Republic of the Philippines

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

City of Malolos, Bulacan
Graduate School

Next-in-Rank Rule
Reporter: Avegail DC. Valmocena
MAE-EM
Question:
“ Is the next-in-rank status of a government
employee a guarantee to one’s fitness to the
position aspired for?”
Definition of Terms

• Next-In-Rank Position. It refers to a position which,

by reason of the hierarchical arrangement of positions
in the Department, is determined to be in the nearest
degree of relationship to higher position as contained
in the Department System of Ranking Positions (SRP).
(DepEd Order No. 29, series 2002)
 
• Qualified Next-In-Rank. It refers to an employee
appointed on a permanent status to a position
next-in-rank to the vacancy as reflected in the
SRP approved by the Secretary and who meets
the requirements for appointment to the next
higher position. (DepEd Order No 29, series
2002)
• System of Ranking Positions. It is the hierarchical arrangement of
positions from highest to lowest, which shall be a guide in
determining which position is next-in- rank, taking into consideration
the following: (DepEd Order No 29, series 2002)

• a)  organizational structure;
• b)  salary grade allocation;
• c)  classification and functional relationships of positions; and
• d)  geographical location
Legal Bases
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2016 -Policy Guidelines
on the Three-Salary Grade Limitation on Promotion

• Pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 1600732 dated July 7, 2016, the

Commission approved the policy guidelines governing the three-
salary grade limitation on promotion, as follows:
• For consistency and uniformity, as a general rule, all appointments
issued in violation of the Policy on the Three-Salary Grade Limitation
on Promotion shall be disapproved/invalidated, except when the
promotional appointment falls within the purview of any of the
following exceptions:
a. The position occupied by the person is next-in-rank to the vacant
position as identified in the Merit Selection Plan and the System of
Ranking Positions (SRP) of the agency.
b. The vacant position is alone or entrance position, as indicated in the
agency staffing pattern.
c. The vacant position is hard to fill, such as Accountant, Medical
Officer/Specialist, Attorney, or Information Technology
Officer/Computer programmer positions.
d. The vacant position is unique and/or highly specialized, such as
Actuarial, Airways Communicator positions.
e. The candidates passed through a deep selection process, taking into
consideration the candidates’ superior qualifications in regard to:
• Educational achievements
• Highly specialized trainings
• Relevant work experience
• Consistent high performance rating/ranking
f. The vacant position belongs to the closed career
system, i.e., those that are scientific, or highly technical
in nature that include the faculty and academic staff of
state colleges and universities, and the scientific and
technical positions in scientific or research institutions,
all of which establish and maintain their own merit
systems.
g. Other meritorious cases, such as:
• When the appointee is the lone applicant who meets all the
requirements of the position and passed through the deep selection
process
• When the qualified next-in-rank employees waived their right over the
vacant position in writing
• When the next-in-rank position, as identified in the agency SRP is vacant
• When the next-in-rank employee/s is/are not qualified
• When the qualified next-in-rank employees did not apply
2.The policy on the three-salary grade limitation shall apply only to
promotion within the agency. This prohibition shall not apply to the
following human resource actions which involve issuance of an
appointment:

• Transfer incidental to promotion provided that the

appointee was subjected to deep selection
• Reappointment involving promotion from non-career
provided the appointee was subjected to deep selection
• Reappointment from career to non-career position
• Reemployment
• Reclassification of position
 SAMPLE CASE
G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015 - ANGEL ABAD, Petitioner, v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015

ANGEL ABAD, Petitioner, v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:
Appointments in the civil service are made
fundamentally on the basis of merit. Both the
Constitution and law ensure that those
appointed are fit for the position. While those
who are next in rank to a vacant position
may be given some preference, no one has a
vested right to a government position.
Seniority and salary grades should be given
their due weight but should not trump the
public interest.
• This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Angel Abad assailing the Court
of Appeals Decision2 dated April 11, 2012. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Civil Service
Commission Resolution3dated June 22, 2010. This Resolution affirmed the permanent
appointment of Herminio Dela Cruz as City Government Department Head III. 4

