LUEGO v CSC (Yap) FALLO: Luegos appointment is set aside and Tuozo is declared entitled to the

office in dispute by virtue of his permanent appointment.

Petitioner/s: FELIMON LUEGO
Respondent/s: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FELICULA TUOZO *OTHER NOTES: The case also mentioned that it is different where the Consti or
the law itself subjects the approval of the appointment to another officer or body,
Doctrine: Requirements for Public Office like the COA under the 1935 Consti. In that case, appointments made by the
President had to be confirmed by that body, otherwise it could not be issued
Facts: without such confirmation.
(1) Petitioner Luego was appointed as Administrative Officer II. The appointment
was described as permanent but the CSC approved it as temporary, subject to
the final decision in the pending protest filed by respondent Tuozo.
(2) After hearings have been conducted, the CSC found that Tuozo was better
qualified than Luego for the contested job. Thus, the CSC directed that Mayor
Duterte appoint Tuozo to the position of Administrative Officer II and that Luegos
appointment be revoked.
(3) Luego, invoking his earlier permanent appointment, questioned the order and
Tuozos title.

Issue: W/N 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 by the latter. (NO)

Held:
(1) The appointment of Luego is not temporary but permanent, and therefore
protected by the Constitution. The appointing authority indicated that it was
permanent, as he had the right to do so, and it was not for the CSC to reverse
him and it temporary. Appointment is a discretionary power of the appointing
officer, and the only condition is that appointee possessed the qualifications
required by law. Thus, appointee cannot be faulted on the ground that others are
better qualified, and should have been preferred.

(2) The stamping of the words Approved as Temporary did not change the
character of appointment, which was clearly described as permanent in the
space provided in the CS Form. What was temporary is merely the approval and
not the appointment itself.

(3) The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of appointment
extended by the appointing officer, its authority is limited to approving and
reviewing the appointment in light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law.
This approval is more appropriately called attestation. Sec. 9(h) of Article 5 of
the CS Decree states that the Commission has the power to approve and
disapprove appointments. However, it means that CSC is only allowed to check
whether or not the appointee possess the appropriate CS eligibility or required
qualifications. If he does, his appointment is approved.

(4) In the case herein, the CSC acknowledged that both Luego and Tuozo were
qualified for the position in controversy. This recognition alone requires the CSC
to affirm the validity of Luegos appointment. Revoking his appointment on the
basis that Tuozo was better qualified would be an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the city mayor.