Executive Judge for the appointment of Mr. Adamas can prevail over the supposed interview conducted by the Board which had no occasion to observe the actual performance of duty by Mr. Adamas.
WHEREFORE, the protest of Clerk of Court III Abundio C. Adamas is GRANTED; consequently, he should be appointed Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Ozamiz City, in lieu of Clerk of Court III Maria Elena P. Hernandez whose appointment to the position in question is WITHDRAWN and NULLIFIED.Ms. Fernandez may however be reinstated to her former position, or if that be not practicable to the position to be vacated by Mr. Adamas in view of the latter's appointment as Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Ozamiz City.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Memorandum of 30 June 2000 of the Chairman, Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts.
[2] cralaw Annex "J" of the Protest of Mr. Adamas.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