Mayor Jaime R. Fresnedi appointed Herminio Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) as City Assessor 5 of the
City Government of Muntinlupa in a permanent capacity on December 28, 2006. 6 The City
Assessor is given the item of City Government Department Head III. 7

In Resolution No. 06-361,8 majority of the members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the

City Government of Muntinlupa concurred in the appointment of Dela Cruz as City
Government Department Head III.9
• Muntinlupa the power to take final action on its appointments, the appointment
of Dela Cruz was considered attested to by the Civil Service Commission.10

Angel A. Abad (Abad), Local Assessment Operations Officer V in the Office of the
City Assessor, wrote the Civil Service Commission and requested the disapproval of
Dela Cruz's appointment as City Government Department Head III.11 Abad alleged
that the position of City Government Department Head III corresponded to Salary
Grade 27, nine (9) salary grades higher than Dela Cruz's former position as Local
Assessment Operations Officer III with Salary Grade 18.12 According to Abad, Dela
Cruz's appointment violated Item 15 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 3, Series of 2001, which prohibits the promotion of an employee to a
position more than three (3) salary grades above his or her former position:13
• An employee may be promoted or transferred to a position which is not
more than three (3) salary, pay or job grades higher than the
employee's present position except in very meritorious cases, such as:
if the vacant position is next-in-rank as identified in the System of
Ranking Positions (SRP) approved by the head of agency, or the lone or
entrance position indicated in the agency staffing pattern.
• Abad added that being a qualified next-in-rank, he applied for the
position of City Government Department Head III. However, he and
three (3) other qualified applicants were allegedly excluded from the
selection process, in violation of Item 10 of Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 3, series of 2001.14 This provides:
• For vacancies in the first and second levels, all qualified next-in-rank employees shall
be automatically considered candidates for promotion to the next higher position.
•
According to Abad, the appointment of Dela Cruz caused "demoralization within
[their] ranks."15

In the letter16 dated January 26, 2007, the Civil Service Commission referred Abad's
letter to the City Government of Muntinlupa's grievance machinery for proper action.

In the meantime, newly elected Mayor Aldrin San Pedro (Mayor San Pedro) assumed
his office in the City Government of Muntinlupa on July 1, 2007. On August 3, 2007,
the main building of Muntinlupa City Hall was gutted by fire, destroying the Office of
the City Personnel. The City Government of
• Thus, on September 25, 2007, Abad filed with the Mayor's Office the letter-
complaint18 reiterating his request for disapproval of Dela Cruz's permanent appointment as City
Government Department Head III.

Mayor San Pedro referred Abad's letter-complaint to the City Government of Muntinlupa's
Personnel Department.19

Finding that Dela Cruz's promotion violated Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No.
3, Series of 2001 on the three-salary-grade rule,20 the Grievance Committee recommended the
invalidation of Dela Cruz's permanent appointment as City Government Department Head
III.21 This recommendation was approved by Mayor San Pedro.

Mayor San Pedro's approval was then referred to the Civil Service Commission-National Capital
Region for appropriate action.22
• In the Decision23 dated August 17, 2009, the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region invalidated
Dela Cruz's permanent appointment as City Government Department Head III and ruled that he was
appointed in violation of the three-salary-grade rule under Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 3, Series of 2001.24

On Dela Cruz's appeal,25 the Civil Service Commission reversed and set aside the Civil Service
Commission-National Capital Region's Decision in Resolution No. 101276 dated June 22, 2010.26

The Civil Service Commission found that the City Government of Muntinlupa's Personnel Selection Board
ranked the applicants for City Government Department Head III based on the following criteria:
performance, work history, awards, education, training, potential, and physical characteristics and
personality traits. Out of nine (9) applicants, Dela Cruz ranked first with a grade of 90.67 out of 100
points. Although it conceded that Abad was not among the nine (9) applicants screened, the Commission
nevertheless ruled that Dela Cruz's appointment was an exception to the three-salary-grade rule.27 Dela
Cruz underwent a deep selection process rendering his appointment "very meritorious[.]"28
• The Commission likewise noted that contrary to the rule that whoever alleges must prove, the
Grievance Committee placed on Dela Cruz the burden of proving that Abad was not considered for
appointment. The Grievance Committee, therefore, erred. As for Abad, he failed to prove the allegation
that he was not considered for promotion.29

