Scribd
Upload
34 views

Lopez Vs Senate

1. The petitioner was appointed to a permanent position by the city mayor but the Civil Service Commission approved it only as a temporary position pending an investigation of a protest filed by another candidate. 2. The Civil Service Commission revoked the petitioner's appointment, finding the other candidate was better qualified. It ordered the other candidate be appointed instead. 3. The court held that the Civil Service Commission does not have the authority to revoke a permanent appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that encroaches on the discretion of the appointing officer. It also does not have the power to change a permanent appointment designated by the mayor to a temporary one.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views

Lopez Vs Senate

1. The petitioner was appointed to a permanent position by the city mayor but the Civil Service Commission approved it only as a temporary position pending an investigation of a protest filed by another candidate. 2. The Civil Service Commission revoked the petitioner's appointment, finding the other candidate was better qualified. It ordered the other candidate be appointed instead. 3. The court held that the Civil Service Commission does not have the authority to revoke a permanent appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that encroaches on the discretion of the appointing officer. It also does not have the power to change a permanent appointment designated by the mayor to a temporary one.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Executive Department

Sec. 16, Article VII


LUEGO VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FACTS:
The petitioner was appointed Administrative Officer II by the city mayor, Mayor Solon. The
appointment was described as permanent but the Civil Service Service Commission approved
it as temporary subject to the outcome of the protest of the respondent. The Civil Service
Commission decided that respondent was better qualified, revoked the appointment of petitioner
and ordered the appointment of respondent in his place. The private responded was so appointed
by the new mayor, Mayor Duterte. The petitioner, invoking his earlier permanent appointment,
is now before the Court to question that order and the private respondents title.
ISSUES:
1. 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?
2. W/N the Civil Service Commission has the power to make a permanent appointment into a
temporary one.
HELD:
1. NO. The Civil Service Commission is without authority to revoke an appointment because of
its belief that another person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion
vested solely in the city mayor. 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. 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.
2. NO. While the principle is correct, and we have applied it many times, it is not correctly
applied in this case. The argument begs the question. 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.

You might also like