This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR.,respondents.
competitive examination, or based highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of tenure; WHEREAS, Section 8 (c), Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the administrative Code of 1987 provides that "The third level shall cover Positions in the Career Executive Service"; WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes the imperative need to consolidate, integrate and unify the administration of all levels of positions in the career service. WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 17, Title I, Subtitle A. Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 confers on the Commission the power and authority to effect changes in its organization as the need arises. WHEREAS, Section 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that the Civil Service Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and the necessary implications thereof; NOW THEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Civil Service Commission hereby resolves to streamline reorganize and effect changes in its organizational structure. Pursuant thereto, the Career Executive Service Board, shall now be known as the Office for Career Executive Service of the Civil Service Commission. Accordingly, the existing personnel, budget, properties and equipment of the Career Executive Service Board shall now form part of the Office for Career Executive Service. The above resolution became an impediment. to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service Officer, Rank IV. In a letter to petitioner, dated June 7, 1994, the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chief Presidential legal Counsel, stated: xxx xxx xxx On 1 October 1993 the Civil Service Commission issued CSC Resolution No. 93-4359 which abolished the Career Executive Service Board. Several legal issues have arisen as a result of the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 934359, including whether the Civil Service Commission has authority to abolish the
PUNO, J.: The power of the Civil Service Commission to abolish the Career Executive Service Board is challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. First the facts. Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute. She applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank on August 2, 1993, she was given a CES eligibility. On September 15, 1993, she was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the Career Executive Service Board. 1 All was not to turn well for petitioner. On October 1, 1993, respondent Civil Service Commission 2 passed Resolution No. 93-4359, viz: RESOLUTION NO. 93-4359 WHEREAS, Section 1(1) of Article IX-B provides that Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission, . . .; WHEREAS, Section 3, Article IX-B of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that "The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, is mandated to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progresiveness and courtesy in the civil service, . . ."; WHEREAS, Section 12 (1), Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 grants the Commission the power, among others, to administer and enforce the constitutional and statutory provisions on the merit system for all levels and ranks in the Civil Service; WHEREAS, Section 7, Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 Provides, among others, that The Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by
Career Executive Service Board. Because these issues remain unresolved, the Office of the President has refrained from considering appointments of career service eligibles to career executive ranks. xxx xxx xxx You may, however, bring a case before the appropriate court to settle the legal issues arising from issuance by the Civil Service Commission of CSC Resolution No. 934359, for guidance of all concerned. Thank You. Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career Executive Service Board which recommended her CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed the petition at bench to annul, among others, resolution No. 93-4359. The petition is anchored on the following arguments: A. IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, RESPONDENT COMMISSION USURPED THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS WHEN IT ABOLISHED THE CESB, AN OFFICE CREATED BY LAW, THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CSC: RESOLUTION NO. 93-4359; B. ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, RESPONDENT CSC USURPED THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS WHEN IT ILLEGALLY AUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC MONEY, THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CSC RESOLUTION NO. 93-4359. Required to file its Comment, the Solicitor General agreed with the contentions of petitioner. Respondent Commission, however, chose to defend its ground. It posited the following position: ARGUMENTS FOR PUBLIC RESPONDENTCSC I. THE INSTANT PETITION STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT-CSC. II. THE RECOMMENDATION SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CESO RANK OF PETITIONER EUGENIO WAS A VALID ACT OF THE
CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DEFECT. III. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CESB IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER EUGENIO SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED TO CESO RANK FOUR (4) OFFICIALS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS SAID PETITIONER. FURTHERMORE, LACK OF MEMBERS TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. ASSUMING THERE WAS NO QUORUM, IS NOT THE FAULT OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BUT OF THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CESB. IV. THE INTEGRATION OF THE CESB INTO THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW (Sec. 12 (1), Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of the 1987). THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN SETTLED WHEN THE HONORABLE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION FILED BY THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, NAMELY: SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., RENATO V. DIAZ, AND MANUEL M. GARCIA IN G.R. NO. 114380. THE AFOREMENTIONED PETITIONERS ALSO QUESTIONED THE INTEGRATION OF THE CESB WITH THE COMMISSION. We find merit in the petition. 3 The controlling fact is that the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was created in the Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 1974 4 which adopted the Integrated Plan. Article IV, Chapter I, Part of the III of the said Plan provides: Article IV — Career Executive Service 1. A Career Executive Service is created to form a continuing pool of well-selected and development oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service. 2. A Career Executive Service hereinafter referred to in this Chapter as the Board, is created to serve as the governing body of the Career Executive Service. The Board shall consist of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as presiding officer,
or convenient. But as well pointed out by petitioner and the Solicitor General. the legislative department has the discretion to determine whether additional offices shall be created. Respondent Commission. Chapter 3. and the legislature may decide for itself what offices are suitable. that as the CESB was created by law. invokes Section 17. and perform such other functions as may be assigned by the Commission. with a Deputy Executive Director shall implement policies. it supreme. and provide fiscal and budgetary services. the legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB. (Emphasis supplied) It cannot be disputed. therefore. (6) The Office of Central Personnel Records shall formulate and implement . Offices in the Commission. (4) The Office of Planning and Management shall formulate development plans. Title I. the creation of public offices is primarily a legislative function. 17. 5 viz: Except for such offices as are created by the Constitution. (5) The Central Administrative Office shall provide the Commission with personnel. Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish the CESB. This follows an unbroken stream of rulings that the creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function. Organizational Structure. As aptly summed up in AM JUR 2d on Public Officers and Employees. The Board shall promulgate rules. When in the exigencies of government it is necessary to create and define duties. In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not restricted by constitutional provisions. rules and regulations. standards. xxx xxx xxx 5. it can only be abolished by the legislature. abolish the office. viz: Sec. classification. and if it sees fit. in all the General Appropriations Acts from 1975 to 1993. An office created by the legislature is wholly within the power of that body. In the petition at bench. however. prepare opinions and ruling in the interpretation and application of the Civil Service law. the Commission may effect changes in the organization as the need arises. rules and regulations. logistics and other basic support services. administer management improvement programs. rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission. compensation and career development of members of the Career Executive Service. coordinate the programs of the offices of the Commission and render periodic reports on their operations. Section 17 provides: Sec. prosecute violations of such law. — The Commission shall have the following offices: (1) The Office of the Executive Director headed by an Executive Director. On the contrary.the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of the Budget as exofficio members and two other members from the private sector and/or the academic community who are familiar with the principles and methods of personnel administration. 16. financial. programs and projects. the legislature has set aside funds for the operation of CESB. (2) The Merit System Protection Board composed of a Chairman and two (2) members shall have the following functions: xxx xxx xxx (3) The Office of Legal Affairs shall provide the Chairman with legal advice and assistance. Subtitle A. or whether these duties shall be attached to and become exofficio duties of existing offices. Section 17 must be read together with Section 16 of the said Code which enumerates the offices under the respondent Commission. undertake research and studies on the different aspects of public personnel management. undertake legal studies and researches. render counselling services. and represent the Commission before any court or tribunal. necessary. standards and procedures on the selection. and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent. and may have such divisions as are necessary independent constitutional body. The Board shall set up the organization and operation of the service. — Each office of the Commission shall be headed by a Director with at least one Assistant Director.
Examination and Placement shall provide leadership and assistance in developing and implementing the overall Commission programs relating to recruitment. standards. rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the Commission's examination and placement programs. standards. rules and regulations for the effective conduct or inspection and audit personnel and personnel management programs and the exercise of delegated authority. control and disposal. standards. Book IV of the aforecited Code. the CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity. employee welfare and benefit. (11) The Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit shall develop policies. each to be headed by an official with at least the rank of an Assistant Director. placement. to wit: . formulate standards for training and staff development.policies. rules and regulations pertaining to personnel records maintenance. (13) The Office of Corporate Affairs shall formulate and implement policies. — The Commission shall have not less than thirteen (13) Regional offices each to be headed by a Director. (10) The Office of Human Resource Development shall provide leadership and assistance in the development and retention of qualified and efficient work force in the Civil Service. supra. rules and regulations governing corporate officials and employees in the areas of recruitment. merit and awards systems. security." This is clearly etched out in Section 38(3). coordinate and integrate all training activities and evaluate training programs. provide technical and advisory services to Civil Service Regional Offices and government agencies in the implementation of their personnel programs and evaluation systems. rules and regulations in the accreditation of employee associations or organizations and in the adjustment and settlement of employee grievances and management of employee disputes. (8) The Office of Recruitment. Under the Administrative Code of 1987." 6 The essential autonomous character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to respondent Commission. standards. relative to retirement and the regulation for the effective implementation of the retirement of government officials and employees. career development. As conceptualized by the Reorganization Committee "the CESB shall be autonomous. the inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission's power to reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16. standards. position classification and compensation. (12) The Office of Personnel Relations shall provide leadership and assistance in the development and implementation of policies. (15) The Regional and Field Offices. administer service-wide scholarship programs. and provide and maintain library services. It is expected to view the problem of building up executive manpower in the government with a broad and positive outlook. develop training literature and materials. Chapter 7. examination. and such field offices as may be needed. (7) The Office of Position Classification and Compensation shall formulate and implement policies. performing appraisal. standards. and employee incentive benefit and awards. CESB was not made to fall within the control of respondent Commission. rules and regulations relative to the administration of position classification and compensation. From its inception. and formulate policies. As read together. discipline and other aspects of personnel management on the basis of comparable industry practices. the purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is to attain "policy and program coordination. albeit administratively attached to respondent Commission. (14) The Office of Retirement Administration shall be responsible for the enforcement of the constitutional and statutory provisions. execution and placement. provide storage and extension services. (9) The Office of Career Systems and Standards shall provide leadership and assistance in the formulation and evaluation of personnel systems and standards relative to performance appraisal. By said attachment. merit promotion.
