reviewers's copyright to the authors.Full description
digest
DigestFull description
Full description
This is the digest of the Neypes v. Court of Appeals where the Neypes Rule originated. It is discussed for Civil Procedure.Full description
Luego v. CSC August 5, 1986 FELIMON LUEGO, petitioner-appellant LUEGO, petitioner-appellant , vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO, respondents-appellees respondents-appellees.. Cruz, J.: J.: NATURE: Exact NATURE: Exact nature not stated. Action to question an order of the CSC in an aoint!ent rotest FACTS •
•
• •
"e#. 18, 198$ % "e&i!on '(E)* +as aointed Adminis!aive Adminis!aive O""i#e! II for II for the *ffice of the a-or, Ce#u Cit- #- then%a-or "&orentino So&on. he aoint!ent +as descri#ed as /E0AE. o 2ut the CSC aroved it as E/*0A03 #ecause of a rotest fi&ed #- "e&icu&a (*4* and o another e!&o-ee against 'uegos aoint!ent. ar. , 1987 CSC found that uozo +as #etter qua&ified for the Ad!inistrative *fficer osition. 'uegos aoint!ent +as revoed. ;une 8, 1987 hen%a-or 0ona&d
ISSUE ISSUE $%EL&': => the CSC is authorized to disarove a er!anent aoint!ent on the ground that another erson is #etter qua&ified than the aointee and, on the #asis of this finding, order his re&ace!ent #- the &atter? $NO' RATIO LUEGO’S APPOINTMENT WAS PERMANENT IN NATURE OSG: 'uegos 'uegos aoint!ent aoint!ent +as te!orarte!orar- and cou&d thus #e +ithdra+ +ithdra+n n at +i&&. +i&&. 2- acceting acceting te!orarte!oraraoint!ent, 'uego shou&d #e dee!ed to have +aived his securit- of tenure. SC: =hi&e the *S) correct&- stated the ru&e on te!orar- aoint!ents, the ru&e has no a&ication here since 'uegos aoint!ent is /E0AE. he sta!ing sta!ing of the +ords @A//0* @A//0*E< E< as E/*0A E/*0A03 03@@ did no #(ange #(ange the charact character er of the aoint!ent, +hich +as c&ear&- descri#ed as @/er!anent@ in the sace rovided for in 'uegos aoint!ent aer BCS "or! $$. =hat +as te!orar- +as the arova& of the aoint!ent, not the aoint!ent itse&f. And +hat !ade the arova& te!orar- +as the fact that it +as !ade to deend on the condition secified therein and on the verification of the qua&ifications of the aointee to the osition. CSC NOT EMPOWERE TO ETERMINE T!E NATURE O" AN APPOINTMENT he CSC is not e!o+ered to deter!ine the ind of nature of the aoint!ent extended #- the aointing officer, its its authorit- #eing &i!ited to aroving or revie+ing the aoint!ent in the &ight of the require!ents of the Civi& Service 'a+. =hen the aointee is qua&ified and a&& the other &ega& require!ents are satisfied, the Co!!ission has no choice #ut to attest to the aoint!ent in accordance +ith the Civi& Service 'a+s. he arova& is !ore aroriate&- ca&&ed an attestation of the fact that the aointee is qua&ified for the osition to +hich he has #een na!ed. Such attestation is required !ere&- as a chec to assure co!&iance +ith Civi& Service &a+s. BIn B In re Ar#e$a Ar#e$a he o+er of the CSC to Darove and Ddisarove aoint!ents under Art. , F9Bh of the o&d Civi& Service
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
he CoA can even revie+ the +isdo! of the aoint!ent and can refuse to concur even of the aointee has a&& the requisite qua&ifications under the &a+. o he CSC has no such o+er under the Civi& Service
•
•
• •
&IS*OSITION: )ranted. Assai&ed CSC *rder set aside.
1
he ertinent art rovides: @+henever there are t+o or !ore e!&o-ees +ho are next%in%ran, reference sha&& #e given to the e!&o-ee +ho is !ost co!etent and qua&ified and +ho has the aroriate civi& service e&igi#i&it-.
