Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 - Lapinid Vs Civil Service Commission

    Uploaded by

    Beatrice Aban
    263 views2 pages
    The Civil Service Commission does not have the power to disapprove appointments made by other government agencies. While the CSC can review appointments to ensure qualifications are met, it cannot replace an appointee just because it believes another candidate is better qualified. In this case, the CSC disapproved the appointment of Lapinid to a position at the Philippine Ports Authority, finding Junsay to be better qualified. However, the Supreme Court ruled that both candidates met qualifications, so the CSC overstepped its authority in disapproving Lapinid's appointment and ordering Junsay be appointed instead. The CSC's role is limited to reviewing qualifications, and it cannot replace an appointee based solely on

    Original Description:

    lapinid vs csc

    Original Title

    144- Lapinid vs Civil Service Commission

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Civil Service Commission does not have the power to disapprove appointments made by other government agencies. While the CSC can review appointments to ensure qualifications are met, it cannot replace an appointee just because it believes another candidate is better qualified. In this case, the CSC disapproved the appointment of Lapinid to a position at the Philippine Ports Authority, finding Junsay to be better qualified. However, the Supreme Court ruled that both candidates met qualifications, so the CSC overstepped its authority in disapproving Lapinid's appointment and ordering Junsay be appointed instead. The CSC's role is limited to reviewing qualifications, and it cannot replace an appointee based solely on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    263 views2 pages

    144 - Lapinid Vs Civil Service Commission

    Uploaded by

    Beatrice Aban
    The Civil Service Commission does not have the power to disapprove appointments made by other government agencies. While the CSC can review appointments to ensure qualifications are met, it cannot replace an appointee just because it believes another candidate is better qualified. In this case, the CSC disapproved the appointment of Lapinid to a position at the Philippine Ports Authority, finding Junsay to be better qualified. However, the Supreme Court ruled that both candidates met qualifications, so the CSC overstepped its authority in disapproving Lapinid's appointment and ordering Junsay be appointed instead. The CSC's role is limited to reviewing qualifications, and it cannot replace an appointee based solely on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LAPINID v.

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


    G.R. No. 96298| Cruz, J. | May 14, 1991
    Powers of the President: Appointment

    DOCTRINE: Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over its own personnel. Furthermore, Civil
    Service Commission cannot disallow an appointment made by other offices because it believes another person is better
    qualified and much less can it direct the appointment of its own choice.

    RELEVANT FACTS
     On October 1, 1988, petitioner Renato Lapinid was appointed by the Philippine Ports Authority to the position
    of Terminal Supervisor at the Manila International Container Terminal.
     On October 15, 1988, the appointment was protested by Juanito Junsay. He reiterated his earlier
    representations with the Appeals Board of the Philippine Ports Authority on May 9, 1988 for review of the
    decision of the Placement Committee dated May 3, 1988.
     Junsay contended that he should be the designated Terminal Supervisor, or to any comparable position, in view
    of his preferential right thereto.
     On June 26, 1989, complaining that the Philippine Ports Authority had not acted on his protest, Junsay went to
    the Civil Service Commission and challenged Lapinid’s appointment on the same grounds he had raised earlier
    before the Philippine Ports Authority.
     In a resolution dated February 14, 1990, the Civil Service Commission found the appeal meritous after the
    evaluation of the parties who were evaluated on the following criteria: eligibility; education; work experience;
    productivity/performance/ attendance; integrity; initiative/leadership; and physical characteristics/personality
    traits.
     Junsay garnered 79.5, Villegas garnered 79, while Lapinid only garnered 75.
     The CSC directed that Appellants Juanito Junsay and Benjamin Villegas be appointed as Terminal Supervisor
    whereas Vice Protestees Renato Lapinid and Antonio Dulfo respectively may be considered for appointment to
    any position commensurate and suitable to their qualifications.
     Lapinid, who claimed he had not been informed of the appeal and had not been heard thereon, filed a motion
    for reconsideration on March 19, 1990 but got denied.
     Philippine Ports authority also filed for a motion for reconsideration but was also denied.

    ISSUE/S
    Whether or not the Civil Service Commission 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?

    RATIO DECIDENDI
    No, the Civil Service Commission cannot disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another
    person is better qualified than the appointee. It cannot also order the replacement of one by another.
    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. The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this
    nature is to review the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds
    the appointee to be qualified and all other legal requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice
    but to attest to the appointment. In the case at bar, the Commission on Civil Service acknowledged that both
    the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the position in controversy. That recognition alone
    rendered it functus officio in the case and prevented it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity
    BEA ABAN| 1
    of the petitioner's appointment. To be sure, it had no authority to revoke the said appointment simply because
    it believed that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an encroachment
    on the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority. The determination of who among several candidates
    for a vacant position has the best qualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or
    appointing authority and not in the Civil Service Commission.

    RULING
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the respondent Civil Service Commission dated
    February 14, 1990, May 25, 1990, August 17, 1990, and October 19, 1990, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
    temporary restraining order dated December 13, 1990, is made PERMANENT. No cost.

    SO ORDERED.
    Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento
    Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

    BEA ABAN | 2

    You might also like