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

FACTS

Following a reorganization that reduced the number of Harbor Master positions in the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) from three to two, a Placement Committee evaluated the qualifications of three candidates, including petitioner Reynaldo Lopez and private respondent Romeo Luz, Jr. After assessment, PPA General Manager Rogelio Dayan appointed Lopez as Harbor Master for Manila South Harbor, finding him the most outstanding. Luz protested this appointment. The PPA General Manager denied the protest, and Luz appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The CSC initially directed a new comparative assessment, finding prior evaluations defective. The PPA’s reconvened Placement Committee complied, utilizing validated instruments and, due to constraints, engaging a professional psychiatrist-consultant to assess personality traits. The re-evaluation scored Lopez highest. Despite this, the CSC rejected the re-assessment, criticizing the use of a psychiatric consultant and alleging ignored performance data. It then nullified Lopez’s appointment and directed the appointment of Luz instead.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the appointment of petitioner Lopez and substituting its own judgment for that of the appointing authority, the PPA.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CSC resolutions. The Court emphasized that the power of appointment is fundamentally discretionary, residing with the head of the agency concerned. Provided the appointee possesses the required qualifications, as Lopez undisputedly did, the appointing authority’s choice must be respected. The Court cannot review the wisdom of that choice, as it is a political question. The PPA, through its Placement Committee, conducted a thorough and impartial evaluation, transparently disclosing its methodologies and adjustments. The hiring of an independent psychiatrist-consultant demonstrated a commitment to fairness, not partiality.
The CSC gravely abused its discretion by disregarding this evaluation and substituting its own assessment of the candidates’ qualifications. Its role is limited to ensuring appointments comply with legal requirements, not to re-evaluate the comparative merits of candidates when all are qualified. Furthermore, the Court noted a due process violation, as Lopez was not notified of the appeal against his appointment, depriving him of an opportunity to be heard. The PPA’s appointment of Lopez was valid and must be upheld.