The coordination may be accomplished by having the department represented in the governing board of the attached agency or corporation. vs. 93-4359 of the respondent Commission is hereby annulled and set aside. No. No costs.. either as chairman or as a member. SO ORDERED. Suffice to state that the reliance is misplaced considering that the cited case was dismissed for lack of standing of the petitioner. and having the department or its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in the board. et al. Civil Service Commission.(3) Attachment. R. — (a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its equivalent and attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination. the petition is granted and Resolution No. . with or without voting rights. Respondent Commission also relies on the case of Datumanong. G. having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and projects. 114380 where the petition assailing the abolition of the CESB was dismissed for lack of cause of action. if this is permitted by the charter. which shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or agency. hence. IN VIEW WHEREOF. the lack of cause of action.
requested that he be furnished with copies of the documents submitted by complainants in support of the charges against him. Before the MSPB could render a decision. i. the MSPB on 15 January 1992 formally charged Rubenecia and required him to file an answer with the CSC Regional Office in Tacloban City. but filed no answer. and (2) Whether or not petitioner had been accorded due process in connection with rendition of CSC Resolution No. for dishonesty. Two (2) principal issues are raised in this Petition for Certiorari: (1) Whether or not the CSC had authority to issue its Resolution No. 1995 RUBLE RUBENECIA. The motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution of the Commission on 31 May 1994. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. the Commission issued on 29 June 1993 Resolution No. No. Teachers of Catarman National High School in Catarman. among other things. 93-2387 and assume jurisdiction over the administrative case against petitioner. 93-2387 dated 29 June 1993. vs.R. The Commission. instead of filing an answer. took over the case against petitioner and on 25 January 1994. The CSC reiterated on 10 June 1992 its order to Rubenecia to file his answer. the School Principal. In turn. 93-2387 was invalid. In an order issued on the same day. one of the powers and functions of the Commission provided for in Section 12 (11) of Book V of the Administrative FELICIANO.. him be dismissed and attaching to that letter many documents in support of his claim of innocence. 115942 May 31. Resolution No. 1 On 15 May 1992. praying that the case against . nepotism. On 28 September 1992. Rubenecia requested that his visit to the CSC Regional Office be deferred because of alleged problems in his school relating to the enrollment period. 20 August 1992. which allegedly abolished the Merit System Protection Board ("MSPB") and authorized the elevation of cases pending before that body to the Commission. dated 25 January 1994. that cases then pending before the MSPB were to be elevated to the Commission for decision. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. did not take place as the complainants did not there show up.G. and that Resolution No. 93-2387 was accordingly an ultra vires act on the part of the Commission. petitioner. This hearing. 940533. On 25 August 1992. 93-2387 reads in full: WHEREAS. After a preliminary inquiry. however. J. petitioner Rubenecia. 93-2387 which provided. Although petitioner did not file his answer. asserting lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commission and attaching most if not all of the same documents he had annexed to his letter-answer to support his assertion of innocence. cutting of red tape and elimination of unnecessary bureaucratic layer. The Regional Office had then just received the records of the case transmitted by the MSPB. 94-0533 finding him guilty and ordering his dismissal from the service.: Petitioner Ruble Rubenecia assails Civil Service Commission ("CSC" or "Commission") Resolution No. Rubenecia wrote to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. accordingly. MSPB. the Regional Director submitted an investigation report to the Chairman. it could be abolished only by law. 94-0533 finding petitioner guilty and ordering his dismissal from the service. respondent. the CSC Regional Director assigned to investigate the case invited Rubenecia to the Regional Office and there identify and pick up the documents he desired. Petitioner Rubenecia appeared at that hearing. I In respect of the first issue. He also questions the validity of CSC Resolution No. petitioner Rubenecia contends that the Commission had no jurisdiction to take over the administrative case against him from the MSPB for the reason that CSC Resolution No. On 24 February 1992. Northern Samar. the Regional Office declared that the case was deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the documents theretofore filed. The argument of the petitioner is that since the MSPB was a creation of law. the Regional Director set the case for hearing on 20 August 1992. filed before the MSPB an administrative complaint against petitioner Rubenecia. the Civil Service Commission recognizes the government-wide call and the need for streamlining of operations which requires implification of systems. rendered its Resolution No. aquitting him of a charge of insubordination but finding him guilty of several other administrative charges and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service. WHEREAS. petitioner through counsel in a letter dated 9 July 1992.e. oppression and violation of Civil Service Rules. In response. reiterated his request that the CSC Regional Office furnish him copies of the documents submitted in connection with the charges against him.
demotion in rank or salary or transfer removal or dismissal from office. Ereneta. including contested appointments and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attach to it. WHEREAS. This Resolution shall take effect on 1 July 1993 and the new procedure shall remain effective until rescinded by the Commission in another resolution. WHEREAS. and 2.an office of the Commission. Adopted this 29th day of June 1993. has the function to hear and decide administrative cases involving officials and employees of the civil service concurrently with the Commission. Parties in administrative cases pending before the MSPB shall be notified in writing that their respective cases have already been elevated to the Commission for final resolution. pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 which authorizes the Commission. Thelma P. the existing procedure wherein most administrative cases are first reviewed by the MSPB before they are elevated to the Commission makes it difficult for these cases to be finally resolved within a short period of time. most decisions on administrative cases rendered by the MSPB are later appealed to the Commission for review and final resolution. Tomas Chairman Ramon P. No. Section 47 (1) of Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 specifically provides that theCommission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of penalty of suspension for more that thirty days. the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). 1. NOW. Section 1 of which . WHEREAS. They shall have 15 days from receipt of notice to submit their comments on or objections to the new procedures. THEREFORE. Gaminde Commissioner Commissioner Juanito Demetrio Board Secretary VI (Emphasis supplied) The Merit System Protection Board was originally created by P. the Commission Resolves as it is hereby Resolved to effect the following changes. shall now be elevated to the Commission for final resolution. dated 8 June 1978. or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary. Decisions and administrative cases involving the officials and employees of the Civil Service including contested appointments which have already been appealed to the MSPB and other pending administrative cases brought directly before the MSPB.Code of 1987 is to hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal. WHEREAS. Jr. as an independent constitutional body.D. under Section 16 (2) of Book V of the Code. WHEREAS. Decisions in administrative cases involving officials and employees of the civil serviceappealable to the Commission pursuant to Section 47 of Book V of the Code including personnel actions such as contested appointments shall now be appealed directly to the Commission and not to the MSPB. Patricia A. 1409. to effect changes in its organization as the need arises. Sto. the present situation requires immediate streamlining of the operation of the Civil Service Commission to achieve as speedier delivery of administrative justice and economical operation without impairing due process and the substantive rights of the parties in administrative cases.
