This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-07-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is beyond this Court's authority to rule on the validity of petitioners' appointment as it is now the subject of a petition for review before the CA, Cebu City. Suffice it to state that while the appointing authority has the discretion to choose whom to appoint, the choice is subject to the caveat that the appointee possesses the required qualifications. To make it fully effective, an appointment to a civil service position must comply with all legal requirements.[48] | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, the appointment was not approved by the CSC.[20] No proof was presented to show that the appointment paper was even transmitted to the CSC. The appointment thus fell short of a legal requirement under Section 12 of the Administrative Code of 1987[21] and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The law requires that the appointment be submitted to the CSC, which will ascertain, in the main, whether the proposed appointee is qualified to hold the position, and whether the rules pertinent to the process of appointment were observed.[22] Thus, it is essential that the appointing officer and the CSC acting together, though not concurrently but consecutively, make an appointment complete. In acting on the appointment, the CSC determines whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications. If the appointee is qualified, the appointment should be approved. If not, it should be disapproved.[23] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appointing power is vested in the Department Head/Secretary.[12] Such power, however, may be delegated to the regional director subject to the approval, revision, modification and reversal of the Department Secretary.[13] It is not disputed that the appointments of respondents Rumbaoa and Teves as Head Teacher III and Master Teacher II, respectively, had been made by the appropriate appointing authority. Further, such appointments were duly attested by the CSC, which, under the Constitution, is the central personnel agency of the government charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit and fitness of those appointed to the civil service.[14] The appointing officer and the CSC acting together, though not concurrently but consecutively, make an appointment complete.[15] Accordingly, the appointments of respondents Rumbaoa and Teves as Head Teacher III and Master Teacher II, respectively, are entitled to respect by the Court:... [I]n the appointment or promotion of employees, the appointing authority considers not only their civil service eligibilities but also their performance, education, work experience, trainings and seminars attended, agency examinations and seniority. Consequently, the appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his best judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. The final choice of the appointing authority should be respected and left undisturbed. Judges should not substitute their judgment for that of the appointing authority.[16] | |||||
|
2005-05-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it should be noted that the Civil Service Commission, under the Constitution, is the central personnel agency of the government charged with the duty of determining questions of qualifications of merit and fitness of those appointed to the civil service.[19] Thus, the CSC, as an institution whose primary concern is the effectiveness of the civil service system, has the standing to appeal a decision which adversely affects the civil service.[20] We hold, at this juncture, that CSC has the standing to appeal and/or to file its motion for reconsideration. | |||||