Political Law 8a

VIOLETA T. TEOLOGOvs.THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DR. PRUDENCIO J. ORTIZ, DR. JOSE
M.TUPAZ, JR., and MRS. RUBY G. GELVEZON G.R. No. 92103 November 8, 1990
Facts: Petitioner Violeta Teologo questions the appointment of private respondent Ruby Gelvezon, a
retiree as Chief Nurse I of PedroTrono Memorial Hospital claiming that she has preferential right being that
she is in an acting capacity for more than one yearand that she is the next-in-rank and is not
disqualified. Gelvezon (Teologos allegation) is not eligible.
Gelvezon was reinstated under CSC memorandum-Circular No. 5, S-1983, which allows the
reinstatement of a retiree only under certain conditions. This reinstatement was protested by Violeta
Teologo, one of the two aspirants for the same position. It was however, denied y the CSC by Dr. Prudencio
Ortiz, Regional Health Director, who justified the appointment of Gelvezon on grounds of the exigency of
the service and her superior qualifications. The CSC declared that Gelvezon is neither a retiree nor overage (57 or over), hence, it alleged that there is no need of prior authority.
Issue: WON the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Gelvezon.
Held: Under the Civil Service Law, it is the President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the Secretary
of Health, who can make appointments of key personnel in the Department of Health. It is presumed that
Dr. Ortiz was responsible of the reinstatement and likewise asked for the authority to reinstate as if he had
the power to do such act. It is his superior who actually has the power to ask the authority of
reinstatement. The assessment of the appointees qualifications like the determination of whether the
appointment is demanded by the exigencies of the service should be made by the appointing authorities
themselves, as it is them who understand the needs and operations of their office and not the CSC. A
retiree cannot just resume where he left off without special qualifications as required by regulation.
Discretion given to the appointing authority is subject to stricter review where the person appointed is
being returned to the Government after voluntarily retiring and collecting all the benefits appurtenant to
such retirement. The Solicitor General maintains that the appointment of Gelvezon does not meet the
three conditions mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the CSC Memorandum-Circular No. 5, s-1983. The rule
expressly allows reinstatement only if the vacancy cannot be filled by promotion of qualified officers or
employees in the agency concerned. As a retiree, Gelvezon could not be simply reinstated like any new
appointee but had to satisfy the stringent requirements laid down by CSC Memo Circular No.5, S-1983.
Moreover, the Commission, in said Resolution, directed CSRO No. 6 to act on the appointment of Mrs.
Gelvezon for the reason that the Commission found that said Mrs. Gelvezon merely resigned from her
position and thus, CSC MC No. 5, series of 1983 does not apply to her case. Finally, promotions in the Civil
Service should always be made on the basis of qualifications, including occupational competence, moral
character, devotion to duty and not least important, loyalty to the service
Memorandum-Circular No. 5, s-1983
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 830 dated November 27, 1975 as implemented by Letter of implementation No. 47
dated August 18, 1976, the Civil Service Commission is empowered to reinstate in the service persons who have been
previously retired from the service, and to extend the services of persons who have reached the compulsory
retirement age of 65 years, except Presidential appointees.
To insure effective and facilitate action on requests of such nature, the following guidelines are prescribed:
XXX
2. Requests for authority for such appointment, reinstatement or retention shall meet the following conditions as
certified by the appointing authority.
a. the exigencies of the service so require;
b. the officer or employee concerned possesses special qualification not possessed by other officers or
employees in the agency where he is to be appointed or retained; and

c. the vacancy cannot be filled by promotion of qualified officers or employees in the agency
concerned, or by transfer of qualified officers or employees from other government agencies, or there
are no eligibles in the appropriate register of the Commission available for certification to the vacancy.
XXX
5. Officers or employees who have been recommended for appointment, reinstatement, or retention in the
service shall not be allowed to assumed or continue in office pending receipt of authority from the Civil Service
Regional Office concerned.