(3) Hear and decide complaints of civil service employees regarding malpractices of other officials and employees. as well as complaints against any officers in the government arising from abuses arising from personnel actions of these officers or from violation of the merit system. 1409 had "created in the Civil Service Commission [the] Merit Systems Board.D. and such other complains which required direct action of the Board in the interest of justice.D. reassignment and other personnel actions." all other decisions of the Board were also subject to appeal to the Commission. The decision of the Board shall be final except those involving division chiefs or officials of higher ranks which may be appealed to the Commission. 1409 in the following terms: Sec. (2) Hear and decide cases brought before it by officers and employees who feel aggrieved by the determination of appointing authorities involving appointment promotion." Section 16 of the present Civil Service Law found in the 1987 Administrative Code followed the same line and re-created the Merit Systems Board as an office of the Commission and gave it a new name: "Merit System Protection Board. 5." The Board was composed of "a commissioner and two (2) associate commissioners" appointed by the CSC. 16. issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. among others: (1) Hear and decide administrative cases involving officers and employees of the civil service. The Board shall have the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the rules of court under the same procedure with the same penalties provided therein. Its decision shall be final except those involving dismissal or separation from the service which may be appealed to the Commission. (4) Promulgate. and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry. The Commission shall have the following offices: (1) The Office of the Executive Director .said: "There is hereby created in the Civil Service Commission a Merit Systems Board. subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission. transfer. . detail. 2 The powers and functions of this Board were set out in Section 5 of P. in pertinent part: Sec. . rules and regulations to carry out the functions of the Board. Offices in the Commission. (5) Administer oaths." Section 16 of the present Civil Service Law reads as follows. No. (6) Perform such other functions as may be assigned by the Civil Service Commission. (b) Hear and decide cases brought before it on appeal by officials and employees who feel aggrieved by the determination of appointing authorities involving personnel actions and violations of the merit system. those which are unacted upon by the agencies. 3 As noted. — The Board shall have the following powers and functions. Powers and Functions of the Board. P. No. (2) The Merit System Protection Board composed of a Chairman and two (2) members which have the following functions: (a) Hear and decide on appeal administrative cases involving officials and employees of the Civil Service. . (c) Directly take cognizance of complaints affecting functions of the Commission. xxx xxx xxx Decisions of the Board involving removal of officers and employees from the service were "subject to automatic review by the Commission.
cases filed originally with the MSPB could also be filed directly with the Commission itself under Section 12 (11) of the Civil Service Law. (3) The Office of Legal Affairs . 93-2387 did not purport to abolish the MSPB nor to effect the termination of the relationship of public employment between the Commission and any of its officers or employees. InFernandez and De Lima v. . 932387. 93-2387 consisted basically of the following: decision in administrative cases appealable to the Commission pursuant to Section 47 of the present Civil Service Law may now be appealed directly to the Commission itself and not to the MSPB. re-allocated to the Commission itself. 17. 4 the Court invalidated a CSC Resolution which had transferred the Career Executive Service Board to the Office for Career Executive Service of the CSC precisely because the Career Executive Service Board was an autonomous entity created by a special law and attached. (Emphasis supplied). and so forth. 943710 of the Civil Service which effected certain changes in the internal organization and structure of the Commission. a part of the internal structure and organization of the Commission and thus a proper subject of organizational change which the Commission is authorized to undertake under Section 17 of the present Civil Service Law: Sec. We note also that Resolution No. etc. It was this apparent duplication or layering of functions within the Commission that the Commission sought to rationalize and eliminate by enacting Resolution No. in other words. even if Resolution No. and (e) Promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the functions of the Board subject to the approval of the Commission.(d) Administer oaths. the MSPB. Tomas. in other words. . Administrative cases already pending on appeal before the MSPB or previously brought directly to the MSPB. were required to be elevated to the Commission for final resolution.e. petitioner Rubenecia. the MSPB was not an autonomous entity created by law and merely attached for administrative purposes to the Civil Service Commission.." The previous procedure made it difficult for cases to be finally resolved within a reasonable period of time. to the Civil Service Commission. the Chairman and the two  Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission). must take.. and thereafter a second appeal to the Civil Service Commission itself ( i. The change. that is. Civil Service Commission. for administrative purposes only.. We consider that petitioner Rubenecia had no vested right to a two-step administrative appeal procedure within the Commission. — Each office of the Commission shall be headed by a Director with at least one (1) Assistant Director. 93-2387 had purported to do so. therefore. . was moved by the quite legitimate objective of simplifying the course that administrative disciplinary cases. At the same time. It is essential to note that none of the "changes in organization" introduced by . The Court said: We consider that Resolution No. and may have such divisions as are necessary to carry out their respective functions. 5 the Court upheld Resolution No. Hon. These changes were prescribed by the Commission in its effort to "streamline the operation of the CSC" which in turn required the "simplification of systems. that Board did not fall within the control of the Civil Service Commission. appeal to an office of the Commission. in cases involving division chiefs and higher officials and cases where the penalty imposed was dismissal or separation from the service. Since it was part and parcel of the internal organization of the Commission. Sto. the Office of Legal Affairs. at the time of the issuance of Resolution No. issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. It will be noted that under the provisions of Section 16 (2) (a) and (b) quoted earlier. take testimony in any investigation or inquiry. The change instituted by CSC Resolution No. punish for contempt in accordance with the same procedures and penalties prescribed in the Rules of Court. the Office of Planning and Management. In Aida Eugenio v. has no personality or standing to contest such termination of public employment. cutting of red tape and elimination of [an] unnecessary bureaucratic layer. 94-3710 has not abolished any public office as that term is used in the law of public officers. like those involving petitioner Rubenecia. the Central Administrative Office.. . As an independent constitutional body. the Commission may effect changes in the organization as the need arises. cases originating outside the Civil Service Commission itself and appealed to the MSPB were. et al. 93-2387 quoted in full earlier. subject to further appeal to the Commission itself. Patricia A. a procedure which most frequently consumed a prolonged period of time.g. The functions of the MSPB relating to the determination of administrative disciplinary cases were. At all events. Organizational Structure. xxx xxx xxx The 1987 Administrative Code thus made clear that the MSPB was intended to be an office of the Commission like any of the other thirteen (13) offices in the Commission: e. The MSPB was. who does not claim to be an officer or employee of the MSPB.
he filed before the Commission itself his letter-cum-annexes which effectively was his answer to the Formal Charge instituted before the MSPB. he was also in fact afforded reasonable opportunity to present his case before decision was rendered by the Commission finding him guilty. This letter-answer constitutes proof that he did have notice of the accusations against him and was in fact able to present his own defense. Tomas controverting the charges against him and submitted voluminous documents in support of his claim of innocence and prayed for dismissal of the Formal Charge. so long as such findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. he sent a formal letter-answer to Chairman Sto. Rubenecia himself admitted that he had been furnished with copies of an affidavit and testimonies of the principal witnesses against him that were given during the preliminary hearing of the case against Rubenecia. 9 Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration. the fact remains that Resolution No. To the contrary. concluded in his report that "the evidence presented by respondent [Rubenecia] could not outweigh that of the prosecution as contained in the records. We find it very difficult to suppose that the 1987 Revised Administrative Code having mentioned fourteen (14) different offices of the CSC. the Commission drew the following conclusions in respect of the charges against petitioner Rubenecia: . petitioner was heard not only in respect of his motion for reconsideration. petitioner himself had insisted on pleading before the Commission. Moreover. like this Court. in fact. 8 Finally. We consider this objection unmeritorious. Rubenecia was given an opportunity by the Investigating Officer. as it were. to obtain those documents from the CSC Regional Office. The Formal Charge prepared by the MSPB and given to petitioner Rubenecia constituted sufficient notice which. 11 In the present case. Rubenecia did not avail himself of that opportunity and he cannot now be heard to complain that he was not given such documents. This Officer. we conclude that the decision of the Civil Service Commission finding Rubenecia guilty of the administrative charges prepared against him. At all events. Petitioner's answer to the Formal Charge was considered by the Investigating Officer. Rubenecia also claims that the Commission had erred in disregarding the "overwhelming evidence" in his favor. in any event. rather than before the MSPB." as the need [for such changes] arises. 93-2387.Resolution No. the Regional Director of CSC. the internal organization of the Commission until it might please Congress to change such internal organization regardless of the ever changing needs of the civil service as a whole. He cannot now be heard to question the jurisdiction of the Commission. 7 We are also not persuaded by petitioner's complaint that he had not been furnished copies of all the documents that had accompanied the Formal Charge. even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. Petitioner Rubenecia also claims that the Civil Service Commission itself (as distinguished from the MSPB) did not acquire jurisdiction over his case because he had not been notified by individual written notice sent by mail that his case had been elevated to the Civil Service Commission as required by Resolution No. The Formal Charge contained the essence of the complaint and the documents in support thereof and the conclusion of the MSPB finding a prima facie case against Rubenecia. is supported by substantial evidence. 93-2387. 93-2387 was published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Manila Standard. quoted earlier. CSC Resolution No. 94-0533 finding him guilty and ordering his dismissal from the government service. The settled rule in our jurisdiction is that the findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected. Assuming that Rubenecia had not in fact been sent an individual notice. to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence. 10 In the instant case. meant to freeze these offices and to cast in concrete. however. the legislative authority had expressly authorized the Commission to carry out "changes in the organization. as already noted. 94-0533. These requisites were respected in the case of petitioner Rubenecia. the motion for reconsideration filed by Rubenecia before the Commission cured whatever defect might have existed in respect of alleged denial of procedural due process. issue of 16 July 1993 6 ). In Resolution No. after examination of the record of this case. II We turn to petitioner's contention that he had been denied due process when the Commission rendered its Resolution No. It is not the task of an appellate court. the Commission may accordingly be deemed to have complied substantially with the requirement of written notice in its own Resolution. had enabled him to prepare his defense. 94-3710 carried with it or necessarily involved the termination of the relationship of public employment between the Commission and any of its officers and employees. The fundamental rule of due to process requires that a person be accorded notice and an opportunity to be heard. did not require individual written notice sent by mail to parties in administrative cases pending before the MSPB.
