7/27/2019 pub off case 2 n 3
1/2
Case: Panis vs. Civil Service Commission
Doctrine: An appointment, whether to a vacancy or to a newly
created position, is essentiallywithin the discretionary power of
whomsoever it is vested
Facts:
The CCMC, formerly known as the Cebu City Hospital, is operated
and maintained by the localgovernment of Cebu City. Petitioner was
employed as Administrative Officer of the Hospital,while private
respondent was Administrative Officer of the City Health Department
detailed atthe said hospital.On November 9, 1987, the Mayor of Cebu
City appointed private respondent to the position of
Assistant Chief of Hospital for Administration of CCMC.
Petitioner, a candidate for the saidposition, promptly protested
the appointment before the Regional Office of the Civil
ServiceCommission (CSC). The CSC Regional Office, however, indorsed
the matter to the Office of theCity Mayor, which in turn referred
it to the Office of the City Attorney.In a decision dated July 26,
1988, the City Attorney, with the approval of the City Mayor,
dismissed petitioner's protest and upheld the appointment of
private respondent. This dismissalwas affirmed by the CSC Regional
Office and later on appeal, by respondent CSC.
Issue: Whether or not the appointment of private respondent was
proper?
Held: Yes
Ordinance No. 1216, passed by the Cebu City Sangguniang
Panglunsod on June 17, 1986,amended the charter of the Cebu City
Hospital for the purpose of correcting the deficiencies
andimproving the performance of said institution. The hospital's
name was changed to CCMC, andthe departments and offices therein
were reorganized. The Office of Hospital Administrator wascreated
and granted such powers as were deemed in line with the objectives
of the Ordinance.
Both candidates possess the minimum qualifications for the
position. The determination,however, who among the qualified
candidates should be preferred belongs to the appointingauthority.
The Mayor of Cebu City, in the instant case, chose to appoint
private respondent.
The argument that petitioner should have been the one appointed
because he was next in rankto the contested position and that he
had been with CCMC since 1961 as compared to privaterespondent, who
joined the hospital in 1986 and only on detail, cannot be upheld.
The "next inrank" rule specifically applies only in cases of
promotion. The instant controversy, however,involves a new office
and a position created in the course of a valid reorganization.
Under thelaw, a vacancy not filled by promotion may be filled by
transfer of present employees in thegovernment service, by
reinstatement, by reemployment of those separated from the
service,
and appointment of outsiders who have appropriate civil service
eligibility, but not necessarily inthis order
An appointment, whether to a vacancy or to a newly created
position, is essentially within thediscretionary power of
whomsoever it is vested. Once a candidate possesses the
minimumqualities required by law, sufficient discretion, if not
plenary, is granted to the appointingauthority.
Case: Castaneda vs. Yap, 91 Phil. 819
7/27/2019 pub off case 2 n 3
2/2
Doctrine: The requirement that a candidate for public office
possess certain age is based onpublic policy
Facts:This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac in the above-entitled
case, "declaring that the respondent Jose V. Yap was ineligible
to be voted as municipal mayorfor the municipality of Victoria,
Tarlac, on November 13, 1951," and enjoining him fromassuming
office. The court found that Yap was born on January 16, 1929,
hence was less than23 years of age when proclaimed elected
Respondent alleged that petitioner was estopped for having
knowledge of such allegedineligibility and failing to question the
eligibility before or during the election
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is estopped from questioning
respondents ineligibility
Held: No
Even if appellant had pleaded estoppel, the plea would not hold;
for the right to an electiveprovincial or municipal office can be
contested, under existing legislation, only afterproclamation.
The requirement that a candidate for public office possess
certain age is based on public policy.No specific damage or harm
need be shown. And as to plaintiff's right to question
defendant'squalification to be voted, it suffices to point to
Section 173 of the Revised Election Code(Republic Act No. 180),
which provides that, "When a person who is not eligible is elected
to aprovincial or municipal office, his right to the office may be
contested by any registeredcandidate for the same office before the
Court of First Instance of the province, within one weekafter the
proclamation of his election, by filing a petition forquo
warranto."
