G.R. No.

Case Title

Issue/Doctrine/Pri
nciple

SC Ruling

G.R. No.
L-49677

TRADE
UNIONS
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
AND
ALLIED
SERVICES,
petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL
HOUSING
CORPORATIO
N and ATTY.
VIRGILIO SY,
as Officer-inCharge of the
Bureau
of
Labor
Relations,
respondents.

Whether or not the

employees of NHC have
the right to form union

The court held that the workers or

employees of NHC undoubtedly have the
right to form unions or employees'
organizations. The right to unionize or to
form organizations is now explicitly
recognized and granted to employees in
both the governmental and the private
sectors. The right to unionize is recognized
in Paragraph (5), Section 2, Article IX B
which provides that "(t)he right to selforganization shall not be denied to
government employees."
The government is in a sense the
repository of the national sovereignty and,
in that respect, it must be held in
reverence if not in awe. It symbolizes the
unity of the nation, but it does perform a
mundane task as well. It is an employer in
every sense of the word except that terms
and conditions of work are set forth
through a Civil Service Commission.
Generally, formed unions do not bargain for
wages because these are fixed in the
budget but they do acquire a forum where,
among other things, professional and selfdevelopment is (sic) promoted and
encouraged. They also act as watchdogs of
their own bosses so that when graft and
corruption is committed, generally, it is the
unions who are no longer afraid by virtue of
the armor of self-organization that become
the public's own allies for detecting graft
and corruption and for exposing it.

G.R. NO.
L-69137

FELIMON
LUEGO,
petitionerappellant,
vs.
CIVIL
SERVICE
COMMISSION
and FELICULA
TUOZO,
respondentsappellees.

Whether or not the

Civil
Service
Commission
is
authorized
to
disapprove
a
permanent
appointment on the
ground that another
person
is
better
qualified
than
the
appointee and, on the
basis of this finding,
order his replacement
by the latter

The Supreme Court ruled in the

negative. The Civil Service Commission is
not empowered to determine the kind or
nature of the appointment extended by the
appointing officer, its authority being
limited to approving or reviewing the
appointment
in
the
light
of
the
requirements of the Civil Service Law.
When the appointee is qualified and the
other legal requirements are satisfied, the
Commission has no choice but to attest to
the appointment in accordance with the
Civil Service Laws. Indeed, the approval is
more appropriately called an attestation;
such attestation is required of the
Commissioner of Civil Service merely as a
check to assure compliance with Civil

Service Laws. Hence, the Civil Service

Commissions resolution is set aside.
*** Appointment is an essentially
discretionary
power
and
must
be
performed by the officer in which it is
vested according to his best lights, the only
condition being that the appointee should
possess the qualifications required by law.
If he does, then the appointment cannot be
faulted on the ground that there are others
better qualified who should have been
preferred. This is a political question
involving considerations of wisdom which
only the appointing authority can decide.