He himself admitted that he did not accomplish his DTR but this was upon the suggestion of the Administrative Officer. when the latter certified that he had no official knowledge of the alleged "official travel" of Rubenecia. 1987. It was also proven by records that he caused one Mrs. foregoing premises considered. Rubenecia did not even attempt to present countervailing evidence. Leah Rebadulla and Mr. Rubenecia is therefore found guilty of Dishonesty. out the penalty of dismissal from the service. Rubenecia in order to rebut the same simply reiterated previous allegation that he attended the SEDP Training in Baguio City during the questioned months without even an attempt on his part to adduce evidence documentary or testimonial that would attest to the truth of his allegation that he was indeed in Baguio during those weeks for training purposes. their salaries for the month of May and half of June 1988. Division of Northern Samar. 1991 without any duly issued appointment by the appointing authority. he is meted. 12 We find no basis for overturning the above conclusions as the product merely of arbitrary whims and caprice or of bad faith and malice.I. Nepotism. specifically their salary differentials for July to December 1987. and the salary of Mr. Cecilia vestra to render service as Secondary School Teacher from January 19. Nepotism. WHEREFORE. the Commission hereby resolves to find Ruble Rubenecia guilty of Dishonesty. they are deemed admitted by Rubenecia. both Secondary Teachers of CNHS. IV. hence it cannot be considered an act of Insubordination on the part of Rubenecia when he incurred absences based on an approved application for leave of absence. Without being specifically denied. Oppression and Violation of Civil Service Rules and Ragulations. He was charged for misrepresenting that he was on "Official Travel" to Baguio City to attend a three-week seminar and making it appear in his CSC Form No. he is expected to know the basic civil service law. He did not give on time the money benefits due to Ms. Accordingly. Moreover. It should be noted that under the provision of Sec. OPPRESSION Rubenecia is also guilty of Oppression. We conclude that petitioner Rubenecia has failed to show grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent Commission . V INSUBORDINATION He is not liable for Insubordination arising from his alleged refusal to obey the "Detail Order" by filing a sick leave and vacation leave successively. the recommending authority is also prohibited from recommending the appointment to a non-teaching position of his relatives within the prohibited degree. 59. School Division Superintendent. Tafalla for the month of June. II DISHONESTY The Commission finds Rubenecia liable. and regulations. As the principal of a national high School. verification with the Bureau of Secondary Schools reveals that no training seminar for school principal was conducted by DECS during that time. A mere allegation cannot obviously prevail over a more direct and positive statement of Celedonio Layon. Rolando Tafalla. the Commission finds Rubenecia guilty. The records show that the two applications for leave filed by Rubenecia were duly approved by proper official. 1990 to August 30. Rubenecia cannot use as an excuse the alleged suggestion of an Administrative Officer. 7 for the month of October 1988 that the has a perfect attendance for that month. With this statement. VIOLATION OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS The records show that Rubenecia committed the said offense. Oppression and Violations of Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Rubenecia alleged that he is not the appointing authority with regard to the appointment of his brother-in-law as Utilityman but merely a recommending authority. rules. of the 1987 Administrative Code. their proportional vacation salaries for the semester of 1987-1988. III. NEPOTISM With respect to the charge of Nepotism.
94-0533 dated 25 January 1994. 93-2387 dated 29 June 1993 and Resolution No. SO ORDERED.in issuing its Resolution No. . WHEREFORE. the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. for all the foregoing.
93-4480 1 of the Civil Service Commission. 3 of the said Secretary of Labor finding petitioners guilty of two counts of gross insubordination and accordingly suspending them for one (1) year. FERNANDO. as such. HON. were discharging their duties as hearing officers when respondent Labor Secretary Confessor issued on May 26. RAMON P. in her capacity as Secretary. the following assignment of Med-Arbiters is hereby being made effective immediately: Appeals and Review Unit. including herein petitioners. FALCONITIN and ADAP. Department of Labor and Employment. Rodrigo D. Ma.: The present petition for certiorari seeks to annul: (a) Resolution No. Nieves R. No. Hon. CONFESOR. MA. petitioners. Civil Service Commission. TOMAS. and (c) the Order. 1993 Memorandum Order No. and HON. The Solicitor General for public respondents. GAMINDE. RESOLUTION REGALADO. which reads as follows: In the interest of the service and in order to expedite the resolution of inter-union and intra-union cases. (b) the Order. dated July 26. in her capacity as Chairman. 1994 NAPOLEON V. J. dated October 25. Confesor.G. OS: A n d r e Bureau of Labor Relations: Paterno Adap National Capital Region . NIEVES R. ERENETA. which declared the reassignment of petitioners valid and legal. Ana for petitioners.R. PATRICIA STO. JR. 1993. vs. placing petitioners under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days pending investigation of the charge against them for gross insubordination. 2 of the Secretary of Labor. 1993. in their capacities as Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission. 112309 July 28. and THELMA P. Mediator Arbiters. 4 4 reassigning several med-arbiters. dated October 12. 1993. respondents. TOMAS F. Department of Labor and Employment. National Capital Region. Petitioners were appointed as Mediator Arbiters in the National Capital Region and. ANDRES DIZON. Sta.
1993. Petitioners first contend that the CSC has no jurisdiction to review on appeal the aforestated Memorandum Order No. which was accordingly tantamount to removal without just cause. dated June 28.On July 15. They aver that there was undue influence exerted by respondent Secretary and that the CSC acted with partiality because respondent Secretary and CSC Chairman Sto. In the present case. consequently. 1993. On October 25. 1993. 93-2387 11 of the CSC. 5 sought the reconsideration and recall of said memorandum order on the ground that their reassignments were made without their consent. 4 contemplates. their appeal was considered filed before the CSC. arguing that theyo could not accept their reassignment considering that the n same is unconstitutional. illegal and without valid cause. pending investigation. aside from the fact that during the pendency of their appeal with the CSC. 1993. 1993. 1993 when Resolution No. 8 denying their request and directing them to show cause why they should not be administratively charged for gross insubordination. and a supplemental appeal 10 dated July 19. including personnel actions. petitioners.ipetitioners submitted their explanation in compliance with g the Memorandum of July 7. Resolution No. not a transfer as erroneously alleged. There is no merit in the argument. on the ground that the same were issued in violation of their rights to security of tenure and due process of law. 4 and the Memorandum of June 23. that quasi-judicial officers may not be transferred or reassigned A except on grounds provided by law. respondent Secretary issued another Order finding petitioners guilty of two counts of gross insubordination and accordingly suspending them from the service for one (1) year. Petitioners. so as to achieve a speedier delivery of administrative justice and economical operation without impairing due process and the substantive rights of the parties in administrative cases. 1993. respondent Secretary issued another Memorandum. 1993. Henceforth. declared the abolition of the MSPB in order to streamline the operations of the CSC. dismissed their appeal for Region IV: Anastacio Bactin xxx xxx xxx Med-Arbiters Brigida Fadrigon. However. however. which took effect on July 1. in a letter dated June 7. On June 23. 1993. dated July 7. refused to comply and instead wrote another letter. respondent Secretary of Labor issued another Memorandum 6 declaring and clarifying that Memorandum Order No. g their transfer or reassignment should e be held in abeyance. the CSC issued its questioned a the reassignment of petitioners valid resolution finding y and legal and. and that the n law provides that pending their appeal to the Civil Service Commission. 4 as the same is vested in the MSPB pursuant to Section 13. petitioner's appeal was filed only on July 12. bad faith. l On July 26. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). 932387 was already in effect. 1993. 1993. Petitioners claim that there was malice. 1993. On July 12. Hence.ipetitioners were formally charged with gross insubordination and. petitioners filed an appeal 9 with the Merit System and Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). but a mere reassignment wherein the consent of petitioners is not required. lack of merit. Angeli Tuyay and Anastacio Bactin promptly complied with the memorandum order. 1993. decisions in administrative cases involving officials and employees of the civil service appealable to the Commission. Book V of Executive Order No. 7 seeking the reconsideration of Memorandum Order No. Perforce. shall be appealed directly to the Commission and not to the MSPB. u y On October 12. were T placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days. this petition assailing the foregoing resolution and orders. 1993. the latter issued legal opinions through its Director for Legal Affairs concerning the very issues involved in the appeal even . and ordering petitioners to report to their new assignments and to turn over all records of cases and other documents in their possession. undue influence and partiality in the issuance of the order for reassignment and its affirmance by the CSC. Tomas are personal friends. and those cases which have been appealed or brought directly to the MSPB shall be elevated to the Commission for final resolution. Acting on petitioners' letter.
