1.

Explain the implication of the phrase “appointment is an exercise of

discretion of the appointing authority.” Provide jurisprudential basis.

Appointment is essentially a discretionary power and must be performed by the

officer in whom it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition
being that the appointee should possess the minimum qualification
requirements prescribed by law for the position [Luego v. Civil Service
Commission, 143 SCRA 327; Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission, 197 SCRA
106]. The appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise
freely according to his best judgment, deciding for himself who is best
qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities.
Not only is the appointing authority primarily responsible for the
administration of his office, he is also in the best position to determine who
among the prospective appointees can effectively discharge the functions of the
position. Thus, the final choice of the appointing authority should be respected
and left undisturbed [Civil Service Commission v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
158737, August 31, 2004].

Thus, when the appointing authority has already exercised his power of
appointment, the Commission cannot revoke the same on the ground that
another employee is better qualified, for that will constitute an encroachment
on the discretion vested in the appointing authority. The Commission may not
and should not substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority.
[Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240]

Moreover, while the Civil Service Law grants career service officers preference
in promotion under the “next-in-rank” rule [Anzaldo v. Clave, 119 SCRA 353;
Meram v. Edralin, 154 SCRA 238], it is not mandatory that the appointing
authority fill a vacancy by promotion, as the appointing authority should be
allowed the choice of men of his confidence, provided they are qualified and
eligible.