Abad's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Civil Service Commission in the Resolution dated
November 12, 2010.30

A Petition for Review was filed before the Court of Appeals. 31 The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed
the Petition for Review in the Decision dated April 11, 2012. 32

The Court of Appeals held that the three-salary-grade rule "only gives preference to the person
occupying the position next in rank to a vacancy, but does not by any means give [the employee next in
rank] [the] exclusive right to be appointed to the said vacancy." 33 As long as the employee appointed to
the position possesses the minimum qualifications for the position, the appointment is valid. 34
• The Court of Appeals also found that Abad failed to prove that he was the
employee next in rank to the position of City Government Department Head
III.35 On the other hand, Dela Cruz proved that he possessed the minimum
qualifications for the position and that he underwent a deep selection process
where he ranked first among nine (9) applicants.36 The Court of Appeals, thus,
affirmed Dela Cruz's appointment.37

Both Motion for Reconsideration38 and Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration39 filed by Abad were denied by the Court of Appeals in its
Resolution40 dated June 4, 2013.

On July 25, 2013,41 Abad filed before this court the Petition for Review on
Certiorari. Dela Cruz filed his Comment,42 after which Abad filed his Reply.43
• Abad insists that Dela Cruz's promotion was void for violation of the three-salary-grade
rule under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2001.
Moreover, he and other employees who were allegedly next in rank to the position of
City Government Department Head III were not considered for the position. Contrary to
the finding of the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals, the City
Government of Muntinlupa's Personnel Selection Board did not conduct any deep
selection process in appointing a new City Government Department Head III. 44

Thus, Abad prays that this court invalidate Dela Cruz's appointment and order the City
Government of Muntinlupa to conduct a new selection process for the position of City
Government Department Head III.45
• Dela Cruz refutes Abad's claim of lack of deep selection process. As the Civil Service Commission and the
Court of Appeals found, the City Government of Muntinlupa's Personnel Selection Board conducted a deep
selection process for the position of City Government Department Head III where he ranked first out of
nine (9) applicants.46 Dela Cruz emphasizes that the factual findings of the Civil Service Commission, which
was sustained by the Court of Appeals, must be accorded great respect since these have been made by the
"administrative agency which [has] acquired expertise [in the field of civil service law.]"47

The issues for this court's resolution are:

First, whether respondent Dela Cruz's promotion to the position of City Government Department Head III
is void because it violated the next-in-rank rule; and

Second, whether respondent Dela Cruz's promotion to the position of City Government Department Head
III is void for lack of a deep selection process.

This Petition must be denied.

• The Civil Service Commission is the "central personnel agency of the
Government[.]"48 Its mandate is to ensure that appointments in the civil service
are generally made on the basis of merit and fitness.49 The Commission is
tasked to strengthen the merit and rewards system in the civil service50 by
administering and enforcing the "constitutional and statutory provisions on the
merit system for all levels and ranks in the Civil Service[.]"51

The Constitution adopts the merit system to ensure that those appointed in the
civil service are competent.52 This is to "eradicate the system of appointment to
public office based on political considerations and to eliminate . . . the element
of partisanship and personal favoritism in making appointments."53
• "The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies
of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charters."54 Thus, all appointive local government employees are covered by
civil service laws and rules.55 Appointive local government employees must possess
the qualifications provided by law for the positions they hold. 56

