Teologo vs. Csc to Luego (Art IX)

7/25/2019 Teologo vs. Csc to Luego (Art IX)

1/4

Political Law 8a

VIOLETA T. TEOLOGOvs.THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DR. PRUDENCIO J. ORTI, DR. JOSE

M.TUPA, JR., a!" MRS. RU#$ G. GELVEON G.R. No. %&'() Nov*+*- 8, '%%(

acts/ Petitioner Violeta Teologo questions the appointment of private respondent Ruby Gelvezon, a

retiree as Chief Nurse I of PedroTrono emorial !ospital "laiming that she has preferential right being that

she is in an a"ting "apa"ity for more than one yearand that she is the ne#t$in$ran% and is not

disquali&ed' Gelvezon (Teologo)s allegation* is not eligible'

Gelvezon +as reinstated under CC memorandum$Cir"ular No' -, $./01, +hi"h allo+s the

reinstatement of a retiree only under "ertain "onditions' This reinstatement +as protested by Violeta

Teologo, one of the t+o aspirants for the same position' It +as ho+ever, denied y the CC by 2r' Pruden"io

3rtiz, Regional !ealth 2ire"tor, +ho 4usti&ed the appointment of Gelvezon on grounds of the e#igen"y of

the servi"e and her superior quali&"ations' The CC de"lared that Gelvezon is neither a retiree nor over$

age (-5 or over*, hen"e, it alleged that there is no need of prior authority'

Iss0*6 73N the Civil ervi"e Commission "ommitted grave abuse of dis"retion in reinstating Gelvezon'

H*l"6 8nder the Civil ervi"e 9a+, it is the President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the e"retary

of !ealth, +ho "an ma%e appointments of %ey personnel in the 2epartment of !ealth' It is presumed that

2r' 3rtiz +as responsible of the reinstatement and li%e+ise as%ed for the authority to reinstate as if he had

the po+er to do su"h a"t' It is his superior +ho a"tually has the po+er to as% the authority of

reinstatement' The assessment of the appointee)s quali&"ations li%e the determination of +hether the

appointment is demanded by the e#igen"ies of the servi"e should be made by the appointing authorities

themselves, as it is them +ho understand the needs and operations of their o:"e and not the CC' ;

retiree "annot 4ust resume +here he left o< +ithout spe"ial quali&"ations as required by regulation'

2is"retion given to the appointing authority is sub4e"t to stri"ter revie+ +here the person appointed is

being returned to the Government after voluntarily retiring and "olle"ting all the bene&ts appurtenant to

su"h retirement' The oli"itor General maintains that the appointment of Gelvezon does not meet the

three "onditions mentioned in Paragraph = of the CC emorandum$Cir"ular No' -, s$./01' The rule

e#pressly allo+s reinstatement only if the va"an"y "annot be &lled by promotion of quali&ed o:"ers or

employees in the agen"y "on"erned' ;s a retiree, Gelvezon "ould not be simply reinstated li%e any ne+

appointee but had to satisfy the stringent requirements laid do+n by CC emo Cir"ular No'-, $./01'oreover, the Commission, in said Resolution, dire"ted CR3 No' > to a"t on the appointment of rs'

Gelvezon for the reason that the Commission found that said rs' Gelvezon merely resigned from her

position and thus, CC C No' -, series of ./01 does not apply to her "ase' ?inally, promotions in the Civil

ervi"e should al+ays be made on the basis of quali&"ations, in"luding o""upational "ompeten"e, moral

"hara"ter, devotion to duty and not least important, loyalty to the servi"e

M*+o-a!"0+1Ci-c0la- No. 2, s1'%8)

Pursuant to Presidential 2e"ree No' 01@ dated November =5, ./5- as implemented by 9etter of implementation No' A5

dated ;ugust .0, ./5>, the Civil ervi"e Commission is empo+ered to reinstate in the service persons who have been

previously retired from the service, and to e#tend the servi"es of persons +ho have rea"hed the "ompulsory

retirement age of >- years, e#"ept Presidential appointees'

To insure e


2/4

c.the va"an"y "annot be &lled by promotion of quali&ed o:"ers or employees in the agen"y

"on"erned, or by transfer of quali&ed o:"ers or employees from other government agen"ies, or there

are no eligibles in the appropriate register of the Commission available for "erti&"ation to the va"an"y'

BBB

2.3:"ers or employees +ho have been re"ommended for appointment, reinstatement, or retention in the

servi"e shall not be allowed to assumed or continue in oce pending receipt of authority from the Civil Service

Regional Oce concerned.


