REPUBLIC OF THE PHIIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA CHINO MORENA, Petitioner, CA-G.R. SP NO.

123456 -versusRICO MAMBO, as CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Chairman, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and LUCKY JUAN, Respondents. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI The petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges that: 1. The petitioner is Filipino, of legal age, single and with residence at 123 Recto Avenue Manila, where he will be served with summons and legal processes; Lucky Juan is Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence at 456 Recto, Manila; The Civil Service Commission, a government agency tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the integrity of government actions and processes, is represented by its chairman, Rico Mambo, Filipino, of legal age, with postal address at CSC Office, Quezon City, where he may be served with legal processes. 2. Petitioner Chino Morena was appointed by the Philippine Ports Authority to the Position of Terminal Supervisor at the Manila International Container Terminal on October 1, 1998; 3. This appointment was protested on December 1, 1998, by private respondent Lucky Juan, with the Appeals Board of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). He contended that he should be designated terminal supervisor, or to any other comparable position, in view of his preferential right thereto; 4. On June 1, 1999, complaining that the PPA had not acted on his protest, Lucky Juan went to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and challenged Morenos appointment on the same grounds he earlier raised before the PPA. 5. On October 1, 2010, after reviewing the records of the case, the CSC found the appeal meritorious and issued a resolution directing Lucky Juan to be appointed as terminal supervisor and that Moreno be considered to any position commensurate and suitable to his qualifications; 6. In Gaspar v. CA, the court said that the only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this nature is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when It finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment. In Luego v. CSC, it points out that the recognition by the commission that both the appointee and the protestant are qualified for the position in controversy renders it functus officio in the case and prevents it from acting further thereon except

to affirm the validity of the formers appointment; it has no authority to revoke the appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested in the appointing authority. The determination of who among several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not in the Civil Service Commission. 7. The respondent CSC Chairman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of Jurisdiction in issuing the questioned resolution Dated October 1, 2012; 8. There is no appeal or any plain and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the instant petition; 9. Petitioner received a copy of the questioned resolution on October 3, 2012; Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on October 5, 2012; and petitioner received a copy of the decision denying the motion for reconsideration on October 7, 2012. 10. The instant petition is filed within 60 days from receipt of said order. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the petition be given due course and such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises. City of Manila; Philippines. November 10, 2012.

ATTY. CHI CHENG Counsel for Petitioner Unit 1, ABC Building, Recto, Manila IBP No. 123456; 01/01/12 Manila PTR No. 1234567; 01/01/12 Manila Roll No. 12345; 01/01/06 MCLE No. I - 012345; 10/10/10 MCLE NO. II 056789; 10/10/10 Copy furnished: Rico Mambo Chairman, Civil Service Commission Quezon City The Solicitor General Office of the Solicitor General Makati City EXPLANATION This certifies that personal service was not resorted to for the reason that due to time and manpower constraints, the same is not practicable.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, Chino Moreno, of legal age and a resident of 123 Recto Ave., Manila, under oath declare that: 1. I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; 2. I have caused the preparation of this petition; 3. I have read it and its contents are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records. 4. I have not earlier commenced a similar action against the respondent for the same cause with any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I hereby undertake to notify this Honorable Court within five (5) days from such notice.

CHINO MORENO (Petitioner) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of November, 2012 at Manila City, Philippines, the affiant exhibiting CTC No. 12345678 issued at City of Manila on January 1, 2012 and Drivers License No. N25-0123456 issued by the Land Transportation Office on January 1, 2011.

ATTY. NO TARIO Notary Public for Manila 123 St., Recto, Manila Appointment no. 123, until Dec. 31, 2012 IBP No. 123456; 01/01/12 Manila PTR No. 1234567; 01/01/12 Manila Roll No. 12345; 01/01/06 MCLE No. I - 012345; 10/10/10 MCLE NO. II 056789; 10/10/10 Serial No. of Commission M-123

Doc No. 11; Page No. 22; Book No. V; Series of 2012