Case Summary (G.R. No. L-69137)
Key Dates
February 18, 1983 – Luego’s appointment signed and described as “permanent.”
March 22, 1984 – CSC issues resolution finding Tuozo better qualified and revoking Luego’s appointment.
June 28, 1984 – Tuozo appointed Administrative Officer II by Mayor Duterte.
August 5, 1986 – Supreme Court decision handed down.
Applicable Law
1973 Philippine Constitution’s security of tenure clause.
Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807), Article V, Section 9(h) on CSC’s power to “approve” or “disapprove” appointments; Section 19(5) on personnel actions.
Civil Service Rules, Rule V, Section 9 on next-in-rank preference.
Issue
Whether the CSC may revoke a permanent appointment on the ground that another candidate is better qualified and order the replacement of the incumbent.
Facts of the Case
Luego received a written appointment labeled “Permanent,” but the CSC’s certificate of approval bore the word “Temporary,” subject to resolution of protests. Tuozo and another employee filed protest proceedings. After hearings, the CSC found Tuozo superior in qualification and directed that her appointment replace Luego’s. The new city mayor implemented that directive.
Positions of the Parties
Solicitor General argued that Luego’s appointment was temporary and thus revocable at will, waiving his constitutional tenure protection.
Petitioner maintained that his appointment was permanent as designated by the appointing authority and safeguarded by the Constitution.
Character of Appointment
The Supreme Court held that the appointing officer alone determines whether an appointment is permanent or temporary. The CSC’s notation “APPROVED as TEMPORARY” did not alter the original character of a “Permanent” appointment entered on the official form.
Powers of the Civil Service Commission
The CSC’s authority is limited to attesting that appointees satisfy eligibility and qualification requirements. It may not substitute its own judgment on the type or wisdom of appointments, nor revoke a valid appointment based on relative merit of other candidates.
Nature of Appointment Approval
Approval by the CSC is essentially a nondiscretionary attestation of legality and qualification, not a political favor or confirmation akin to the Commission on Appointments under the 1935 Constitution. Once qualifications are verified, the CSC must affirm the appointment.
Discretion in Appointments
Appointment is a discretionary power vested in the appointing official, subject only to the appointee’s legal qualifications. The existence of other, possibly better-qualified candidates does not justify invalidating a qualified appointee’s tenure.
Inapplicability of Next-in-Rank Rule
The CSC purported to apply the next-in-rank preference rule,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-69137)
Facts
- On February 18, 1983, Mayor Florentino Solon of Cebu City appointed petitioner Felimon Luego as Administrative Officer II, describing the appointment as “permanent.”
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved the appointment as “temporary,” conditioned upon resolution of a protest and verification of qualifications, noting no pending administrative case or protest against the appointee.
- Private respondent Felicula Tuozo, together with another employee, filed a protest challenging the petitioner’s appointment and asserting superior qualifications.
- After protracted hearings, on March 22, 1984, the CSC found Tuozo better qualified and directed her appointment in place of Luego, effectively revoking his appointment.
- On June 28, 1984, the new mayor, Ronald Duterte, appointed Tuozo to the Administrative Officer II position pursuant to the CSC directive.
- Luego invoked his original appointment as permanent and sought relief from the Supreme Court to annul the CSC resolution and reinstate his title to the office.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed a petition questioning the CSC’s authority to disapprove what was labeled a permanent appointment and to replace him with the private respondent.
- The Solicitor General contended that the appointment was temporary and thus revocable at will, with or without cause.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the CSC could disapprove a permanent appointment on grounds of superior qualifications of another candidate.
Issue
- Whether the Civil Service Commission is empowered to disapprove a “permanent” appointment on the ground that another pers