The reassignment is also challenged as being illegal because it involves a reduction in rank and status. petitioners allowed the 90-day period of preventive suspension to lapse without appealing from the Order of July 26. they are now clearly . The circumstances attending the issuance of Memorandum Order No. responsibilities. A demotion. A demotion. On the other hand. Section 10 of the same rule defines a reassignment as the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank. Finally. herein petitioners. status. They were not given new appointments to new positions. it is clear and undisputed that no new appointments were issued to herein petitioners. Petitioners seem to forget that the decisions of hearing officers are also subject to review by the National Labor Relations Commission. Petitioners contend that with the reassignment. In the case at bar. we do not deem it appropriate to rule on the merits of the order issued on July 26. their functions were changed from those of a hearing officer to the drafting of decisions appealed to the Secretary. they can always be reassigned from one organizational unit to another of the same agency where.before the same could be officially resolved. discussed and resolved by respondent Secretary. In their view. 4 do not in any way reveal any malicious intent on the part of respondent Secretary. it is incorrect for them to claim that they were demoted. The two motions were duly considered. under Section 11. have overlooked or deliberately ignored the fact that the same are clearly dismissible for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. status or rank which may or may not involve reduction in salary. 4 has been cured when petitioners filed two motions for reconsideration seeking to recall the same. is defined as the movement from one position to another involving the issuance of an appointment with diminution in duties. 1993. their services may be used more effectively. Court of Appeals. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General. therefore. Evidently. Petitioners were thereby afforded full opportunity to present their arguments against the issuance of said order. On the contrary. involves the issuance of an appointment. petitioners' reassignment is not a transfer for they were not removed from their position as med-arbiters. In the case of Bentain vs. intimidation. in the opinion of respondent Secretary. Whatever alleged procedural infirmity may have rendered defective the issuance of Memorandum Order No. malice and bad faith. In fact. or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. Furthermore. These allegations of petitioners should be considered as mere speculations and conjectures. EEI) pending before him wherein he ordered the cancellation of the certificate of registration of APSOTEU. 1993. public respondents have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which petitioners failed to rebut when they did not present evidence to prove partiality. They would want to suggest that there was a diminution in rank in the sense that their present assignment as drafters of decisions on appeal to the Secretary are subject to review by higher authority. coercion. The reassignment of petitioners was made "in the interest of the service and in order to expedite the resolution of inter-union and intra-union cases. petitioner Fernando specifically asserts that the reassignment was actually in retaliation for the independent stance he has taken in Case No. it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Hence. On the first aspect. however. As such they can neither claim a vested right to the station to which they were assigned nor to security of tenure thereat. OD-M-9301028 (APSOTEU vs. appointed to a specific station or particular unit of the Department of Labor in the National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR). Consequently. we consider her actions as a valid exercise of her power and authority as department head to take and enforce personnel actions. therefore. No such evidence exists in the case at bar. whereas in their former assignment as hearing officers. It is likewise argued that the reassignment of petitioners is tantamount to their constructive dismissal because it was effected without their consent. or other personal reasons therefor. they themselves render judgment. They were not. that Memorandum Order No. the investigation which necessitated such suspension has long since been concluded and thereafter resulted in the condemnatory Order of October 25. It indubitably follows. 4 ordering their reassignment in the interest of the service is legally in order. their argument has definitely no leg to stand on. and it violates the right to security of tenure and to due process of law. in asking us to resolve the issues thereon in their present recourse. petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that there was a reduction in their salary. no substantial evidence having been presented in support thereof. 1993 by respondent Secretary preventively suspending petitioners for ninety (90) days. 1993 finding petitioners guilty of insubordination and imposing on them the penalty of suspension of one (1) year. Petitioners were appointed as Mediator Arbiters in the National Capital Region. they were in effect demoted. 292. Bad faith can never be presumed. Additionally. Thus unmasked. Hence. 12 we categorically held that a reassignment in good faith and in the interest of the government service is permissible and valid even without the employee's prior consent." That the order was issued for this purpose is even presumed under Civil Service rules where there is no proof of harassment. Moreover. as well as her subsequent order dated October 25.
807 and Executive Order No. 1993 imposing a punitive suspension of one year on herein petitioners cannot be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari for their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Presidential Decree No. WHEREFORE. . as stated earlier.estopped from invoking the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court in a belated attempt to seek redress from the first Order. 13 Not having fully exhausted the remedy available to them. 292 explicitly provide that administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days are appealable to the Civil Service Commission. Neither do we find any of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies which could be applicable to the instant case. petitioners cannot resort to their present judicial action which is both premature at this juncture and proscribed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. SO ORDERED. the Order dated October 25. no jurisdictional error or any grave abuse of discretion having been shown to have flawed or tainted the impugned resolution of respondent Chairman of the Civil Service Commission or the challenged orders of respondent Secretary of Labor. nor have petitioners essayed any submission on that score. Secondly. the present petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
A thereof. Yorac. as well as the Ombudsman and his Deputies. dated 18 December 1990. vs. WHEREAS. WHEREAS. 1. Title I. 1999. J. appointment to CES ranks. 93867. the Court declared in the above cited case that said position is not among those enumerated by law as falling under the third level. 159940 February 16.1994. 030919 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dated August 28. with the assistance and approval of the Civil Service Commission…. by letter of May 29. Section 7(3). among other positions in petitioner therein mentioned.R. the Constitutional Commissions. 21. petitioner. the Supreme Court ruled that "Article IX-A. dated 19 March 1993. 2 thereof provides that [t]he establishment.2that pursuant to CSC Memorandum Circular No. s. vs. administration and maintenance of qualification standards shall be the responsibility of the department or agency. No. Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Chapter 5. No. and that they are not presidential appointees. the Commission on Human Rights. Commission on Audit (COA). Respondent.’ Although essentially executive in nature.1awphi1. Title I. Justices and Judges. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION." . only the Chairmen and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions. 1 of the Constitution expressly describes all Constitutional Commissions as ‘Independent. No. nor one of those identified by the CES Board as equivalent rank to those listed by law. Vasquez. 2005 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. the Supreme Court nullified the classification by the CSC of the position of Corporate Vice President as belonging to the third level of the Career Executive Services. Section 22 par. was classified as a Career Executive Service (CES) position. 1996.]" and par. WHEREAS. Jr. 1994 addressed to then Ombudsman Conrado M. 2003. The Qualification Standards for said position are: EDUCATION: Bachelor of Laws EXPERIENCE: 5 years of experience in the practice of law. of the Administrative Code of 1987. the Constitution has several provisions that guarantee and protect such independence. Civil Service Commission and Daniel Cruz. governed by the rules of the CES pertaining to eligibility. WHEREAS. the position of Graft Investigation Officer III. provides in part that "[t]he degree of qualifications of an officer or employee shall be determined by the appointing authority on the basis of the qualification standard for the particular positions[. Sec. the Commission on Human Rights. the CSC approved the Qualification Standards for several positions in the Office of the Ombudsman (petitioner) including that for Graft Investigation Officer III. G. 95450. DECISION CARPIO-MORALES. which respectively grant them Fiscal Autonomy and authorize them to appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with law. Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 enumerates exclusively and restrictively the specific positions under the Career Executive Service. in case of Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation vs. Subtitle A. investigation/ prosecution of cases. 623 reading: JOINT RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS. The antecedents of the case are as follows: By letter1 dated March 7. among which are Sections 4 and 5 of Article IX.R. and the Office of the Ombudsman are empowered to appoint officials and employees to positions belonging to first level up to third level of their respective agencies.R. and performance evaluation. hence." WHEREAS. CSC. Haydee T. counseling. all the holders of which are appointed by the President and are required to have CES eligibility. TRAINING: 24 hours of relevant training ELIGIBILITY: RA 1080 (Bar) The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) subsequently advised the Ombudsman.: Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court seeking to set aside and nullify Resolution No. among other things. they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. nor was the incumbent appointed by the President. Book V. the Supreme Court. in the case of Sixto Brillantes. the independence of the members of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) is guaranteed by the Constitution. 62 WHEREAS. legal research or other related work. G. are appointed by the President. WHEREAS. the members of the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG).nét On September 29. namely: the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). petitioner and this Court adopted Joint Resolution No. hearings of administrative/ criminal cases.G. WHEREAS.
