Professional Documents
Culture Documents
144 - Lapinid Vs Civil Service Commission
144 - Lapinid Vs Civil Service Commission
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