This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On December 7, 2012, Aquino sought reconsideration[15] of the COMELEC's October 19, 2012 resolution. He argued that what he directed when he issued the order was only a reassignment, not a transfer, which is not covered by the transfer ban. In this regard, he pointed to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2005, and the Court's ruling in Tapispisan v. Court of Appeals[16] to support his position. | |||||
|
2009-06-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| An appointment to a public office is the unequivocal act of designating or selecting, by one having the authority, an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust.[20] In the appointment or promotion of employees, the appointing authority considers not only their civil service eligibilities but also their performance, education, work experience, trainings and seminars attended, agency examinations and seniority. Consequently, the appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his best judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. The final choice of the appointing authority should be respected and left undisturbed. Judges should not substitute their judgment for that of the appointing authority.[21] Sufficient, if not plenary, discretion should be granted to those entrusted with the responsibility of administering the offices concerned. They are in a position to determine who can best perform the functions of the office vacated. Not only is the appointing authority the officer primarily responsible for the administration of the office, he is also in the best position to determine who among the prospective appointees can effectively discharge the functions of the position.[22] | |||||