202. Define Appointment. Discuss its nature.
Held: An “APPOINTMENT” to a public office is the unequivocal act of designating or selecting by one having the authority therefor of an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust. The appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with and its acceptance thereafter by the appointee in order to render it effective.
Appointment necessarily calls for an exercise of discretion on the part of the appointing authority. In Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v.
Intermediate Appellate Court (140 SCRA 22), reiterated in Flores v. Drilon (223 SCRA 568), this Court has held:
“The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The
appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications
and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of the appointing power x
x x.” (At p. 579)
Indeed, it may rightly be said that the right of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. In the exercise of the power of appointment, discretion is an integral thereof. (Bermudez v. Torres, 311 SCRA 733, Aug. 4, 1999, 3rd Div. [Vitug])
203. May the Civil Service Commission, or the Supreme Court, validly nullify an appointment on the ground that somebody else is better qualified?
Held: 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. Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer vested with such power 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. Indeed, this is a prerogative of the
appointing authority which he alone can decide. The choice of an appointee from among those who possess the required qualifications is a political and administrative decision calling for considerations of wisdom, convenience, utility and the interests of the service which can best be made by the head of the office concerned, the person most familiar with the organizational structure and environmental circumstances within which the appointee must function.
As long as the appointee is qualified the Civil Service Commission has no choice but to attest to and respect the appointment even if it be proved that there are others with superior credentials. The law limits the Commission’s authority only to whether or not the appointees possess the legal qualifications and the appropriate civil service eligibility, nothing else. If they do then the appointments
are approved because the Commission cannot exceed its power by substituting its will for that of the appointing authority. Neither can we. (Rimonte v. CSC, 244 SCRA 504-505, May 29, 1995, En Banc [Bellosillo, J.])
204. Does the “next-in-rank” rule import any mandatory or peremptory requirement that the person next-in-rank must be appointed to the vacancy?
Held: The “next-in-rank rule is not absolute; it only applies in cases of promotion, a process which denotes a scalar ascent of an officer to another position higher either in rank or salary. And even in promotions, it can be disregarded for sound reasons made known to the next-in-rank, as the concept does not import any mandatory or peremptory requirement that the person next-in-rank must be appointed to the vacancy. The appointing authority, under the Civil Service Law, is allowed to fill vacancies by promotion, transfer of present employees, reinstatement, reemployment, and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service eligibility, not necessarily in that order. There is no legal fiat that a vacancy must be filled only by promotion; the appointing authority is given wide discretion to fill a vacancy from among the several alternatives provided by law.
What the Civil Service Law provides is that if a vacancy is filled by promotion, the person holding the position next in rank thereto “shall be considered for promotion.”
In Taduran v. Civil Service Commission (131 SCRA 66 [1984]), the Court construed that phrase to mean that the person next-in-rank “would
be among the first to be considered for the vacancy, if qualified.” In
Santiago, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission (178 SCRA 733 [1989]), the
“One who is next-in-rank is entitled to preferential
consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy but it does not necessarily follow that he and no one else can be appointed. The rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a ministerial duty on the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position x x x”
(Abila v. CSC, 198 SCRA 102, June 3, 1991, En Banc [Feliciano])
205. The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter under R.A. No. 95, as amended. Its charter, however, was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges, etc. With the amendment of its charter, has it been “impliedly converted to a private corporation”?
Held: The TEST to determine whether a corporation is government
owned or controlled, or private in nature is simple. Is it created by
its own charter for the exercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and its employees are under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
The PNRC was not “impliedly converted to a private corporation” simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges, etc. (Camporedondo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129049, Aug. 6, 1999, 1st Div. [Pardo])
206. What is a primarily confidential position? What is the test to determine whether a position is primarily confidential or not?
Held: A PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL POSITION is one which denotes not
only CONFIDENCE in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the
office but primarily CLOSE INTIMACY which ensures freedom from
intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. (De los