RE: CSC IN CONTEMPT PURUSANT TO LUEGO AND LAPINID CASES

In Luego v. CSC, we learned that when the appointee is qualified and authorizing the other
legal requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to attest to the appointment in
accordance with the Civil Service Laws. However, the CSC still after that decision, in a long line of
cases1, still arrogated upon itself the exercise of such power. That is why in Lapinid vs. CSC, the
Court, in very strong language decreed that the Civil Service Commission is ORDERED to desist
from disregarding the doctrine announced in Luego and the departure from the mandate of Luego
shall be considered contempt of this Court and shall be dealt with severely.

The court dealt with a similar issue in Abila v. Civil Service Commission promulgated after
Lapinid, on June 3, 1991, but the court said that Because the precipitating events in the case at
bar occurred before the promulgation of Lapinid, the Court refrains from taking any action against
respondent Commission.

Finally, in Guieb vs. Civil Service Commission promulgated February 4, 1994, the court
reprimanded the Commission accordingly. In its dispositive the court said that the respondent
Commission is, hereby, reprimanded for its continuing defiance of the rulings of this Court beginning
with Luego, supra. Its repetition will invite a more severe sanction to the members of the
respondent Commission in their personal capacities.

This case concerns the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture where Guieb was
appointed to the position of Administrative Officer I, Department of Agriculture, Region VI.

This caused a protest with DA-Reorganization Appeals Board by Marcalinas. Despite the
protest still pending with the DA-Reorganization appeals board, she filed a protest with the CSC.
CSC found her protest meritorious and ruled her appointment as Admin officer I in DA Region VI
while Guieb was to return to Region XI to assume a position similar or comparable to her old one.
To which Guieb filed the present petition.

In resolving WON CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in appointing Marcalinas, the court ruled in the Affirmative. Citing the previous cases of Luego, and
Lapinid, that the power of the CSC to approve all appointments in Sec 9(h) of the then Civil
Service Decree, does not actually mean the CSC is the appointing power, and that a full reading
of the provision, will make it clear that all the Commission is actually allowed to do is check whether
or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualifications.
If he does, his appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved. No other criterion is permitted by
law to be employed by the Commission when it acts on or as the Decree says, "approves" or
"disapproves" an appointment made by the proper authorities.

The court in very clear and imperative language said that such action of the CSC and its
stubborn refusal to submit to the rulings of this Court in light of our prior warning in Lapinid, supra,
appears nothing less than contumacy. But more than contumacy, the arrogance of trifling with the
pronouncements of this court by an agency of government itself cannot but weaken the rule of law.

1
The Court, in Lapinid v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 96298, 14 May 1991, collected most of these cases. Additional cases
include: Cortez v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 92673, 13 March 1991; Lopez v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 92140,19
February 1991, p. 9; G.R. No. 94465, 27 November 1990, p. 2; Chang v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 86791, 26 November
1990, p. 5; Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 140 SCRA 32, 35 (1985); Ocampo v. Subido, 72
SCRA 443, 451 (1976); Torres v. Borja, 56 SCRA 47, 55 (1974); Reyes v. Abeleda, 22 SCRA 825, 830 (1968).