ALEX A. ABILA, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and FLORENTINA E. ELERIA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 92573
- Promulgated: 1991-06-03
- Ponente: Feliciano, J.
Doctrine
An issue is whether the Civil Service Commission may replace the appointing officer's judgment on an appointee's qualifications and fitness once minimum statutory qualifications are shown.
Personnel Policies and Standards (Section 19) guide recruitment and selection, emphasizing consideration of qualified employees occupying next lower positions for promotion.
Facts
Petitioners sought relief against resolutions of the Civil Service Commission and obtained a temporary restraining order which was later made permanent by the Court.
The core controversy concerned appointment decisions and whether the Commission could substitute its judgment for the appointing official's choice after minimum qualifications were shown.
The case was heard and resolved by the Court en banc, with multiple justices concurring in the resolution.
Issues
Whether the Civil Service Commission has authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing official in assessing an appointee's qualifications and fitness after minimum qualifications are established.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition for certiorari, treated respondents' comments as answers, annulled and set aside CSC Resolutions Nos. 89-869 and 90-240, and made permanent the temporary restraining order dated 19 April 1990.
Multiple justices concurred in the resolution.
Keywords
G.R. No. 92573, G.R. No. 92867, Civil Service Commission, power of appointment, discretionary act, appointing authority, political question, Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 83-343, promotion, next-in-rank rule, mandamus, certiorari, Lapinid vs. Civil Service Commission, Chang v. Civil Service Commission, Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission, Administrative Officer IV, Administrative Officer III, temporary restraining order, validity of appointment, minimum qualifications