You are on page 1of 1


4 CASES No digest for Pangilinan ------------------------------(Classes of Appointment)

Case Digest on Gaminde v. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 140335 (December 13, 2000) FACTS: On June 11, 1993, the President appointed petitioner as Commissioner of the CSC for a term expiring on February 2, 1999. She took her oath of office on June 22, 1993 and was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on September 7, 1993. The Commission on Audit issued a decision that her term expired on Feb. 2, 1999. HELD: The constitution adopted a rotational system for the appointment of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions. The operation of the rotational plan requires that the terms of the first Commissioners should start on a common date and any vacancy before the expiration of the term should be filled only for the unexpired balance of the term. Consequently, the term of the first Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions must start on a common date, irrespective of variations in the dates of appointments and qualifications of the appointees in order that the expiration of the first terms should lead to the regular recurrence of the two-year interval between the expiration of the terms. February 2, 1987 is the proper starting point of the terms of office of the first appointees to the Constitutional Commission, as the beginning of the term of office is understood to coincide with the effectivity of the Constitution upon its ratification. ------------------

appointing authority. The Commission may not and should not substitute it judgment for that of the appointing authority. For an appointment to be valid, the position must be vacant. (Aquino v. CSC) The appropriate starting point of the terms of office of the first appointee to the Constitutional Commissions under the Constitution. In case of a belated appointment or qualification, the interval between the start of the term and the actual qualification of the appointee must be counted against the latter. (Gaminde v. COA, 347 SCRA 655, Manolo v. Sistoza) ----------------------------

NO DIGEST CSC v. Darangina, G.R. No. 167472 , January 31, 2006 (permanent v. temporary) --------------------------NO DIGEST Chua v. CSC, 206 SCRA 65 (co-terminous) -------------------------NO DIGEST Conde v. National Tobacco Corp., 1 SCRA 65 (de facto officer) ---------------------NO DIGEST Abila v. Eleria (appointment and next-in-rank rule) ----------------------NO DIGEST Rimonte v. CSC, G.R. No. 112045 May 29, 1995 (appointment; qualifications; CSC) ----------------

When Appointment Deemed Complete; Revocation

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 be an encroachment on the discretion of the