Case Digest (G.R. No. 164820) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Felimon Luego v. Civil Service Commission and Felicula Tuozo (227 Phil. 303, August 5, 1986), petitioner Felimon Luego was appointed Administrative Officer II in the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu City by Mayor Florentino Solon on February 18, 1983. The appointment form expressly described the position as “permanent,” yet the Civil Service Commission (CSC) attested it as “temporary,” conditioning final approval on the outcome of a pending protest filed by private respondent Felicula Tuozo and another employee. After protracted hearings, the CSC en banc ruled on March 22, 1984 that Tuozo was better qualified and ordered Luego’s revocation and replacement. Subsequently, on June 28, 1984, Mayor Ronald Duterte appointed Tuozo to the vacated position. Luego, invoking the permanency of his original appointment and the security of tenure guaranteed under the 1973 Constitution, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to annul the CSC’s resolution and to reinstate h Case Digest (G.R. No. 164820) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Appointment of Petitioner
- On February 18, 1983, Mayor Florentino Solon appointed Felimon Luego as Administrative Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City, describing the appointment as “permanent.”
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) “approved” the appointment as “temporary,” subject to the outcome of pending protests and verification of qualifications, without a final administrative case or protest against the appointee.
- CSC’s Decision and Order
- After hearings, on March 22, 1984, the CSC found private respondent Felicula Tuozo “better qualified” and directed that she be appointed in place of Luego, revoking his appointment.
- The legality of the hearings was not contested before the Supreme Court.
- Appointment of Private Respondent
- On June 28, 1984, Mayor Ronald Duterte appointed Felicula Tuozo as Administrative Officer II, Administrative Division, Cebu City.
- Luego invoked his earlier “permanent” appointment to challenge the CSC’s order and Tuozo’s title.
- Petitioner’s Challenge
- Luego petitioned the Supreme Court, contending that his appointment was permanent and constitutionally protected against displacement by someone deemed “better qualified.”
- The Solicitor General argued that the appointment was temporary and revocable at will, waiving security of tenure.
Issues:
- Whether the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified and, on that basis, order the replacement of the appointee.
- Whether the petitioner’s appointment, described by the appointing authority as “permanent,” was converted into a “temporary” appointment by the CSC’s conditional approval.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)