Luego v.

CSC

NATURE: Exact nature not stated. Action to question an order of the CSC in an appointment
protest

FACTS
 Feb. 18, 1983 - Felimon LUEGO was appointed Administrative Officer II for the Office of
the Mayor, Cebu City by then-Mayor Florentino Solon.
o The appointment was described as PERMANENT.
o But the CSC approved it as TEMPORARY because of a protest filed by Felicula TUOZO
and another employee against Luego’s appointment.
 Mar. 22, 1984 – CSC found that Tuozo was better qualified for the Administrative Officer II
position. Luego’s appointment was revoked.
 June 28, 1984 – Then-Mayor Ronald Duterte appointed Tuozo to the position.
 Luego filed the present petition to assail the CSC order revoking his appointment.

ISSUE
W/N the CSC is 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? NO.

RULING
LUEGO’S APPOINTMENT WAS PERMANENT IN NATURE
 OSG: Luego’s appointment was temporary and could thus be withdrawn at will. By
accepting temporary appointment, Luego should be deemed to have waived his security of
tenure.
 SC: While the OSG correctly stated the rule on temporary appointments, the rule has no
application here since Luego’s appointment is PERMANENT.
 The stamping of the words "APPROVED as TEMPORARY" did not change the character of
the appointment, which was clearly described as "Permanent" in the space provided for in
Luego’s appointment paper (CS Form 33).
 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.
CSC NOT EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF AN APPOINTMENT
 The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind of 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 all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil
Service Laws.
 The approval is more appropriately called an attestation of the fact that the appointee is
qualified for the position to which he has been named. Such attestation is required merely
as a check to assure compliance with Civil Service laws. (In re Arcega)
 The power of the CSC to “approve” and “disapprove” appointments under Art. V, §9(h) of
the old Civil Service Decree only pertains to the function of the CSC to check whether or
not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required
qualifications.
 If the appointee has the qualifications, his appointment is approved; if not, it is
disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be employed by the Commission
when it acts on or as the Decree says, "approves" or "disapproves" an appointment made
by the proper authorities. In this respect the provision is rather misleading.
 “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.”
o EXCEPTION: When the Constitution or the law subjects the appointment to the
approval of another office or body, e.g., the Commission on Appointments. In such
cases, the appointment is completed only after confirmation or approval from the
approving entity.
o The CoA can even review the wisdom of the appointment and can refuse to concur
even of the appointee has all the requisite qualifications under the law.
o The CSC has no such power under the Civil Service Decree. Its authority is limited to
a non-discretionary one, i.e., to determine if the appointee meets all the conditions
required by the law.
 CAB: By admitting that Luego and Tuozo were both qualified for the Administrative Officer
II position, the CSC has rendered itself functus officio. It had nothing else to do but affirm
the validity of Luego’s appointment. CSC had no authority to revoke Luego’s appointment
simply because it thinks Tuozo is more qualified. That would constitute encroachment of
the discretion vested in the City Mayor.
 Rule V, Section 91, of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies is
inapplicable because neither Luego nor Tuozo is next-in-rank. Moreover, the rule is not
absolute and the Civil Service Decree allows vacancies to be filled by transfer of present
employees, reinstatement, reemployment, or appointment of outsiders who have the
appropriate eligibility.
 The political detachment of the civil service will be impaired if the security of tenure clause
in the
 Constitution is emasculated and appointments in the civil service are revoked and
changed at will to suit the motivations and even the fancies of whatever party may be in
power.

DISPOSITION: Granted. Assailed CSC Order set aside.

1
The pertinent part provides: "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.