(2) The second level shall include professional. viz: SEC. Invoking the Court of Appeals ruling in Khem N. 2. Hon. 49699 as affirmed by the Supreme Court with finality on July 2. 2003 letter to the CSC. Said Decision thereby effectively granted the petition of Mr. and . SP No. or scientific work in a nonsupervisory or supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college work up to Division Chief level. provides the following levels of position in the career service. emphasis. (Underscoring in the original omitted.R. That the member agencies shall regularly coordinate with the CSC for the conferment of the desired eligibility in accordance with this Resolution. trades. Inok vs. Paul Elmer M. were appointed Graft Investigation Officers III of petitioner by the Ombudsman.NOW. the test of fitness shall be jointly undertaken by the CFAG member agencies in coordination with the CSC. the CSC shall prepare the questionnaires and conduct the examinations designed to ascertain the general aptitude of the examinees while the member agency shall likewise prepare the questionnaires and conduct in conjunction with the CSC. The CSC approved the appointments on the condition that for the appointees to acquire security of tenure. the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human Rights are not covered by the CES governed by the Career Executive Service Board.’ it stated in said Decision that the letter and intent of the law is to circumscribe the Career Executive Service (CES) to CES positions in the Executive Branch of Government. That the resulting eligibility acquired after passing the aforementioned examination shall appropriate for permanent appointment only to third level positions in the CFAG member agencies. That all third level positions under each member agency are career positions. the CFAG jointly resolves: 1. Clemente and Jose Tereso U. – (a) Classes of positions in the career service appointment to which requires examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows: (1) The first level shall include clerical. By January 2. provided that the appointment paper shall be signed only by the Head of the member agency. Civil Service Commission. and custodial service positions which involve non-professional or subprofessional work in a nonsupervisory or supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of collegiate studies. That in case the test of fitness shall be in written form. taking into consideration the organizational set-up of the agency concerned. 7. However this is without prejudice to those incumbents who wish to take the Career Service Executive Examination given by the Civil Service Commission or the Management Aptitude Test Battery given by the Career Executive Service Board. Inok v. 807. That should CFAG member agencies develop their respective eligibility requirements for the third level positions. the examinations to determine the technical capabilities and expertise of the examinees suited to its functions. crafts. and that the Judiciary. where appropriate and proper. 2002. Carandang. 148782 entitled ‘Khem N. the Ombudsman requested for the change of status. That. from temporary to permanent. "as affirmed by the Supreme Court. et al. Inok for security of tenure as Director II of the Commission on Audit despite the absence of a CES eligibility. 2001 on CA G. and scientific positions which involve professional. Melchor Arthur H. THEREFORE. 6. of the appointments of Carandang.4 (Emphasis and italics supplied) The relevant portions of the cited CA decision read: Presidential Decree No. otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. 2002 in G. the overall screening and selection process for these positions shall be a collegial undertaking. italics and underscoring supplied)1awphi1.nét On July 31. the Constitutional Commissions. 3. No. Jr. (CA-G. 4. technical. Clemente and De Jesus effective December 18.R. 5." the Ombudsman wrote: xxx In the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28. SP No. 2002. Classes of Positions in the Career Service. 49699). Corazon Alma de Leon. de Jesus. they must obtain CES or Civil Service Executive (CSE) eligibility which is governed by the CESB. 7.R. That all career third level positions identified and classified by each of the member agency arenot embraced within the Career Executive Service (CES) and as such shall not require Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE) or Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility for purposes of permanent appointment. technical.
1 of the Career Executive Service (CES). (4) The Commissions enjoy their own fiscal autonomy. belong to the third level. 807 is similar to the provision of P. the Constitutional Commissions.D. and the Commission on Human Rights are not covered by the CES governed by the CESB. the judiciary. A candidate for promotion should however. Atty. A person who meets such managerial experience and other requirements and passes such examinations as may be prescribed by the Board shall be included in the register of career service eligibles and. IV. No. the phrase "other officers of equivalent rank" could encompass only such persons occupying positions in the Executive Department. Cuevas. become an active member in the Service. al. the administrative functions belong to the constitutional offices." Ineluctably. No. The area of recruitment shall be government-wide. to wit: (a) Membership. The independence of these constitutional offices serves to exempt their respective officials and employees from the coverage of the CES under the administrative authority of the CESB. The power of these constitutional offices to appoint their own officers and employees is mainly intended to safeguard their independence. x x x xxx Parenthetically.D. The guarantee of security of tenure to members of the CES does not extend to the particular positions to which they may be appointed – a concept which is applicable only to frst and second level employees in the civil service – but to the rank to which they are appointed by the President. Entrance to a higher level does not require previous qualification in a lower level. In the contemporaneous case of the The Secretary of Justice Serafin R. . entrance to the first two levels shall be through competitive examinations. Thus. including that of the COA. the Office of the Ombudsman. no civil service examination shall be required for promotion to a higher position in one or more related occupational groups. 1. par. However. upon appointment to an appropriate class in the Career Executive Service. it could be gleaned from P. In exceptional cases. The last sentence of Section 7(b) of P. Irrefragrably. et. which has been [d]rafted into Executive Order No. (c) Within the same level. Article IV. 292. Verily. appointees thereto should possess the x x x Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility in accordance with the Qualification Standard of the said position. inherent in the power to appoint is the power to administratively supervise the officials and employees in the constitutional offices – in the same manner that the express power to appoint carries with it the implied power to remove the personnel appointed in said offices. underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied. par. viz: Security of tenure in the career executive service is acquired with respect to rank and not to position. Entrance to the third level shall be prescribed by the Career Executive Service Board. the power to administratively supervise is designed to strengthen the independence of the constitutional offices. vs. that the letter and intent of the law is to circumscribe the Career Executive Service to CES positions in the Executive Branch of government.net As commented by a noted constitutionalist: The authority of the Supreme Court to appoint its own officials and employees is another measure intended to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. instead of the CESB – in the same manner that the Supreme Court administers the judiciary’s civil service. consistent with the principle of the ejusdem generisin legal hermeneutics. Bacal. x x x5 (Italics and emphasis in the original. x x x Prescinding from the foregoing disquisition. the Court’s appointing authority must be exercised in accordance with the Civil Service Law. which is the same power of appointment of all officials and employees of the judiciary granted to the Supreme Court. We are loathe to stamp our imprimatur to the Commission’s stance that the "positions of Director III. 5(a). they are embraced by the civil service system.D. Josefina G. However. (b) Except as herein otherwise provided. A respected authority on political law underscored the multifarious factors that are integral to the independence of the constitutional offices. the Supreme Court lent credence to this postulate. which shall be open to those inside and outside the service who meet the minimum qualification requirements.(3) The third level shall cover positions in the Career Executive Service. Hence. to be sure.l^vvphi1. with provisions to allow qualified or outstanding men from outside the government to enter the service. No. scilicet: There are several factors that preserve the independence of the three Commissions: xxx (3) Their appointment must be in a permanent capacity. have previously passed the examination for that level. the Board may give unassembled examinations for eligibility.
The nature of appointment shall be as follows: xxx i. Had the intention of the framers of the Constitution been to isolate and grant full independence to Constitutional Commissions in the matter of appointments. 03-0665 dated June 6. of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Action. these independent bodies will arrogate upon themselves a power that properly belongs to the Civil Service Commission. copy furnished the Commission. 2003. 2003 including Graft Investigation Officer III which was reclassified to Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III. 4. the Qualification Standards were the same as those for Graft Investigation Officer III. shall be appointed by the Ombudsman according to the Civil Service Law. and third levels. the third level eligibility requirement for third level officials in all agencies is mandatory. But that is not the case. It is explicitly provided therein that the change of status from temporary to permanent can be effected only once the appointee becomes fully qualified to the position to which he is appointed. unless otherwise exempted therefrom by the Constitution or law. Change of status: 1. It is subject to the same set of laws. the CSC. until and unless there is a law or rule exempting one category of public officials from the test in determining merit and fitness. While it is true that constitutional agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman has the authority to appoint its officials in accordance with law. The requirements spelled out in the Qualification Standards (QS) Manual are designed to determine the fitness of the appointee in a certain position. On the contrary. Basic is the rule that all appointments in the government service. Further. is the guiding factor in issuing appointments. rules and regulations in the manner of observing and ensuring that the merit and fitness principle. temporary to permanent – the appointment issued to a temporary employee when he acquires the appropriate eligibility or becomes fully qualified for the position to which he is appointed. all laws. xxx The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in the Inok case cannot be made the basis for changing the employment status of De Jesus. second. rules and regulations it issues on appointments must be complied with. The Ombudsman thereupon requested the approval of the proposed Qualification Standards for the reclassified positions. Such policy is in line with the Commission’s mandate to professionalize the civil service. otherwise. such law does not necessarily imply that their appointment will not be subject to Civil Service Law and Rules. the Philippine Constitution provides: "The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in accordance with law" (Article IX-A." The pertinent portion of the questioned Resolution reads: Relevant to the matter are Sections 4 and 6.6 Petitioner subsequently reclassified several positions by Resolution No. all levels in the government are deemed subject to it. 02-03 dated August 18. must be in accordance with the qualification requirements as laid down under existing civil service rules and regulations. the appointing authority shall no longer issue an appointment for change of status from temporary to permanent. respectively. Specifically. it would have been so provided. let it be clarified that the ruling enunciated in Inok case was with regard to the authority of the Career Executive Service Board to prescribe and to administer the Career Executive Service Eligibility and it did not . changed the status of Carandang’s and Clemente’s appointments to permanent effective June 6. Let it be stressed that nowhere in the aforesaid decision states that the Office of the Ombudsman or the other constitutional agencies mentioned therein are exempt or are not covered by the Civil Service Law and Rules. Subsequently. such change may be effected as a footnote on the temporary appointment issued. Section 4).citations omitted) It appears that Carandang and Clemente were in the meantime conferred with CSE Eligibility pursuant to CSC Resolution No. The Constitution speaks of only ‘one’ civil service. which state: SEC. Rule III and Rule VI. particularly the career service. Nature of Appointment. 2003. Hence. by the challenged Resolution of August 28. Simply put. Article XI of the Constitution states that "The officials. but not with respect to De Jesus on the ground that he "has not met the eligibility requirements. In cases where the appointee fully qualifies for the position to which he is temporarily appointed. to encompass the first. xxx SEC. With respect to the reclassified Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III position. the same decision declares that these bodies are covered by the civil service system. 2003. 6. These requirements are indispensable in order to satisfy the Constitutional mandate that appointment in the civil service shall be made according to merit and fitness." And since all matters pertaining to appointments are within the realm of expertise to the CSC. Section 6. Upon the appointee’s presentation of the required document/s.
