Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 95425 – 206 SCRA 621 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – Appointing Power is Discretionary
In 1987, Niceforo Francisco was appointed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner as Chief Revenue Officer III. Florencio Salles, a Revenue Enforcement Officer, opposed the appointment of his new boss on the ground that Francisco is not even an accountant; that he was a mere college graduate. While Salles on the other hand is more qualified because he is a certified public accountant and he has been assigned numerous times as officer in charge in the said position; that he even attended several seminars accredited by the government.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Francisco should be voided in favor of Salles.
HELD: No. The appointing power, in this case the BIR Commissioner, has the discretion who to appoint and who to promote. The final choice of the appointing authority should be respected and left undisturbed. The court should not substitute its own judgment to that of the appointing authority. More specially in this case because apparently, the position of “Chief Revenue Officer III” is not a “Division Head” position. Under the law, only Heads of Divisions are required to be CPAs but not those lower in rank like the position where Francisco was promoted. The position “Chief Revenue Officer III” simply requires a professional career service eligibility.
The Supreme Court notes, 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 examination 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.
