Reporter: Santos

● Concept of Appointment
● Requisites for a Valid Appointment

Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of The President, G.R. No. 203372, 16 June 2015

Appointment is a process that begins with the selection by the appointing power and ends with
acceptance of the appointment by appointee. Acceptance by the appointee is the last act needed to
make an appointment complete

Elements of a valid appointment:

1. Authority to appoint

● President’s authority/ power to appoint is provided for in the Constitution and

laws
● Power to appoint is discretionary
● Appointing power has the right of choice in deciding for himself who is best
qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications
● Power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint
● Congress cannot limit the choice of the President to only one candidate
● Even in prescribing qualifications, Congress may not abuse such power so as
to deprive the appointing authority of his discretion to pick his own choice

2. Transmittal of appointment letter

3. Vacant position at the time of appointment

4. Acceptance by Qualified Appointee

● There is no valid appointment if the process lacks even one step/element

● Petitioners failed to show compliance with all the four elements
● They cannot prove with certainty that their appointment papers were

Lacson v. Romero, 84 Phil. 740

The appointment to a government post like that of provincial fiscal to be complete involves
several steps. First, comes the nomination by the President. Then to make that nomination
valid and permanent, the Commission on Appointments of the Legislature has to confirm said
nomination. The last step is the acceptance thereof by the appointee by his assumption of
office. The first two steps, nomination and confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. They
are acts of the Executive and Legislative departments of the Government. But the last
necessary step to make the appointment complete and effective rests solely with the
appointee himself. He may or he may not accept the appointment or nomination.

There is no power in the country which could compel a man to assume office. Since Lacson
has declined to accept his appointment as provincial fiscal of Tarlac and no one can compel
him to do so, then he continues as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and no vacancy in said
office was created, unless Lacson had been lawfully removed as Such fiscal of Negros
Oriental.

Tomali v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 110598, 1 December 1994

An appointment to a position in the civil service is required to be submitted to the CSC for
approval in order to determine, in main, whether the proposed appointee is qualified to hold
the position and whether or not the rules pertinent to the process of appointment are followed
(see section 9).

Compliance with the legal requirements for an appointment to a civil service position is
essential in order to make it fully effective. Without the favorable certification or approval of
the Commission, in cases when such approval is required, no title to the office can yet
be deemed to be permanently vested in favor of the appointee, and the appointment
can still be recalled or withdrawn by the appointing authority. Until an appointment has
become a completed act, it would likewise be precipitated to invoke the rule on security of
tenure.

Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327

Nature of Appointments
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. This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the
appointing authority can decide.

It is different where the Constitution or the law subjects the appointment to the approval of
another officer or body, like the Commission on Appointments under 1935 Constitution. 10
Appointments made by the President of the Philippines had to be confirmed by that body and
could not be issued or were invalidated without such confirmation. In fact, confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments was then considered part of the appointing process, which was
held complete only after such confirmation.

However, a full reading of the provision, especially of the underscored parts, will make it clear
that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether or not the appointee
possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If he does, his
appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by law to be
employed by the Commission when it acts on--or as the Decree says, "approves" or
"disapproves" an appointment made by the proper authorities.
Reporter: Basa

● Steps in Appointing Process

1. Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240

(Doctrine: Security of tenure. Appointee acquires a legal right to his position once
he assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment)

2. Costin v. Quimbo, 120 SCRA 159

(Doctrine: No appointment to a non-vacant position)

3. Gayatao v. Civil Service Commission, 210 SCRA 183

(Doctrine: No appointment to a non-vacant position)

4. Agyao v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 182591, 28 January 2011

(Doctrine: Non-CES positions do not require CESO/CSEE eligibility)

Reporter: Loverita

Appointments to the Civil Service

● Classification of Appointment

1. Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 140 SCRA 22

Doctrine: An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment, and its being subject
to confirmation does not alter its permanent character

2. Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

Doctrine: Under the 1987 Constitution, the clear and expressed intent of its framers is to
exclude presidential appointments from confirmation on the Commission on
Appointments except appointments to offices mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16
Article VII.

4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:

First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;

Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise
provided for by law;

Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;

 Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the
President alone.

3. Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254

Doctrine: The Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission are
not among the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII whose
appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

4. Maniebo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158708, 10 August 2010

Doctrine: Not every temporary or provisional employee is automatically deemed to be a
permanent employee after rendering at least seven years of service in the Government;
The subsequent acquisition of the required eligibility will not make the temporary
appointment regular or permanent; a new appointment is needed.

5. De Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No. 194994, 16 April 2013

Doctrine: When a government employee lacks the requisite civil service eligibility, he
cannot be deemed to hold his managerial position in a permanent capacity or acquire
security of tenure in that position. Otherwise stated, his appointment is temporary.

6. Marohombsar v. Alonto, 194 SCRA 391

Doctrine: A bona fide appointment in an acting capacity is essentially temporary and
revocable in character and the holder of such appointment may be removed anytime
even without hearing or cause
Reporter: Acosta

7. Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104639, 14 July 1995

Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA

CSC has the power to approve or disapprove an appointment set before it. It does not have the power
to make the appointment itself or to direct the appointing authority to change the employment status
of an employee.