The qualifications the appointee must satisfy depend on whether the position
belongs to the career service or the non-career service. Entrance in the career
service is based on "merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by
competitive examination, or based on highly technical qualifications[.]" 57 On the
other hand, entrance in the non-career service is based on criteria other than the
"usual tests of merit and fitness[.]"58
• Positions in the career service are further grouped into three (3) levels. The first level
includes positions requiring less than four (4) years of collegiate studies. 59 The
second level includes positions with duties requiring at least four (4) years of college
work up to the Division Chief level.60 The third level includes positions in the Career
Executive Service.61

Candidates for appointment to first and second level positions are generally
screened by the Personnel Selection Board.62 In local government units, the
Personnel Selection Board is headed by the local chief executive and is composed of
members appointed by the sanggunian concerned.63 The Personnel Selection Board
of each local government unit "assist[s] the local chief executive in the judicious and
objective selection of personnel for employment as well as . . . promotion[.]" 64
• The appointing authority in local government units, therefore, is the local chief
executive who must assess the merits of the Personnel Selection Board's
recommendation.65 If heads of offices or departments in a local government unit
are appointed, majority of the members of the sanggunian concerned must concur
in the appointment.66 Finally, the appointment must be submitted to the Civil
Service Commission for attestation within 30 days from the appointment's
issuance date.67

For local government units, the appointment of an assessor is mandatory.68 In the

City Government of Muntinlupa, the City Assessor is given the item of City
Government Department Head III under the City's 2007 Personnel Schedule.69 As
provided in Section 472(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991, the assessor,
must possess the following qualifications:
• SECTION 472. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. - (a) No person shall
be appointed assessor unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a
resident of the local government unit concerned, of good moral
character, a holder of a college degree preferably in civil or
mechanical engineering, commerce, or any other related course from
a recognized college or university, and a first grade civil service eligible
or its equivalent. He must have acquired experience in real property
assessment work or in any related field for at least five (5) years in the
case of the city or provincial assessor, and three (3) years in the case
of the municipal assessor.
The 1997 Revised Qualification Standards Manual reiterates the following minimum qualifications for
the position of assessor:

Education : Bachelor's degree preferably in Civil or

Mechanical Engineering, Commerce or any
related course
Experience : Five (5) years experience in real property
assessment work or in any related field
Training : None
Eligibility : First grade or its equivalent.70
• The Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region and the Civil Service Commission agree that
respondent possesses the minimum qualifications under the law for the position of City Government
Department Head III:
• A comparative evaluation of the qualifications of Dela Cruz as indicated in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS)
vis-a-vis the qualification standards for the position of City Assessor III shows that he meets all the
requirements for appointment thereto. Likewise, he satisfies the requirements prescribed by RA 7160.
Hence, Dela Cruz qualifies for the issuance of permanent appointment as City Assessor III.

Moreover, the appointment of Dela Cruz was confirmed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Muntinlupa
in Resolution No. 06-361 dated December 7, 2006.71
•
With its constitutional mandate, the Civil Service Commission has acquired "specialized knowledge and
expertise"72 in the field of civil service law. Consequently, its findings of fact, if based on substantial
evidence, are "accorded great respect and even finality"73 by appellate courts, this court included. Absent
grave abuse of discretion, this court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Civil Service Commission.74
• Petitioner contends, however, that he is a qualified next-in-rank who
was bypassed for appointment to the position of City Government
Department Head III. Thus, respondent's appointment is void
notwithstanding his possession of the qualifications for the position.

In promotions,75 the appointing authority must automatically

consider the employees next in rank as candidates for appointment.
Section 21, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Civil Service Law provide for
the next-in-rank rule:
• SEC. 21. Recruitment and Selection of Employees. — . . .

(2) When a vacancy occurs in a position in the first level of the Career Service as defined
in Section 6, the employees in the department who occupy the next lower positions in the
occupational group under which the vacant position is classified, and in other
functionally related occupational groups and who are competent, qualified and with the
appropriate civil service eligibility shall be considered for promotion.

