CUEVAS v. ATTY. MACATANGAY

Maharlika A. Cuevas Vs. Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay, et al.

G.R. No. 208506

February 22, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioner Maharlika Cuevas was one of the employees of the National Museum vying for the vacant position of Director III, and on October 23, 2008, by the National Museum Board of Trustees, recommending for appointment Mr. Cecilio Salcedo and petitioner for the said position.

The then National Museum Board of Trustees Chairman, Antonio O. Cojuangco, appointed petitioner as Director III under a temporary status on November 24, 2008. 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 informed the CSC that the decision on petitioner's appointment is final.

Thereafter, on November 24, 2009, The National Museum Board of Trustees Chairman, Antonio 0. Cojuangco, appointed the petitioner as Director III on a permanent status. Elenita D.V. Alba appealed the dismissal of her protest to the CSC insisting that she is the most qualified for the contested position. the CSC issued Resolution No. 10-1438 finding no merit on Alba's claim. The CSC, however, found that the issuance of petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8492, or the National Museum Act of 1998, which states that it is the Board of Trustees that shall appoint the Assistant Director or Director III and not the Chairman of the National Museum.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the exercise of Chairman Cojuangco of the appointing power is not valid.

HELD:

Petitioner's claim that his appointment is valid because he was in fact appointed by the Board and not the Chairman as shown in the Minutes of the meeting still does not gain him any merit. In order for the Court to refer to the minutes of a meeting or a proceeding, the subject Board resolution must at least be ambiguous or obscure; otherwise, if it is clear on its face, there is no need to resort to such action because a Board resolution takes precedence over the minutes of a meeting.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated September 18, 2013 of petitioner Maharlika A. Cuevas is DENIED for lack of merit.