REYNALDO D.

LOPEZ, petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and ROMEO V. LUZ, JR.
G.R. No. 92140 February 19, 1991


FACTS: Petitioner Lopez, along with private respondent Romeo V. Luz, Jr. and Roberto Abellana,
was appointed as Assistant Harbor Master at Manila International Container Terminal, Manila South
Harbor and Manila North Harbor, respectively. A law was passed wherein the DOTC was
reorganized, and the number of Assistant Harbor Master in the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) was
reduced from (3) three to (2) two. After a careful evaluation of a placement committee of the PPA,
Luz was rated third.

Luz protested/appealed the appointment of Lopez, but the PPA General Manager said Luz was not
qualified for the two slots. Luz then appealed to the CSC. The CSC ordered for a re-assessment
which the PPA complied. Still, the CSC found that the re-assessment was not in order. It ruled that
the immediate supervisor of respondent Luz was in the best position to assess the competence of
the respondent and not a psychiatric-consultant who was merely a contractual employee and
susceptible to partiality. It directed the appointment of Luz as the Harbor Master instead of the
petitioner Hence, the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC erred in nullifying Lopez appointment and instead substituting its
decision for that of the PPA.

RULING: The role of the Civil Service Commission in establishing a career service and in promoting
the morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, and courtesy among civil servants is not disputed
by petitioner Lopez. On the other hand, the discretionary power of appointment delegated to the
heads of departments or agencies of the government is not controverted by the respondents. In the
appointment, placement and promotion of civil service employees according to merit and fitness, it is
the appointing power, especially where it is assisted by a screening committee composed of persons
who are in the best position to screen the qualifications of the nominees, who should decide on the
integrity, performance and capabilities of the future appointees.

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. To go beyond this would be to
set at naught the discretionary power of the appointing authority and to give to the Commission a
task which the law (Sec. 6, Rep. Act No. 6656) does not confer. This does not mean that the
Commission's act of approving or disapproving becomes ministerial.

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.

Petition is GRANTED.