Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BENIPAYO
G.R. No. 149036. April 2, 2002, Carpio, J.
FACTS: On Feb 2, 1999, COMELEC en banc appointed Angelina
Matibag as Acting Director IV of the Education and
Information Department (EID). On Feb 15, 2000, Chairperson
Harriet O. Demetriou renewed the appointment of Matibag as
Director IV of EID in a Temporary capacity. On February 15, 2001,
Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier renewed again the appointment of
petitioner to the same position in a Temporary capacity. On March
22, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed, ad interim,
Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as
COMELEC Commissioners each for a term of 7 years. They took
their oath and assumed office. The Office of the President
submitted to the Commission on Appointments on May 22, 2001,
the ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason for
confirmation, but the COA did not act on them. On June 1, 2001,
President Arroyo renewed the ad interim appointments of the three
for the same term. They again took oath, and the Office again
transmitted the appointments to COA, but the Congress adjourned
before COA could act on them. Again on June 8, 2001, President
Macapagal Arroyo renewed again the ad interim appointments of
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason to the same positions.
Benipayo issued a memorandum addressed to Matibag as Director
IV of EID and to Cinco as Director III, designating Cinco as OIC of
the EID and resigning Matibag to the Law Department. Comelec EID
Commissioner Mehol Sadain objected to the reassignment, because
of Benipayo's failure to consult her. Matibag requested Benipayo to
reconsider, in view of the prohibition on the transfer of employees
during election period, but the latter denied the same. Matibag filed
an administrative and criminal complaint with the Law Dept,
alleging violation of the OEC, Comelec Resolution etc. She filed the
instant petition questioning the appointment of Benipayo.
Meanwhile, Arroyo again renewed the appointment of the three.
ISSUE: WON Benipayo's ad interim appointment was a temporary
appointment prohibited by Art. IX-C Section 1(2), and consequently,
was the reassignment of petitioner valid
HELD: NO. An ad interim appointment is a permanent
appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no
longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has
qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent
character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim
than her. But this was denied on the ground that the OMB is given
the discretion, that Roque possesses the minimun qualifications,
and that Rimonte failed to show that Roque is not qualified. He
appealed to CSC, but the same was denied.
committed
GAD
in
upholding
the
MPSB found that both Abila and Eleria possess the minimum
eligibility and requirements, but ruled that Eleria has the edge in
terms of rank and experience as Administrative Officer, and that
Eleria was holding a position next in rank to the vacancy thus she
was "promotional priority" over Abila. Abila appealed to CSC, but
the latter affirmed MPSB's decision. Hence he appealed, claiming
that the CSC having found that they were qualified should not have
proceeded to comparing the parties' qualifications, as the
appointing power is vested in the City Mayor. The QC government
also filed a similar petition.
ISSUE: WON the CSC has the authority to substitute its own
judgment for that of the official authorized by law to make the
appointment.
HELD: NO. CSC has no such authority, the power of appointment,
which is essentially discretionary, being vested by law in the head
of the office concerned. The head of the office is the person on the
spot. He occupies the ideal vantage point from which to identify
and designate the individual who can best fill the post and
discharge its functions in the government agency he heads. 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
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.
CSC is NOT a co-manager or surrogate administrator of
government offices and agencies.
Here, the CSC, having already determined that both are legally
qualified for the position, may not act any further except to
affirm the validity of petitioner's appointment. CSC's act was an
encroachment on the discretionary authority vested by law in the
CITY Mayor.
The NEXT-IN-RANK rule invoked by CSC to justify its choice of
ELERIA applies only where a vacancy is filled by PROMOTION (a
process which denotes a scalar ascent of an officer to another
position higher either in rank or salary). And even in cases of
promotion, the rule is not absolute, as it may be disregarded for
sound reasons (not mandatory/not a VESTED RIGHT, but may be
considered). Here, what was involved was NOT promotion, but a
LATERAL TRANSFER from a position of one department to another.
leave, they were held liable for violation of reasonable office rules
and regulations for which the penalty is a reprimand.