the positions being unique and highly technical as they involve investigatorial. cannot be validly made a requisite for the attainment of security of tenure on qualified career officials of petitioner who are not legally part of the CES. quasi-judicial and prosecutorial functions. Title I. To be sure. as are those of the Judiciary. including the appropriate eligibility prescribed. approved the proposed Qualification Standards for Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I. appointment to such positions is likewise characterized by security of tenure. therefore. hearings of administrative/criminal cases. Petitioner contends that the CSC misreads the ratio of the appellate court decision in Inok. 2004. IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AND LEGALLY INFIRM. to wit: The independence of these constitutional offices serves to exempt their respective officials and employees from the coverage of the CES under the administrative authority of the CESB. is recognized by the constitutional offices under the earlier quoted Joint Resolution No. Finally. which includes the lesser power of granting security of tenure to his appointees once the basic qualification requirements are satisfied. II and III.’ Achacoso did not. legal research or other related works Training : 24 hours of relevant training Eligibility : RA 1080 (BAR) The petition is impressed with merit."7 Petitioner likewise contends that its constitutional discretion as an independent appointing authority cannot be curtailed by the CSC which "has no authority to review the appointments made by other offices except only to ascertain if the appointee possesses the required qualifications.specifically nor particularly take away the functions of the Civil Service Commission. Subtitle A of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: SECTION 7. instead of the CESB – in the manner that the Supreme Court administers the judiciary’s civil service. the change of status of his appointment from temporary to permanent cannot be effected."8 Petitioner further contends that the CES Eligibility. Pursuant to the QS Manual. investigation/ prosecution of cases. the present petition anchored on the following ground: THE GENERAL POWER OF RESPONDENT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) TO ADMINISTER THE CIVIL SERVICE CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY AND VALIDLY CURTAIL THE SPECIFIC DISCRETIONARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT. counseling. At best.net This Court dismissed the petition of the CSC in the Inok case on a technicality – therein petitioner CSC’s failure to file a reply within the required period – and not on the merits. petitioner concludes. a Graft Investigation Officer III position is a career service position requiring a Career Service Eligibility or Career Service Executive Eligibility. the CSC. 030919 DATED 26 AUGUST 2003. As proposed. However. AS IN ITS IMPUGNED RESOLUTION NO. AND ANY SUCH CURTAILMENT BY THE RESPONDENT CSC. petitioner argues that its officials which are appointed by the Ombudsman are technically classified as belonging to the Closed Career Service. Career Service.l^vvphi1. they are embraced by the civil service system. That the positions subject of the present case are unique and highly technical in nature. Hence. in much the same way as judges are involved in judicial functions. Book V. During the pendency of the case before this Court. This is evident from the aforequoted decision in the Inok case. as administered by the respondent CESB. the following Qualification Standards for Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III were approved: Education : Bachelor of Laws Experience : Five (5) years of experience in the practice of law. 040738 dated July 6. . or based on highly technical qualifications.10 Inok cannot be invoked as precedent in arriving at the question raised in this petition. as an appointing authority. Considering that De Jesus has not met the eligibility requirement. BY THE OMBUDSMAN AS AN INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL BODY IN FAVOR OF THE LATTER’S OWN OFFICIALS. As held in Achacoso vs. emphasis supplied) Hence. Macaraig. "is specifically tasked by the Constitution to choose his own qualified personnel. 195 SCRA 235: It is settled that a permanent appointment can be issued only ‘to a person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is appointed. his appointment could be regarded only as temporary. by Resolution9 No. 62 of the CFAG of which CSC is a member. x x x (Underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied. INCLUDING THE GRANT OF SECURITY OF TENURE. It contends that the Ombudsman. the administrative functions belong to the constitutional offices. – The Career Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination.
its authority is limited "only to [determine] whether or not the appointees possess the legal qualifications and the appropriate eligibility. 2002. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) From the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code. SO ORDERED."11 It is not disputed that. Assistant Secretary. or highly technical in nature. 2002 too. the CSC alleged that.12 It goes without saying that the status of the appointments of Carandang and Clemente. (2) Closed Career positions which are scientific. 2003 is hereby SET ASIDE. 9(h) which authorizes the CSC to approve appointments to positions in the civil service. 2003. 03-0665 dated June 6. 2005. Chief of Department Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive Service Board. SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE OMBUDSMAN ACCORDING TO THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.(2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions. THE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Such being the case. the CSC has the ministerial duty to grant the request of the Ombudsman that appointment be made permanent effective December 18. to wit: SECTION 6. The appointment of Jose Tereso U. who were conferred CSE eligibility pursuant to CSC Resolution No. The Career Service shall include: (1) Open Career positions for appointment to which prior qualification in an appropriate examination is required. persons occupying positions in the CES are presidential appointees. Carandang. (3) Positions in the Career Executive Service. 030919 of the Civil Service Commission dated August 28. Assistant Bureau Director.D. OTHER THAN THE DEPUTIES. notwithstanding the said approval of the new QS for GIPO III. Bureau Director. To refuse to heed the request is a clear encroachment on the discretion vested solely on the Ombudsman as appointing authority. A person occupying the position of Graft Investigation Officer III is not. except for his lack of CES or CSE eligibility. is hereby ordered made permanent effective December 18. and (3) security of tenure. Suffice it to state that the eligibility requirement under the new QS is no longer third level eligibility but RA 1080 (BAR) instead. it holds that third level eligibility is not required for third level officials of petitioner appointed by the Ombudsman in light of the provisions of the Constitution vis a vis the Administrative Code of 1987 as discussed above. . in violation of the Constitution. de Jesus. as well as those of Melchor Arthur H. De Jesus possesses the basic qualifications of a Graft Investigation Officer III. Undersecretary. However. . CSC prays that the issues raised by the Office of Ombudsman relative to the authority of the CSC to administer the Civil Service Executive Examination for third level positions and to prescribe third level eligibility to third level positions in the Office of the Ombudsman be resolved. It bears emphasis that that under P. however. or 2) including in the CES a position not occupied by a presidential appointee. contrary to the Administrative Code. except those specified therein. the reclassified G[raft] I[nvestigation and] P[rosecution] O[fficer] III position is the same position which is the subject of the herein case.. Clemente. Paul Elmer M. nothing else. Sec. appointed by the President but by the Ombudsman as provided in Article IX of the Constitution. To classify the position of Graft Investigation Officer III as belonging to the CES and require an appointee thereto to acquire CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure would be absurd as it would result either in 1) vesting the appointing power for said position in the President. Resolution No. as provided in the earlier quoted Qualification Standards. WHEREFORE. As the Court takes note of the information of the CSC in its Supplemental Memorandum. and scientific and technical positions in scientific or research institutions which shall establish and maintain their own merit systems. In a Supplemental Memorandum13 received by this Court on January 5. inter alia: . the petition is hereby GRANTED. should be changed to permanent effective December 18. No 807. 2002. namely. all of whom are appointed by the President. . Jr. Regional Director. Assistant Regional Director. these include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and universities.
