G.R. No. 97794 May 13, 1994
GAGA G. MAUNA, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and CRISTETO J. LIMBACO, respondents.

FACTS

On November 16, 1987, COMELEC Chairman Ramon H. Felipe, Jr. appointed petitioner Gaga G. Mauna as Chief Election Officer of the Precincts and Voting Centers Division of the Election and Barangay Affairs Department (EBAD). The Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved this appointment. On December 28, 1987, private respondent Cristeto J. Limbaco, the incumbent Assistant Chief Election Officer, filed a protest against the appointment before the COMELEC, arguing he was more qualified, next-in-rank, and more senior. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the protest, stating the choice of appointee was a political question within the appointing authority’s discretion. Limbaco appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the CSC. The MSPB, on February 14, 1990, revoked Mauna’s appointment and directed the COMELEC Chairman to appoint Limbaco instead. Mauna’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Mauna then appealed to the CSC, but the CSC dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time and denied her motion for reconsideration. Mauna filed the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment of petitioner Mauna and ordering the appointment of private respondent Limbaco in her place.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the MSPB and the resolutions of the CSC. The Court ruled that the power of appointment is essentially discretionary and lies with the appointing authority. The CSC’s role is limited to approving or disapproving an appointment based on whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or required qualifications. Once it is determined that the appointee is qualified, the CSC becomes functus officio and cannot revoke the appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified or to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Luego vs. Civil Service Commission, which holds that the choice among qualified candidates is a political question for the appointing power. Since both Mauna and Limbaco were qualified, the COMELEC Chairman’s discretion in appointing Mauna should not have been interfered with. The Court also noted that the CSC’s dismissal of Mauna’s appeal on technical grounds (being filed out of time) was too rigid, as rules of procedure should not be applied strictly when they frustrate substantive justice.