You are on page 1of 1

LUEGO v CSC (2) The stamping of the words Approved as Temporary did not change the

character of appointment, which was clearly described as permanent in the


Petitioner/s: FELIMON LUEGO space provided in the CS Form. What was temporary is merely the approval and
Respondent/s: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO not the appointment itself.

Doctrine: Requirements for Public Office (3) The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of appointment
extended by the appointing officer, its authority is limited to approving and
Facts: reviewing the appointment in light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law.
(1) Petitioner Luego was appointed as Administrative Officer II. The appointment was This approval is more appropriately called attestation. Sec. 9(h) of Article 5 of
described as permanent but the CSC approved it as temporary, subject to the the CS Decree states that the Commission has the power to approve and
final decision in the pending protest filed by respondent Tuozo. disapprove appointments. However, it means that CSC is only allowed to check
(2) After hearings have been conducted, the CSC found that Tuozo was better whether or not the appointee possess the appropriate CS eligibility or required
qualified than Luego for the contested job. Thus, the CSC directed that Mayor qualifications. If he does, his appointment is approved.
Duterte appoint Tuozo to the position of Administrative Officer II and that Luegos
appointment be revoked. (4) In the case herein, the CSC acknowledged that both Luego and Tuozo were
(3) Luego, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, questioned the order and qualified for the position in controversy. This recognition alone requires the CSC
Tuozos title. to affirm the validity of Luegos appointment. Revoking his appointment on the
basis that Tuozo was better qualified would be an encroachment on the
Issue: W/N the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the discretion vested solely in the city mayor.
ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee, and on the basis of
this finding, order his replacement by the latter. (NO) FALLO: Luegos appointment is set aside and Tuozo is declared entitled to the
office in dispute by virtue of his permanent appointment.
Held:
(1) The appointment of Luego is not temporary but permanent, and therefore *OTHER NOTES: The case also mentioned that it is different where the Consti or
protected by the Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it was the law itself subjects the approval of the appointment to another officer or body,
permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for the CSC to reverse like the COA under the 1935 Consti. In that case, appointments made by the
him and it temporary. Appointment is a discretionary power of the appointing President had to be confirmed by that body, otherwise it could not be issued
officer, and the only condition is that appointee possessed the qualifications without such confirmation.
required by law. Thus, appointee cannot be faulted on the ground that others are
better qualified, and should have been preferred.