(3) When a vacancy occurs in a position in the second level of the Career Service as
defined in Section 8, the employees in the government service who occupy the next lower
positions in the occupational group under which the vacant position is classified and in
other functionally related occupational groups and who are competent, qualified and
with the appropriate civil service eligibility shall be considered for promotion. (Emphasis
supplied)
• "Promotion is the advancement of an employee from one position to
another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized
by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary."76Employees
next in rank are those "who occupy the next lower positions in the
occupational group under which the vacant position is classified, and
in other functionally related occupational groups and who are
competent, qualified and with the appropriate civil service
eligibility[.]"77
• The reason behind the next-in-rank rule is to maintain
the policy of merit and rewards in the civil
service.78 Since appointments in the civil service are
based on merit and fitness, it is assumed that the
appointments of employees next in rank are equally
meritorious. Appointments that consider rank, salary
grades, and seniority promote progressiveness and
courtesy in the civil service.79
• Still, the next-in-rank rule is a rule of preference on who
to consider for promotion.80 The rule does not give
employees next in rank a vested right to the position
next higher to theirs should that position become
vacant.81 Appointment is a discretionary power of the
appointing authority.82 So long as the appointee
possesses the qualifications required by law, the
appointment is valid.83
• As long as the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications
prescribed by law or regulations, there is no question that his
appointment must be respected by the Civil Service Commission even if
it be proved that there are others with superior credentials.87
•
To successfully protest the issuance of an appointment, the employee
next in rank must prove his or her status as a qualified next-in-rank;
otherwise, the protest shall be dismissed.88 Being next in rank is a legal
conclusion that would be the result of inference from evidence
properly alleged and proven. The burden of proof rests on the
employee alleging that he or she is next in rank.89
• Petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving that he was a
qualified next-in-rank. He failed to prove that his position of Local
Assessment Operations Officer V has been previously determined to
be next-in-rank to the position of City Government Department Head
III in the Office of the City Assessor of the City Government of
Muntinlupa.90

Petitioner, therefore, has no right to protest the appointment of

respondent.
• Consistent with the next-in-rank rule, the appointing authority shall
consider for promotion qualified next-in-rank employees. However,
there are instances when the employees next in rank occupy positions
whose salary grades are more than three (3) grades lower than that
corresponding to the vacant position. These instances should not
prevent the appointing authority from filling the vacancy, but
whoever is appointed must undergo a deep selection process and
demonstrate his or her superior qualifications and competence.92 This
is to maintain the standard of merit and fitness for appointment in
the civil service.
• Even if petitioner were next in rank, he failed to present evidence
conclusively showing that he was not considered for promotion. The
document denominated as Merit Promotion and System of Ranking
Position contains only nine (9) names; hence, it appears to be a short
list of those ranked for promotion. To be shortlisted, however, is
different from being considered for promotion. Petitioner might have
been considered for promotion, but he did not make it to the short
list. Absent contrary evidence, the presumption that the City
Government of Muntinlupa's Personnel Selection Board performed its
duties with regularity applies.95
• In any case, we cannot order the invalidation of respondent's
appointment in the present proceedings. To do so would necessarily
result in his removal from an office he has physically possessed for
almost nine (9) years. Respondent has been discharging the duties of
the City Assessor, at the very least, under a color of title to the
position especially since he possesses the qualifications for it.
Analogous to a de factoofficer, respondent's title to his office may
only be attacked through a petition for quo warranto filed by the
Government or by the person claiming title to the office.96
• In Tayko v. Capistrano,97 this court held that "[t]he title of a de facto
officer cannot be indirectly questioned. . . . Having at least colorable
right to the office[,] [the de facto officer's] title can be determined
only in a quo warranto proceeding or information in the nature of
a quo warranto at suit of the sovereign."98
• Respondent possesses the minimum qualifications for the position of City
Government Department Head III. Moreover, his promotion from a Salary
Grade 18 to a Salary Grade 27 position was a "very meritorious case" since he
has gone through a deep selection process. Respondent Herminio Dela Cruz's
appointment as City Government Department Head III, therefore, is valid.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of

Appeals' Decision dated April 11, 2012 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr. Del Castillo, and Mendoza* , JJ., concur.