moves for the reconsideration of the decision of the Commission in CSC Resolution No. Assumption to office does not necessarily mean 'physical appearance' but it could also be executed thru an 'intention to assumption by implied agreement'. formerly of Commission on Audit-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (COA-ARMM)." In his appeal. xxx "13. of the Honorable Commission is based on a strict interpretation of the phrase ‘assumption to office’ thereby disregarding the basic rule in statutory construction that social legislation should be liberally construed and in the case of doubt. though on a conventional way as earlier described. in filing a leave of absence can not be considered as assumption to duty. the Commission's predicate to the effect that appellant is appointed to a particular office is not accurate. Notwithstanding the fact that his unconsented swapping to another place of assignment has tantamount to removal from office under existing jurisprudence. 1997 to COA Regional Office in the ARMM based in Cotabato City. deny same application. infra. 01-1341 Atty. Re: Leave of Absence as Assumption to Office. as distinguished from AWOL which is characterized by bad faith on part of the government employee concerned. as follows: "WHEREFORE. and Section 49 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave x x x "8. Khem N. appellant was reshuffled on April 11. The dispositive portion of the subject decision reads. Quezon City. it should be resolved in favor of the workers. and the fact that COA did not deny appellant's signifying to report to COA Regional Office No. To be considered as having assumed to duty. Book V. X and his Notice of Assumption thru a conventional mean is a substantial compliance of Section 60. all of the underlined places thereof are known danger zones during that period specially to someone under threats like appellant. From the Legal Office of the COA Central Office. Title I.INOK. the ruling. infra. Thus. he (appellant) accepted it heartedly and begged for kind understanding and manifested his intention to comply. did not question his order. appellant should have been reshuffled only on April 10. Had COA. "22. Thus. "14. upon receipt of appellant's application for leave from the good director of COA Regional Office No. dated January 4. 2000. during the period that he was on leave of absence. REAL RISKS TO APPELLANT'S "21. Inok. Parenthetically. 010016. Chapter I. Instead. Based on the three-year reshuffling policy of the COA. expressing his gesture of utmost respect to his superior. appellant could have physically reported to office notwithstanding all the risks and other predicaments to avoid being declared AWOL and tainting his good government records which he considered as his only assets to be proud of to his family and friends. Inok states. of the 1987 Administrative Code. Inok must physically assume the duties and functions of his office. it was so very risky on the part of the undersigned to travel by land from Cotabato City to Cagayan de Oro City with only three (3) choices of routes x x x. With due respect. Inok. It was neither a reshuffling pursuant to COA policy nor an appointment to an office but it was a case of a prejudicial swapping without the consent of both parties. xxx "7. as follows: "2. the COA Chairman. Assistant Director. was only confined and virtually a prisoner in his own residence x x x. Motion for Reconsideration x---------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION NO. due to following reasons: LIFE "A. the undersigned. 2001. Khem N. the Commission hereby rules that the act of Assistant Director Khem N. Appellant. Neither advisable on the part of apellant to report to Cagayan de Oro City . xxx "16. X.
Cagayan de Oro City. who was then five (5) years of age. Period within which to act on leave application. Approval of vacation leave. Knowing that he is already fifty (50) years of age. reassigning him to COA Regional Office No. Alquizalas. General Counsel. Inok also requested that he be considered to have constructively assumed office effective October 8. 292. "23. appellant can not afford to delay the schooling of his only child. Leave of absence is generally defined as a right granted to officials and employees not to report for work with or without pay as may be provided by law and as the rules prescribe in Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. As acknowledged by the Honorable Commission in its assailed resolution. 99-194. 14. s. appellant reported physically reported to Cagayan de Oro City after the expiration of his first application for leave of absence. "B. Signifying his acceptance and intention to report to the Regional Office. REAL RISK TO THE CAREER GROWTH OF APPELLANT AND MANY OTHER OFFICIALS OF COMMISSIONAL COMMISSIONS "31. Thus. Inok informed the Director that he would file a leave of absence from October 8. Assistant Director. In the letter. 1999. "33. Sections 49 and 52 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave. containing a Notice of Assumption in Office. Attached to the letter is the application for vacation leave of absence and records of attendance. PRE-JUDICIAL TO APPELLANT'S FAMILY "24. Petitioner could not have probably won the case in the appellate Court if appellant did not sacrifice to take a leave of absence. Hence. "32. 1999. X. To avoid expenses in going to Cagayan de Oro City. 1999. As a single parent and knowing the inaccessibility of Cagayan de Oro City from Cotabato City by land transportation coupled by the obtaining peace and order circumstances. Atty. Atty. the application for leave of absence shall be deemed approved. Relevant thereto. the application for the same must be on a prescribed form for action by the proper head of agency. career growth and interest of public servants under the Constitution. In this case. Cotabato City was issued COA Reassignment Order No. "25. the Honorable Commission should at least protect appellant's clean government service rather than allow it to be soiled with its subject resolution.via airplane. s. During that period. COA-ARMM. the grant of vacation leave shall be . Erick Jay Inok. Atty. in the said case. 49. Atty. 1998 as amended by CSC MC No. appellant can not entrust his only child under the care of anyone in Cotabato City. Quezon City. Although leave of absence is a right given to officials and employees. COA. Erick Jay was undergoing a three-time a day medication for tuberculin for six (6) months. On September 8.” “Sec. sought the opinion of the Commission on whether the filing of a leave of absence can be considered as constructive assumption to duty of Atty. – Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an official or employee or of any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the needs of the service. 41. X. 1999 in order to concentrate on preparing the simultaneous memoranda required by the Court of Appeals. When the threats have calm down. in the pre-school curriculum of the Cotabato City Pilot Elementary School to enable the child to qualify in grade-one in the following school year. 1999 to October 31. – Whenever the application for leave of absence. it was likewise risky then to travel from apellant's residence to Awang Airport as the areas in going to said airport are also dangerous for someone under threats. "C. Inok." Records show that Santos M. Khem N. one of the reasons that appellant had taken leave of absence because he wanted to concentrate in the preparation of the simultaneous memorandum required by the court since appellant was the petitioner and counsel. as guardian of the morale. is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorized representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof. x x x appellant enrolled his only child. Inok sent through registered mail a letter addressed to the Director of COA Regional Office No. Inok applied for a vacation leave. 52. provide as follows: “Sec. including terminal leave. CSC Memorandum Circular No. Commonwealth Avenue. himself. Apart from the fact that appellant was in the state of an extreme financial distress and can not afford the high cost of fares from Cotabato City to Manila then to Cagayan de Oro City and vise versa. Atty. Inok.
this case involves reassignment only and not a new appointment where actual assumption to duty is required for the completion of the appointment. he would have physically assumed duty if only he was informed that his application for leave was disapproved. X. .” the head of From the foregoing. It is provided under Section 64 of the aforecited Omnibus Rules on Leave. it is evident that the grant of vacation leave is at the discretion of the head of agency. the term 'actual service' refers to the period of continuous service since the appointment of the official or employee concerned. Thus. WHEREFORE.at the discretion of department/agency. In this case. Since the application for leave of Inok is deemed to have been approved by the head of agency. is an indication that he recognizes the authority of the head of agency. Inok is hereby GRANTED. In the same manner. the Motion for Consideration of Atty. the application for leave of absence by Atty. then. It must be underscored that the head of agency is in the best position to determine whether to approve or disapprove an application for vacation leave. the Commission notes that the reasons of Atty. Inok. which in this case is the Director of Regional Office No. despite the dangers to himself. as such approval has the effect of acquiescing to the request of the applicant and the head of agency having acquired ascendancy over Atty. Finally. 01- 10016 is modified to the extent that in case of a new appointment. taking into consideration the exigency of the service as well as the reasons of the employee in filing an application for leave of absence. Corollary to that. he may be considered to have assumed duty. the filing of a leave of absence may be considered as constructive assumption to duty if the head of agency concerned approved or is deemed to have approved the application. physical assumption of the duties and functions of the office is required before one may be considered to have assumed duty. At this juncture. the Commission gives consideration to the request of the appellant for liberal interpretation of the phrase 'assumption to office' for humanitarian reasons. We give credit to his assertion that. Inok for filing a leave of absence are justified. CSC Resolution No. such application shall be deemed approved if it is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorized representative within five working days after receipt thereof. it must be considered that. that the position of an employee though on vacation leave is not considered vacant. including the periods covered by any previously approved leave with pay. Section 28 of the same rules provides that. the filing of a leave of absence may be considered as constructive assumption to duty if the head of agency concerned approved or is deemed to have approved the application. an employee is considered to be a lawful holder of the functions of his office even while on vacation or sick leave and deemed on actual service during the period of his approved leave with pay. Inok addressed to the Director of COA Region X. As the records do not show whether the application for leave was properly approved or not. In cases of reassignment. In case of reassignment.. Khem N.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.