Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 372 views

    Luego Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    Jill Betia
    The Civil Service Commission approved Felimon Luego's appointment as Administrative Officer II by the Mayor of Cebu City as "temporary", subject to the protest filed by another employee. The Commission later found the other employee, Felicula Tuozo, better qualified and directed she replace Luego. Luego argued his appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court ruled the Commission cannot determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee just because it finds someone else better qualified, as appointment is an discretionary power of the appointing authority. The Commission's role is only to check an appointee's qualifications and eligibility, not to assess candidates as more or less qualified than each other.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Luego Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    Jill Betia
    372 views2 pages
    The Civil Service Commission approved Felimon Luego's appointment as Administrative Officer II by the Mayor of Cebu City as "temporary", subject to the protest filed by another employee. The Commission later found the other employee, Felicula Tuozo, better qualified and directed she replace Luego. Luego argued his appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court ruled the Commission cannot determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee just because it finds someone else better qualified, as appointment is an discretionary power of the appointing authority. The Commission's role is only to check an appointee's qualifications and eligibility, not to assess candidates as more or less qualified than each other.

    Original Description:

    Luego vs Csc

    Original Title

    Luego vs Csc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Civil Service Commission approved Felimon Luego's appointment as Administrative Officer II by the Mayor of Cebu City as "temporary", subject to the protest filed by another employee. The Commission later found the other employee, Felicula Tuozo, better qualified and directed she replace Luego. Luego argued his appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court ruled the Commission cannot determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee just because it finds someone else better qualified, as appointment is an discretionary power of the appointing authority. The Commission's role is only to check an appointee's qualifications and eligibility, not to assess candidates as more or less qualified than each other.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    372 views2 pages

    Luego Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    Jill Betia
    The Civil Service Commission approved Felimon Luego's appointment as Administrative Officer II by the Mayor of Cebu City as "temporary", subject to the protest filed by another employee. The Commission later found the other employee, Felicula Tuozo, better qualified and directed she replace Luego. Luego argued his appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court ruled the Commission cannot determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee just because it finds someone else better qualified, as appointment is an discretionary power of the appointing authority. The Commission's role is only to check an appointee's qualifications and eligibility, not to assess candidates as more or less qualified than each other.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. NO.

    L-69137 August 5, 1986


    FELIMON LUEGO, petitioner-appellant,
    vs.
    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO
    CRUZ, J.:
    FACTS:
    The petitioner was appointed Administrative Officer 11, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City, by
    Mayor Florentino Solon on February 18, 1983. 1 The appointment was described as permanent"
    but the Civil Service Commission approved it as "temporary," subject to the final action taken in
    the protest filed by the private respondent and another employee, and provided "there (was) no
    pending administrative case against the appointee, no pending protest against the appointment
    nor any decision by competent authority that will adversely affect the approval of the
    appointment." The Civil Service Commission found the private respondent better qualified than
    the petitioner for the contested position and, accordingly, directed "that Felicula Tuozo be
    appointed to the position of Administrative Officer 11 in the Administrative Division, Cebu City, in
    place of Felimon Luego . The private respondent was so appointed by the new mayor, Mayor
    Ronald Duterte. 4 The petitioner, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, is now before us
    to question that order and the private respondent's title.
    ISSUE:
    Is the Civil Service Commission authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the
    ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this
    finding, order his replacement by the latter?
    RULING:
    No. The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and was therefore
    protected by Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it was permanent, as he had
    the right to do so, and it was not for the respondent Civil Service Commission to reverse him
    and call it temporary.
    The stamping of the words "APPROVED as TEMPORARY" did not change the character of the
    appointment, which was clearly described as "Permanent. 7 What was temporary was the
    approval of the appointment, not the appointment itself. And what made the approval temporary
    was the fact that it was made to depend on the condition specified therein and on the
    verification of the qualifications of the appointee to the position.
    The Civil Service Commission is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the
    appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or
    reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law. When the

    appointee is qualified and authorizing the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
    Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service
    Laws.
    Indeed, the approval is more appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact that the
    appointee is qualified for the position to which he has been named. As we have repeatedly held,
    such attestation is required of the Commissioner of Civil Service merely as a check to assure
    compliance with Civil Service Laws. 9
    Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which
    it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should
    possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted
    on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a
    political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can
    decide.
    It is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the language of Section 9(h) of Article V of
    the Civil Service Decree because it says the Commission has the power to "approve" and
    "disapprove" appointments. Thus, it is provided therein that the Commission shall have inter alia
    the power to:
    9(h) Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional to positions in the
    civil service, except those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Forces
    of the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards, and disapprove those
    where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required
    qualifications. (emphasis supplied)
    However, a full reading of the provision, especially of the underscored parts, will make it clear
    that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee
    possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, his
    appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved.
    In preferring the private respondent to the petitioner, the Commission was probably applying its
    own Rule V, Section 9, of Civil Service Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies, which provides
    that "whenever there are two or more employees who are next-in-rank, preference shall be
    given to the employee who is most competent and qualified and who has the appropriate civil
    service eligibility." This rule is inapplicable, however, because neither of the claimants is next in
    rank. Moreover, the next-in-rank rule is not absolute as the Civil Service Decree allows
    vacancies to be filled by transfer of present employees, reinstatement, re-employment, or
    appointment of outsiders who have the appropriate eligibility. 13

    You might also like