3/4

Political Law 8

G.R. No. 90799 October 18, 1990

AUGUSTO L. GASPAR, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, a! "ENAI#A F. LANTING, respondents.

acts/ ;ugusto 9' Gaspar see%s the setting aside of the 2e"ision of the Civil ervi"e Commission dated

Duly ./, ./0-, +hi"h revo%ed his appointment as ;dministrative 3:"er II of the Par%s 2evelopment 3:"e,anila, and dire"ted the appointment of Eenaida ?' 9anting as su"h, in his stead'

Gaspar +as the Chief of the e"urity e"tion of the Par%s 2evelopment 3:"e of the City of anila +hen

F#e"utive 3rder No' 0.$@. +as issued by the Governor of the etro anila Commission (C* on ay =A,

./0.' The F#e"utive 3rder established a "omprehensive position "lassi&"ation and pay plan for C

o:"ers and employees, and "ontained a provision re"lassifying Gaspars position of Chief, e"urity

e"tion, to ;dministrative 3:"er II' 3n ;pril =-, ./01, Gaspar +as appointed to that position of

;dministrative 3:"er II, e a"ademi" units in Husiness ;dministration "ourse earned by

Gaspar be"ame her edge over Gaspar in edu"ation'

Iss0*/ 73N the Civil ervi"e Commission is authorized to disapprove a permanent appointment on the

ground that another person is better quali&ed than the appointee and, on the basis of this &nding, orderhis repla"ement by the latter'

H*l"/ No' There is no intimation +hatever that Gaspar is not quali&ed for the position of

;dministrative 3:"er II' 3n the "ontrary, it seems quite evident that the Civil ervi"e Commission

"onsiders both him and 9anting to possess the minimum quali&"ations for the o:"e, but that, in the

Commissions vie+, 9anting has an edge over Gaspar in edu"ation and has better potentials to

assume the duties and responsibilities of '' (the* "ontested position'

The Commission is only allo+ed to "he"% +hether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate "ivil

servi"e eligibility or the required quali&"ations' If he does, his appointment is approved if not, it is

disapproved' No other "riterion is permitted by la+ to be employed by the Commission +hen it a"ts on orapproves or disapproves an appointment made by the proper authorities'

The only fun"tion of the Civil ervi"e Commission is to revie+ the appointment in the light of the

requirements of the Civil ervi"e 9a+, and +hen it &nds the appointee to be quali&ed and all other legal

requirements have been other+ise satis&ed, it has no "hoi"e but to attest to the appointment'

The determination of +ho among several "andidates for a va"ant position has the best quali&"ations is

vested in the sound dis"retion of the 2epartment !ead or appointing authority and not in the Civil ervi"e

Commission' Given the demands of a "ertain 4ob, +ho "an do it best should be left to the !ead of the o:"e


4/4

"on"erned provided the legal requirements for the o:"e are satis&ed' The Civil ervi"e Commission "annot

substitute its 4udgment for that of the !ead of 3:"e in this regard'

In the "ase at bar, therefore, the respondent Commission a"ted beyond the s"ope of its authority and +ith

grave abuse of dis"retion in revo%ing the petitioners appointment and dire"ting the appointment in his

stead of the private respondent'

7!FRF?3RF, Resolution No' 0-$=/. of the respondent Civil ervi"e Commission, dated Duly ./, ./0-, is

FT ;I2F and the petitioner, ;ugusto 9' Gaspar, is hereby de"lared to be entitled to the o:"e of

;dministrative 3:"er II of the Par%s 2evelopment 3:"e of the City of anila by virtue of the appointmente#tended to him on ;pril =-, ./01, e

Documents

Teologo vs. Csc to Luego (Art IX)