8. Felix v. Buenaseda, G.R. No. 109704, 17 July 1995

Felix vs. Buenseda

As an apparent incident of the power to appoint, the renewal of a temporary appointment upon or
after its expiration is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the appointing authority

In this case, the appointment was for a definite and renewable period which, when it was not
renewed, did not involve a dismissal but an expiration of the petitioner's term.

9. Gloria v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 116183, 6 October 1995

Gloria vs. De Guzman

A mere designation does not confer upon the designee security of tenure in the position or office which he
occupies in an acting capacity only.

10. Orcullo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 138780, 22 May 2001

Orcullo vs. CSC

Where the employment is qualified by the phrase “unless terminated sooner”, it is clear that even if
the employment is co-terminous with the project, the employee nevertheless serves at the pleasure of
the appointing authority
 ● Scope of Civil Service and Authority of the Commission

The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government,
including every government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters (whether
performing governmental or proprietary functions). [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(1)]

As the central personnel agency of the government, it:

1. Establishes a career service;

2. Adopts measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness and

courtesy in the Civil Service;

3. Strengthens the merits and rewards system;

4. Integrates all human resources and development programs for all levels and ranks;

5. Institutionalizes a management climate conducive to public accountability. (1987 Constitution, Art.

IX- B, Sec. 3)
 1. Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) v. Venus, G.R. No. 163782, 24 March 2006

LRT vs. Venus

Employment in LRTA should be governed only by civil service rules, and not the Labor Code and
beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and Employment, since LRTA is a government-owned
and controlled corporation with an original charter, Executive Order No. 603, Series of 1980, as
amended (NO QUESTION NEEDED. PART OF THE LAW)

Reporter: Lisaca

● Classes of Service
1. PEZA Board of Directors v. Mercado, G.R. No. 172144, 9 March 2010
For an examinee or an incumbent to be a member of the CES and be entitled to security
of tenure, she/he must pass the CES examinations, be conferred CES eligibility, comply
with the other requirements prescribed by the CES Board, and be appointed to a CES
rank by the President.

Doctrine: The attainment of a Master in National Security Administration (MNSA)

degree does not confer automatic CES eligibility. It was merely accredited as equivalent
to passing the Management Aptitude Test Battery. The three other stages, and the other
requirements must be fulfilled.

2. Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185766, 23 November 2010

Doctrine: In order for a position to be covered by the CES, two elements must concur.
First, the position must either be (1) a position enumerated under Book V, Title I,
Subsection A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987, or(2) a
position of equal rank as those enumerated, and identified by the Career Executive
Service Board to be such position of equal rank. Second, the holder of the position must
be a presidential appointee. Failing in any of these requirements, a position cannot be
considered as one covered by the third-level or CES.

3. General v. Roco, G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524, 29 January 2001

Doctrine: In the career executive service, the acquisition of security of tenure which
presupposes a permanent appointment is governed by the rules and regulations
promulgated by the CES Board. Two requisites must concur in order that an employee
 in the career executive service may attain security of tenure: CES eligibility and
Appointment to the appropriate CES rank. Security of tenure of employees in the career
executive service (except first and second-level employees in the civil service) pertains
only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be appointed.

4. Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131954, 28 June 2001

Doctrine: CSC was expressly empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as
may properly be classified as primarily confidential under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V
of the Administrative Code of 1987. The enumeration in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil
Service Decree, which defines the non-career service, is not an exclusive list.

5. Orcullo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 138780, 22 May 2001

Doctrine: In an employment contract of a coterminous non-career service position, the
phrase, “unless terminated sooner” is understood in its plain and unambiguous language
and means that such employment may be ended at the pleasure of the appointing
authority since such entrance and continuity in the service is based on trust and
confidence in the appointing power

6. PAGCOR v. Rilloraza, G.R. No. 141141, 25 June 2001

Doctrines:
(1) The classification of a particular position as policy-determining, primarily confidential
or highly technical amounts to no more than an executive or legislative declaration that is
not conclusive upon the courts, the true test being the nature of the position;
(2) The exemption provided in this section pertains only to exemption from competitive
examination to determine merit and fitness to enter the civil service; and
(3) Sec. 16, PD. 1869, insofar as it declares all positions in PAGCOR as primarily
confidential, is not absolutely binding on the courts.

BASA
7. Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Beatriz Gonzales, G.R. No. 185740, 23
July 2013

(Doctrine: Security of tenure in public office simply means that a public officer or
employee shall not be suspended or dismissed except for cause, as provided by
law and after due process. Since the respondent betrayed the trust and
confidence of the appointing authority, and that the position was converted into a
high confidential position, the dismissal was lawful.)

8. Pacete v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, 185 SCRA 1

(Doctrine: The position of Legal Counsel or City Attorney is confidential in nature,

for which loss of confidence is a valid ground for termination.)