cailles vs. bonifacio

8/10/2019 Cailles vs. Bonifacio

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 96298 May 14, 1991

RENATO M. LAPINID, petitioner,vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY an !UANITO!UNSAY, respondents.

Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla Law Offices for petitioner.

Adolpho M. Guerzon for J. Junsay, Jr.

valyn L !etalino, "o#elio $. Li%are and aisy B. Garcia'(in#zon for $ivil )ervice $o%%ission.

CRU", J.:p

The issue raised in this case has been categorically resolved in a long line of cases that should havesince guided the policies and actions of the respondent Civil ervice Co!!ission. "isregard of ourconsistent ruling on this !atter has needlessly i!posed on the valuable ti!e of the Court and indeedborders on disrespect for the highest tribunal. #e state at the outset that this conduct can no longerbe countenanced.

Petitioner Renato M. $apinid %as appointed by the Philippine Ports Authority to the position ofTer!inal upervisor at the Manila &nternational Container Ter!inal on 'ctober (, ()**. Thisappoint!ent %as protested on "ece!ber (+, ()**, by private respondent uanito unsay, %horeiterated his earlier representations %ith the Appeals Board of the PPA on May ), ()**, for a revie%of the decision of the Place!ent Co!!ittee dated May -, ()**. e contended that he should bedesignated ter!inal supervisor, or to any other co!parable position, in vie% of his preferential rightthereto. 'n une /0, ()*), co!plaining that the PPA had not acted on his protest, unsay %ent to theCivil ervice Co!!ission and challenged $apinid1s appoint!ent on the sa!e grounds he had earlierraised before the PPA. &n a resolution dated 2ebruary (3, ())4, the Co!!ission disposed as follo%s5

After a careful revie% of the records of the case, the Co!!ission finds the appeal!eritorious. &n the co!parative evaluation sheets, the parties %ere evaluatedaccording to the follo%ing criteria, na!ely5 eligibility6 education6 %or7 e8perience6productivity9perfor!ance9 attendance6 integrity6 initiative9leadership6 and physicalcharacteristics9personality traits. The results of the evaluation are as follo%s5

:NA;, uanito < =).+

>&$$E?A, Ben@a!in < =)

$AP&N&", Renato < =+

":$2', Antonio < =*


2/5

MAR&AN', Eleuterio < =)

2$'RE, Nestor < *4

"E ?:MAN, Alfonso < *4

>ER, Cesar < *4

&t is thus obvious that Protestants unsay =).+ and >illegas =) have an edge overthat of protestees $apinid =+ and "ulfo =*.

2oregoing pre!ises considered, it is directed that Appellants uanito unsay andBen@a!in >illegas be appointed as Ter!inal upervisor ? (* vice protesteesRenato $apinid and Antonio "ulfo respectively %ho !ay be considered forappoint!ent to any position co!!ensurate and suitable to their Dualifications, andthat the Co!!ission be notified %ithin ten (4 days of the i!ple!entation hereof.

' 'R"ERE".

:pon learning of the said resolution, $apinid, =%ho clai!ed he had not been infor!ed of the appealand had not been heard thereon, filed a !otion for reconsideration on March (), ())4. This %asdenied on May /+, ())4. The Philippine Ports Authority also filed its o%n !otion for reconsiderationon une (), ())4, %hich %as denied on August (=, ())4. A second !otion for reconsideration filed onepte!ber (3, ())4, based on the reappreciation of $apinid1s rating fro! =+F to *3F, %as alsodenied on 'ctober (), ())4.

#hen the petitioner ca!e to this Court on "ece!ber (-, ())4, %e resolved to reDuire Co!!entsfro! the respondents and in the !eanti!e issued a te!porary restraining order. The olicitor ?eneraltoo7 a stand against the Civil ervice Co!!ission %hich, at his suggestion, %as allo%ed to file its o%nCo!!ent. The petitioner filed a Reply. The private respondent1s Co!!ent %as dispensed %ith %hen

it %as not filed %ithin the prescribed period.

#e see no reason to deviate fro! our consistent ruling on the issue before us.

&n Lue#o v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission,1this Court declared5

The issue is star7ly si!ple5 &s the Civil ervice Co!!ission authoriGed to disapprovea per!anent appoint!ent on the ground that another person is better Dualified thanthe appointee and, on the basis of this finding, order his replace!ent by the latterH

888 888 888

Appoint!ent is an essentially discretionary po%er and !ust be perfor!ed by theofficer in %hich it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being thatthe appointee should possess the Dualifications reDuired by la%. &f he does, then theappoint!ent cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better Dualified%ho should have been preferred. This is a political Duestion involving considerationsof %isdo! %hich only the appointing authority can decide.

