Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    LUEGO vs. CSC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    J.G R
    The Civil Service Commission approved the petitioner's appointment as "temporary" despite being described as "permanent" by the appointing officer. After hearings, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified and revoked the petitioner's appointment, instead appointing the private respondent. The Supreme Court held that the CSC does not have the authority to determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee found qualified with another deemed better qualified, as that discretionary decision lies with the appointing officer.

    Copyright:

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

    LUEGO vs. CSC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    J.G R
    111 views1 page
    The Civil Service Commission approved the petitioner's appointment as "temporary" despite being described as "permanent" by the appointing officer. After hearings, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified and revoked the petitioner's appointment, instead appointing the private respondent. The Supreme Court held that the CSC does not have the authority to determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee found qualified with another deemed better qualified, as that discretionary decision lies with the appointing officer.

    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 the petitioner's appointment as "temporary" despite being described as "permanent" by the appointing officer. After hearings, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified and revoked the petitioner's appointment, instead appointing the private respondent. The Supreme Court held that the CSC does not have the authority to determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee found qualified with another deemed better qualified, as that discretionary decision lies with the appointing officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views1 page

    LUEGO vs. CSC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    J.G R
    The Civil Service Commission approved the petitioner's appointment as "temporary" despite being described as "permanent" by the appointing officer. After hearings, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified and revoked the petitioner's appointment, instead appointing the private respondent. The Supreme Court held that the CSC does not have the authority to determine the nature of an appointment or replace an appointee found qualified with another deemed better qualified, as that discretionary decision lies with the appointing officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    16. LUEGO vs.

    CSC
    G.R. No. L-69137. August 5, 1986

    FACTS: The petitioner was appointed Administrative Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City. 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.

    After protracted hearings the legality of which does not have to be decided here, the CSC found the private respondent better
    qualified than the petitioner for the contested position and, accordingly, directed "that respondent Felicula Tuozo be appointed to
    the position of Administrative Officer II in the Administrative Division, Cebu City, in place of petitioner Felimon Luego whose
    appointment as Administrative Officer II is hereby revoked." The private respondent was then subsequently appointed.

    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, ordering his replacement by the latter?

    HELD: No. It is well settled that the determination of the kind of appointment to be extended lies in the official vested by law with
    the appointing power and not the Civil Service Commission. The CSC 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 all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
    Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment.

    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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy