106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

*
G.R. No. 96298. May 14, 1991.

RENATO M. LAPINID, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and
JUANITO JUNSAY, respondents.

Administrative Law; Civil Service Commission; Appointments; The

Civil Service Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment simply
because it considers another employee to be better qualified for that would
constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested i n the appointing
authority.—In Luego v. Civil Service Commission, this Court declared: The
issue is starkly simple: Is the Civil Service Commission 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? x x x 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. x x x Significantly,
the Commission on Civil Service acknowledged that both the petitioner and
the private respondent were qualified for the position in controversy. That
recognition alone rendered it functus officio in the case and prevented it
from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of the petitioner’s
appointment. To be sure, it had no authority to revoke the said appointment
simply because it believed that the private respondent was better qualified
for that would have constituted an encroachment on the discretion vested
solely in the city mayor. x x x Only recently, in Gaspar v. Court of Appeals,
this Court said: The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases
of this nature, according to Luego, 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. Luego
finally points out that the recognition by the Commission that both the
appointee and the protestant are qualified for the position in controversy
renders it functus officio in t he case and prevents it from acting further
thereon except to affirm the

________________

* EN BANC.

107

VOL. 197, MAY 14, 1991 107

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

validity of the former’s appointment; it has no authority to revoke the

appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better
qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested
in the appointing authority. x x x 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. Every particular job in an office calls for
both formal and informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age,
number of academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may
be valuable but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit,
courtesy, initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best
interests of the service. 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. It
is therefore incomprehensible to the Court why, despite these definitive
pronouncements, the Civil Service Commission has seen fit to ignore, if not
defy, the clear mandate of the Court.
Same; Same; Same; The Civil Service Commission has no power of
appointment except over its own personnel. Neither does it have the
authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to
ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications.—We
declare once again, and let us hope for the last time, that the Civil Service
Commission has no power of appointment except over its own personnel.
Neither does it have the authority to review the appointments made by other
offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required
qualifications. The determination of who among aspirants with the
minimum statutory qualifications should be preferred belongs to the
appointing authority and not the Civil Service Commission. It cannot
disallow an appointment because it believes another person is better
qualified and much less can it direct the appointment of its own choice.
Same; Same; Same; Appointment is a highly discretionary act which
even the Supreme Court cannot compel.—Appointment is a highly
discretionary act that even this Court cannot compel. While the act of
appointment may in proper cases be the subject of mandamus, the selection
itself of the appointee—taking into account the totality of his qualifications,
including those abstract qualities that define his personality—is the
prerogative of the appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to
the discretion of the appointing authority. It

108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

is a political question that the Civil Service Commission has no power to

review under the Constitution and the applicable laws.
Same; Same; Same; Contempt of Court; Departure from the mandate
of Luego by the Civil Service Commission after the date of the promulgation
of this decision shall be considered contempt of the Supreme Court, and
shall be dealt with severely.—The Court believes it has stated the foregoing
doctrine clearly enough, and often enough, for the Civil Service
Commission not to understand them. The bench does; the bar does; and we
see no reason why the Civil Service Commission does not. If it will not,
then that is an entirely different matter and shall be treated accordingly. We
note with stern disapproval that the Civil Service Commission has once
again directed the appointment of its own choice in the case at bar. We must
therefore make the following injunctions which the Commission must note
well and follow strictly. Whatever the reasons for its conduct, the Civil
Service Commission is ORDERED to desist from disregarding the doctrine
announced in Luego v. Civil Service Commission and the subsequent
decisions reiterating such ruling. Up to this point, the Court has leniently
regarded the attitude of the public respondent on this matter as imputable to
a lack of comprehension and not to intentional intransigence. But we are no
longer disposed to indulge that fiction. Henceforth, departure from the
mandate of Luego by the Civil Service Commission after the date of the
promulgation of this decision shall be considered contempt of this Court and
shall be dealt with severely, in view especially of the status of the
contemner. While we appreciate the fact that the Commission is a
constitutional body, we must stress, as a necessary reminder, that every
department and office in the Republic must know its place in the scheme of
the Constitution. The Civil Service Commission should recognize that its
acts are subject to reversal by this Court, which expects full compliance
with its decisions even if the Commission may not agree with them. The
Commission on Civil Service has been duly warned. Henceforth, it disobeys
at its peril.

PETITION to review the resolutions of the Civil Service

Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla Law Offices for
petitioner.
     Adolpho M. Guerzon for J. Junsay, Jr.
     Evalyn I. Fetalino, Rogelio C. Limare and Daisy B. Garcia-
Tingzon for Civil Service Commission.

109

VOL. 197, MAY 14, 1991 109

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

CRUZ, J.:

The issue raised in this case has been categorically resolved in a

long line of cases that should have since guided the policies and
actions of the respondent Civil Service Commission. Disregard of
our consistent ruling on this matter has needlessly imposed on the
valuable time of the Court and indeed borders on disrespect for the
highest tribunal. We state at the outset that this conduct can no
longer be countenanced.
Petitioner Renato M. Lapinid was appointed by the Philippine
Ports Authority to the position of Terminal Supervisor at the Manila
International Container Terminal on October 1, 1988. This
appointment was protested on December 15, 1988, by private
respondent Juanito Junsay, who reiterated his earlier representations
with the Appeals Board of the PPA on May 9, 1988, for a review of
the decision of the Placement Committee dated May 3, 1988. He
contended that he should be designated terminal supervisor, or to
any other comparable position, in view of his preferential right
thereto. On June 26, 1989, complaining that the PPA had not acted
on his protest, Junsay went to the Civil Service Commission and
challenged Lapinid’s appointment on the same grounds he had
earlier raised before the PPA. In a resolution dated February 14,
1990, the Commission disposed as follows:

After a careful review of the records of the case, the Commission finds the
appeal meritorious. In the comparative evaluation sheets, the parties were
evaluated according to the following criteria, namely: eligibility; education;
work experience; productivity/performance/attendance; integrity;
initiative/leadership; and physical characteristics/personality traits. The
results of the evaluation are as follows:

JUNSAY, Juanito — 79.5

VILLEGAS, Benjamin — 79
DULFO, Antonio — 78
LAPINID, Renato — 75
MARIANO, Eleuterio — 79
FLORES, Nestor — 80
DE GUZMAN, Alfonso — 80
VER, Cesar — 80

It is thus obvious that Protestants Junsay (79.5) and Villegas (79)

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

have an edge over that of protestees Lapinid (75) and Dulfo (78).
Foregoing premises considered, it is directed that Appellants Juanito
Junsay and Benjamin Villegas be appointed as Terminal Supervisor (SG 18)
vice protestees Renato Lapinid and Antonio Dulfo respectively who may be
considered for appointment to any position commensurate and suitable to
their qualifications, and that the Commission be notified within ten (10)
days of the implementation hereof.
SO ORDERED.

Upon learning of the said resolution, Lapinid, who claimed he had

not been informed of the appeal and had not been heard thereon,
filed a motion for reconsideration on March 19, 1990. This was
denied on May 25, 1990. The Philippine Ports Authority also filed
its own motion for reconsideration on June 19, 1990, which was
denied on August 17, 1990. A second motion for reconsideration
filed on September 14, 1990, based on the re-appreciation of
Lapinid’s rating from 75% to 84%, was also denied on October 19,
1990.
When the petitioner came to this Court on December 13, 1990,
we resolved to require Comments from the respondents and in the
meantime issued a temporary restraining order. The Solicitor
General took a stand against the Civil Service Commission, which,
at his suggestion, was allowed to file its own Comment. The
petitioner filed a Reply. The private respondent’s Comment was
dispensed with when it was not filed within the prescribed period.
We see no reason to deviate from our consistent ruling on the
issue before us.
1
In Luego v. Civil Service Commission, this Court declared:

The issue is starkly simple: Is the Civil Service Commission 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?
x     x     x
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

________________

1 143 SCRA 327.

111

VOL. 197, MAY 14, 1991 111

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

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.
x     x     x
Significantly, the Commission on Civil Service acknowledged that both
the petitioner and the private respondent were qualified for the position in
controversy. That recognition alone rendered it functus officio in the case
and prevented it from acting further thereon except to affirm the validity of
the petitioner’s appointment. To be sure, it had no authority to revoke the
said appointment simply because it believed that the private respondent was
better qualified for that would have constituted an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the city mayor.

The same ruling has been affirmed, in practically the same language
as Luego, in Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA
744; Santiago v. Civil Service Commission, 178 SCRA 733; Pintor
v. Tan, G.R. No. 84022 and G.R. No. 85804, March 9, 1989, En
Banc, Minute Resolution; Galura v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 85812, June 1, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Zulueta v.
Mamangun, G.R. No. 85941, June 15, 1989, En Banc, Minute
Resolution; Remigio v. Chairman, Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 86324, July 6, 1989, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Aurora
Macacua v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 91520, July 31,
1990, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Abdulwahab A. Bayao v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 92388, September 11, 1990, En
Banc, Minute Resolution; Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, G.R.
No. 92561, September 12, 1990; Alicia D. Tagaro v. The Hon. Civil
Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 90477, September 13, 1990,
En Banc, Minute Resolution; Elenito Lim v. Civil Service
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 87145, October 11, 1990, En Banc,
Minute Resolution; Teologo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
92103, November 8, 1990; Simpao v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 85976, November 15, 1990. Only recently, in Gaspar v.
2
Court of Appeals, this Court said:

________________

2 G.R. No. 90799, October 18, 1990.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

The only function of the Civil Service Commission in cases of this nature,
according to Luego, 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. Luego finally points out that
the recognition by the Commission that both the appointee and the
protestant are qualified for the position in controversy renders it functus
officio in the case and prevents it from acting further thereon except to
affirm the validity of the former’s appointment; it has no authority to revoke
the appointment simply because it considers another employee to be better
qualified for that would constitute an encroachment on the discretion vested
in the appointing authority.
xxx
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. Every particular job in an office calls for both formal and
informal qualifications. Formal qualifications such as age, number of
academic units in a certain course, seminars attended, etc., may be valuable
but so are such intangibles as resourcefulness, team spirit, courtesy,
initiative, loyalty, ambition, prospects for the future, and best interests of the
service. 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.

It is therefore incomprehensible to the Court why, despite these

definitive pronouncements, the Civil Service Commission has seen
fit to ignore, if not defy, the clear mandate of the Court.
We declare once again, and let us hope for the last time, that the
Civil Service Commission has no power of appointment except over
its own personnel. Neither does it have the authority to review the
appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the
appointee possesses the required qualifications. The determination of
who among aspirants with the minimum statutory qualifications
should be preferred belongs to the appointing authority and not the
Civil Service Commission. It cannot disallow an appointment
because it believes another person is better qualified and much less
can it direct the appointment of its own choice.

113

VOL. 197, MAY 14, 1991 113

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

Appointment is a highly discretionary act that even this Court cannot

compel. While the act of appointment may in proper cases be the
subject of mandamus, the selection itself of the appointee—taking
into account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract
qualities that define his personality—is the prerogative of the
appointing authority. This is a matter addressed only to the
discretion of the appointing authority. It is a political question that
the Civil Service Commission has no power to review under the
Constitution and the applicable laws.
Commenting on the limits of the powers of the public
respondent, Luego declared:

It is understandable if one is likely to be misled by the language of Section

9(h) of Article V of the Civil Service Decree because it says the
Commission has the power to “approve” and “disapprove” appointments.
Thus, it is provided therein that the Commission shall have inter alia the
power to:

“9(h) Approve all appointments, whether original or promotional, to positions in the

civil service, except those presidential appointees, members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, police forces, firemen, and jailguards, and disapprove those where
the appointees do not possess appropriate eligibility or required qualifications.”
(Emphasis supplied)

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.

The Court believes it has stated the foregoing doctrine clearly

enough, and often enough, for the Civil Service Commission not to
understand them. The bench does; the bar does; and we see no
reason why the Civil Service Commission does not. If it will not,
then that is an entirely different matter and shall be treated
accordingly.
We note with stern disapproval that the Civil Service
Commission has once again directed the appointment of its own

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission

choice in the case at bar. We must therefore make the following

injunctions which the Commission must note well and follow
strictly.
Whatever the reasons for its conduct, the Civil Service
Commission is ORDERED to desist from disregarding the doctrine
announced in Luego v. Civil Service Commission and the
subsequent decisions reiterating such ruling. Up to this point, the
Court has leniently regarded the attitude of the public respondent on
this matter as imputable to a lack of comprehension and not to
intentional intransigence. But we are no longer disposed to indulge
that fiction. Henceforth, departure from the mandate of Luego by the
Civil Service Commission after the date of the promulgation of this
decision shall be considered contempt of this Court and shall be
dealt with severely, in view especially of the status of the contemner.
While we appreciate the fact that the Commission is a constitutional
body, we must stress, as a necessary reminder, that every department
and office in the Republic must know its place in the scheme of the
Constitution. The Civil Service Commission should recognize that
its acts are subject to reversal by this Court, which expects full
compliance with its decisions even if the Commission may not agree
with them. The Commission on Civil Service has been duly warned.
Henceforth, it disobeys at its peril.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of
the respondent Civil Service Commission dated February 14, 1990,
May 25, 1990, August 17, 1990, and October 19, 1990, are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order
dated December 13, 1990, is made PERMANENT. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
      Fernan, (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-
Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition granted. Resolutions reversed and set aside.

Note.—Power of the Commission to “approve” or “disapprove”

appointments is limited only to determining whether or not the
appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligi-

115

VOL. 197, MAY 15, 1991 115

In Re: Judge Marcelo G. Garcia

bility or the required qualifications. (Luego vs. Civil Service

Commission, 143 SCRA 327.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.