888 888 888

ignificantly, the Co!!ission on Civil ervice ac7no%ledged that both the petitionerand the private respondent %ere Dualified for the position in controversy. Thatrecognition alone rendered itfunctus officio in the case and prevented it fro! actingfurther thereon e8cept to affir! the validity of the petitioner1s appoint!ent. To be sure,it had no authority to revo7e the said appoint!ent si!ply because it believed that the


3/5

private respondent %as better Dualified for that %ould have constituted anencroach!ent on the discretion vested solely in the city !ayor.

The sa!e ruling has been affir!ed, in practically the sa!e language as $uego, in $entral Ban*v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, (=( CRA =336 )antia#o v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, (=* CRA=--6 +intor v. (an, ?.R. No. *34// and ?.R. No. *+*43, March ), ()*), n Banc, Minute

Resolution6 Galura v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No. *+*(/, une (, ()*), n Banc, MinuteResolution6 ulueta v. Ma%an#un, ?.R. No. *+)3(, une (+, ()*), n Banc, MinuteResolution6 "e%i#io v. $hair%an, $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No. *0-/3, uly 0, ()*), n Banc,Minute Resolution6Aurora Macacua v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No. )(+/4, uly -(, ())4, nBanc, Minute Resolution6A-dulwaha- A. Bayao v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No. )/-**,epte!ber ((, ())4, n Banc, Minute Resolution6 Or-os v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No.)/+0(, epte!ber (/, ())46Alicia . (a#aro v.(he on.$ivil )ervice $o%%ission, et al., ?.R. No.)43==, epte!ber (-, ())4, n Banc, Minute Resolution6lenito Li% v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, etal., ?.R. No. *=(3+, 'ctober ((, ())4, n Banc, Minute Resolution6(eolo#o v. $ivil )ervice$o%%ission, ?.R. No. )/(4-, Nove!ber *, ())46 )i%pao v. $ivil )ervice $o%%ission, ?.R. No.*+)=0, Nove!ber (+, ())4.

'nly recently, in Gaspar v. $ourt of Appeals2this Court said5

The only function of the Civil ervice Co!!ission in cases of this nature, accordingtoLue#o, is to revie% the appoint!ent in the light of the reDuire!ents of the Civilervice $a%, and %hen it finds the appointee to be Dualified and all other legalreDuire!ents have been other%ise satisfied, it has no choice but to attest to theappoint!ent. Lue#ofinally points out that the recognition by the Co!!ission thatboth the appointee and the protestant are Dualified for the position in controversyrenders itfunctus officioin the case and prevents it fro! acting further thereon e8ceptto affir! the validity of the for!er1s appoint!ent6 it has no authority to revo7e theappoint!ent si!ply because it considers another e!ployee to be better Dualified forthat %ould constitute an encroach!ent on the discretion vested in the appointingauthority.

888 888 888

The deter!ination of %ho a!ong several candidates for a vacant position has thebest Dualifications is vested in the sound discretion of the "epart!ent ead orappointing authority and not in the Civil ervice Co!!ission. Every particular @ob inan office calls for both for!al and infor!al Dualifications. 2or!al Dualifications suchas age, nu!ber of acade!ic units in a certain course, se!inars attended, etc., !aybe valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, tea! spirit, courtesy,initiative, loyalty, a!bition, prospects for the future, and best interests, of the service.?iven the de!ands of a certain @ob, %ho can do it best should be left to the ead ofthe 'ffice concerned provided the legal reDuire!ents for the office are satisfied. TheCivil ervice Co!!ission cannot substitute its @udg!ent for that of the ead of 'ffice

in this regard.

&t is therefore inco!prehensible to the Court %hy, despite these definitive pronounce!ents, the Civilervice Co!!ission has seen fit to ignore, if not defy, the clear !andate of the Court.

#e declare once again, and let us hope for the last ti!e, that the Civil ervice Co!!ission has nopo%er of appoint!ent e8cept over its o%n personnel. Neither does it have the authority to revie% theappoint!ents !ade by other offices e8cept only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the reDuiredDualifications. The deter!ination of %ho a!ong aspirants %ith the !ini!u! statutory Dualificationsshould be preferred belongs to the appointing authority and not the Civil ervice Co!!ission. &tcannot disallo% an appoint!ent because it believes another person is better Dualified and !uch lesscan it direct the appoint!ent of its o%n choice.


4/5

Appoint!ent is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot co!pel. #hile the act ofappoint!ent !ay in proper cases be the sub@ect of %anda%us, the selection itself of the appointee

cailles vs. bonifacio

Documents