Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Lopes Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    spidercye
    The Civil Service Commission's power is limited to verifying that an appointee possesses the required qualifications and eligibility. It cannot revoke an appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that would encroach on the discretion of the appointing authority. The appointing authority has wide latitude in choosing an appointee as long as the appointee meets the legal requirements. A placement committee's role is merely recommendatory; the appointing authority retains discretion in making the final selection decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lopes Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    spidercye
    54 views1 page
    The Civil Service Commission's power is limited to verifying that an appointee possesses the required qualifications and eligibility. It cannot revoke an appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that would encroach on the discretion of the appointing authority. The appointing authority has wide latitude in choosing an appointee as long as the appointee meets the legal requirements. A placement committee's role is merely recommendatory; the appointing authority retains discretion in making the final selection decision.

    Original Title

    Lopes vs CSC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Civil Service Commission's power is limited to verifying that an appointee possesses the required qualifications and eligibility. It cannot revoke an appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that would encroach on the discretion of the appointing authority. The appointing authority has wide latitude in choosing an appointee as long as the appointee meets the legal requirements. A placement committee's role is merely recommendatory; the appointing authority retains discretion in making the final selection decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Lopes Vs CSC

    Uploaded by

    spidercye
    The Civil Service Commission's power is limited to verifying that an appointee possesses the required qualifications and eligibility. It cannot revoke an appointment simply because it believes another candidate is better qualified, as that would encroach on the discretion of the appointing authority. The appointing authority has wide latitude in choosing an appointee as long as the appointee meets the legal requirements. A placement committee's role is merely recommendatory; the appointing authority retains discretion in making the final selection decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. Lopez v.

    Civil Service Commission 194 SCRA 269

     The Court has defined the parameters within which the power of approval of appointments
    shall be exercised by the respondent Commission. In the case of Luego v. Civil Service
    Commission, 143 SCRA 327 [1986], the Court ruled that all the Commission is actually
    authorized to do is to check if the appointee possesses the qualifications and appropriate
    eligibility: "If he does, his appointment is approved; if not it is disapproved." We further ruled
    that the Commission has no authority to revoke an appointment simply because it believed
    that the private respondent was better qualified for that would have constituted an
    encroachment of the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority. The Commission
    cannot exceed its power by substituting its will for that of the appointing authority. (Central
    Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744 [1989]).

    The power of appointment exercised after a judicious recommendation made by a placement


    Committee of the agency concerned is:
    (A)n 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 qualification 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 onlyu the
    appointing authority can decide. (Emphasis supplied; Luego v. Civil Service Commission, supra, at p. 332)

    The head of an agency who is the appointing power is the one most knowledgeable to decide
    who can best perform the functions of the office. (Ocampo v. Subido, 72 SCRA 433 [1976];
    Torres v. Borja, 56 SCRA 47 [1974]; Santiago v. Civil Service Commission, 178 SCRA 733
    [1989] He has a wide latitude of choice as to the person to appoint where the law does not
    impose rigid conditions. (Reyes v. Abeleda, 22 SCRA 825 [1968]). Section 6, Rep. Act No.
    6656 on government reorganization merely provides that the selection or placement should
    be done through the creation of a Placement Committee the members of which are
    representatives of the head of the agency as well as representatives of the head of the
    agency as well as representatives of the employees. The committee's work is
    recommendatory and does not fix a stringent formula regarding the mode of choosing from
    among the candidates. Thus, the respondents' arguments on the alleged inconsistencies and
    non-conformity with Rep. Act No. 6656 in rating the contenders are without merit.

    You might also like