1) This case discusses the appointment of a new police chief in Pasay City after the previous chief passed away. The mayor appointed someone from outside the police force, but the civil service commissioner argued the deputy chief should be promoted instead based on precedent.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that while promoting from within is preferable, the mayor has discretion to appoint anyone qualified through promotion, transfer, reinstatement, or certification. There is no requirement to promote the next in line.
3) As the local executive responsible for law and order, the mayor must be able to appoint people he trusts who are qualified. He is not obligated to promote the deputy chief or provide specific reasons for an outside appointment unless choosing promotion.
1) This case discusses the appointment of a new police chief in Pasay City after the previous chief passed away. The mayor appointed someone from outside the police force, but the civil service commissioner argued the deputy chief should be promoted instead based on precedent.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that while promoting from within is preferable, the mayor has discretion to appoint anyone qualified through promotion, transfer, reinstatement, or certification. There is no requirement to promote the next in line.
3) As the local executive responsible for law and order, the mayor must be able to appoint people he trusts who are qualified. He is not obligated to promote the deputy chief or provide specific reasons for an outside appointment unless choosing promotion.
1) This case discusses the appointment of a new police chief in Pasay City after the previous chief passed away. The mayor appointed someone from outside the police force, but the civil service commissioner argued the deputy chief should be promoted instead based on precedent.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that while promoting from within is preferable, the mayor has discretion to appoint anyone qualified through promotion, transfer, reinstatement, or certification. There is no requirement to promote the next in line.
3) As the local executive responsible for law and order, the mayor must be able to appoint people he trusts who are qualified. He is not obligated to promote the deputy chief or provide specific reasons for an outside appointment unless choosing promotion.
Facts: Upon the death of Col. Mariano Tumaliuan on August 28, 1968, the position of chief of police of Pasay City became vacant. To fill the vacancy, Mayor Jovito Claudio appointed the Francisco Villa, a state prosecutor in the Department of Justice, but the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service Abelardo Subido held the appointment in abeyance until other persons who, in Subido's opinion, had preferential right to appointment have been considered. The Deputy Chief of Police, Basilio Pineda, assailed the appointment of Villa as he claimed that he has preferential rights over Villa because he is next in line, which was supported by the Commissioner. Subido cited a previous ruling by the Supreme Court (Millares vs Subido) and the Civil Service Act to bolster his side. Such case provided the order of priority in filling up the vacancies in local offices: 1. Promotion (next in rank) 2. Transfer (lateral movement) 3. Reinstatement/Reemployment 4. Certification (usually certified outsiders) Subido argued that that in case a promotion is untenable due to special reasons, only then subsequent order of transfer, reinstatement, or certification be followed. He also averred that no special reason by the Mayor was given explaining his preference for Villa over Pineda. Mayor Claudio replied that in his 8 years as an official of Pasay, Pineda et al cannot boast of any improvement they have introduced to lift the sagging inefficiency of the local police organization. The actual members of untrained and undisciplined men still persist Mayor Claudios position was supported by the DOJ Secretary stating that in as far as filling up a vacancy in the police department is concerned, the Police Act of 1966 and applies, which provides that it is within the mayors discretion as to who he should appoint to said office. ISSUE: Whether or not Deputy Chief Pineda, has a preferential right to the said public office. HELD: No. The ruling in the Millares case is not conclusive because such case has different circumstances. It must be clarified though that as far as practicable, in case of a vacancy, the next in line shall be promoted by the appointing authority. But if not, the vacancy may be filled either by transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification not necessarily in that order. There is no rule which states that the mayor must appoint the next in line. It is not his ministerial duty to do so nor is it mandatory. The appointing power can choose whether to appoint by promotion, transfer, reinstatement, or certification. It is necessary for effective public administration that the mayor appoints men of his confidence, provided they are qualified and eligible, who in his best estimation are possessed of the requisite reputation, integrity, knowledgeability, energy and judgment. After all, it is the local executive, more than anyone else, who is primarily responsible for efficient governmental administration in the locality and the effective maintenance of peace and order therein, and is directly answerable to the people who elected him. The Supreme Court also clarified that the only time that an appointing power is required to provide specific reasons on why a next in rank is not appointed is that if the appointing power chose promotion as the method to fill up the vacancy.
2010-01-02 Zernik V Connor (2:08-cv-01550) - Served by US District Court, Central District of California - Minutes, Orders, Judgment As Served On Plaintiff During The Purported Litigation