Political Law 8b
G.R. No. 90799 October 18, 1990
AUGUSTO L. GASPAR, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and ZENAIDA F. LANTING, respondents.
Facts: Augusto L. Gaspar seeks the setting aside of the Decision of the Civil Service Commission dated
July 19, 1985, which revoked his appointment as Administrative Officer II of the Parks Development Office,
Manila, and directed the appointment of Zenaida F. Lanting as such, in his stead.
Gaspar was the Chief of the Security Section of the Parks Development Office of the City of Manila when
Executive Order No. 81-01 was issued by the Governor of the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) on May 24,
1981. The Executive Order established a comprehensive position classification and pay plan for MMC
officers and employees, and contained a provision reclassifying Gaspar's position of Chief, Security
Section, to Administrative Officer II. On April 25, 1983, Gaspar was appointed to that position of
Administrative Officer II, effective on October 1, 1982.
Zenaida F. Lanting, then Senior Accounting Clerk in the same Parks Development Office, filed with the Merit
Systems Board a protest against Gaspar's appointment as Administrative Officer II, contending that she
was better qualified for, and should have been named to, the office.
After due proceedings, the Merit Systems Board (MSB) revoked Gaspar's appointment and directed
Lanting's appointment to the office of Administrative Officer II, in a decision rendered on November 28,
1984. Gaspar appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). After initially sustaining Gaspar , the CSC
ultimately affirmed the judgment of the MSB by Resolution numbered 85-291 in appointment of Lanting to
the position of Administrative Officer II in the Parks Development Office because of her masteral degree in
Public Administration as compared to 36 academic units in Business Administration course earned by
Gaspar became her edge over Gaspar in education.
Issue: WON the Civil Service Commission is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the
ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order
his replacement by the latter.
Held: No. There is no intimation whatever that Gaspar is not qualified for the position of

Administrative Officer II. On the contrary, it seems quite evident that the Civil Service Commission
considers both him and Lanting to possess the minimum qualifications for the office, but that, in the
Commission's view, "Lanting has an edge over Gaspar in education" and "has better potentials to
assume the duties and responsibilities of .. (the) contested position."
The Commission is only allowed to 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
approves or disapproves an appointment made by the proper authorities."
The only function of the Civil Service Commission is to review the appointment in the light of the
requirements of the Civil Service Law, and when it finds the appointee to be qualified and all other legal
requirements have been otherwise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to the appointment.
The determination of who among several candidates for a vacant position has the best qualifications is
vested in the sound discretion of the Department Head or appointing authority and not in the Civil Service
Commission. Given the demands of a certain job, who can do it best should be left to the Head of the office

concerned provided the legal requirements for the office are satisfied. The Civil Service Commission cannot
substitute its judgment for that of the Head of Office in this regard.
In the case at bar, therefore, the respondent Commission acted beyond the scope of its authority and with
grave abuse of discretion in revoking the petitioner's appointment and directing the appointment in his
stead of the private respondent.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. 85-291 of the respondent Civil Service Commission, dated July 19, 1985, is
SET ASIDE and the petitioner, Augusto L. Gaspar, is hereby declared to be entitled to the office of
Administrative Officer II of the Parks Development Office of the City of Manila by virtue of the appointment
extended to him on April 25, 1983, effective on October 1, 1982.
Political Law 8c
G.R. NO. L-69137 August 5, 1986
FELIMON LUEGO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO, respondents-appellees.
Facts: Petitioner was appointed Admin Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City, by Mayor Solon. The
appointment was described as permanent but the CSC approved it as temporary, subject to the final
action taken in the protest filed by the private respondent and another employee.
Subsequently, the CSC found the private respondent better qualified than the petitioner for the contested
position and, accordingly directed that the latter be appointed to said position in place of the petitioner
whose appointment is revoked. Hence, the private respondent was so appointed to the position by Mayor
Duterte, the new mayor.
The petitioner, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, questions the order and the validity of the
respondents appointment.
Issue: WON the CSC is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the ground that another
person is better qualified than the appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order his replacement.
Held: No. The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and was therefore
protected by Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it was permanent, as he had the right to
do so, and it was not for the respondent CSC to reverse him and call it temporary.
Section 9(h), Art V of the Civil Service Decree provides that the Commission shall have inter alia the power
to approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the civil service .and
disapprove those where the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications.
The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing
officer, its authority being limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the
requirements of the CSC Law. When the appointee is qualified and all the other legal requirements are
satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the CSC Laws.
CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that another person was better
qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the city mayor.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the respondent Commission on Civil Service dated March 22, 1984, is set
aside, and the petitioner is hereby declared to be entitled to the office in dispute by virtue of his
permanent appointment thereto dated February 18, 1983. No costs.