AUGUSTO TOLEDO, 

petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Toledo was appointed by then Comelec Chairman Ramon Felipe as

Manager of the Education and Information Department of the Comelec.

At time of his appointment, he was already more than 57 years old and it was his
first time to joined the gov’t service as he was then engaged in active private practice
prior to said appointment.

Toledo’s appointment papers and his oath of office were endorsed by the
Comelec to the CSC for approval and attestation.

However, no prior request for exemption from the provisions of Section 22, Rule
III of the CSRPAP—which prohibits the appointment of persons 57 years old or above
into government service without prior CSC approval—was secured.

Petitioner then reported for work.

Respondent Comelec, upon discovery of the lack of authority under Sec.22,

issued a Resolution whereby declaring the appointment of Toledo as void from the
beginning.

Upon appeal to CSC, the latter considered him a de facto officer and his
appointment voidable, and moved for reconsideration but was denied, hence the
present petition.

ISSUE: W/N prohibition on the appointment of individuals above the age of 57 is

valid.

HELD:

NO. The SC held that the rule set by CSC prohibiting individuals above the age
of 57 from being appointed in the government, except if prior authorization and/or
exemption is obtained, is invalid for two reasons.

First, such prohibition appears only in the CSRPAP, which may be considered as
merely the rules and regulations put in place by CSC to implement civil service laws
(Civil Service Act of 1959, R.A. No. 2260, P.D. No. 807). But none of these laws
contains a provision prohibiting individuals above the age of 57 from being appointed.

In other words, the said prohibition was purely a creation of the CSC, having no
reference to any provision in the laws intended to be implemented,--- that provision
cannot be valid, being entirely a CSC creation, it has no basis in the law which it was
meant to implement. It was therefore an unauthorized act of legislation on the part of the
Civil Service Commission. The power vested in the Civil Service Commission was
to implement the law or put it into effect, not to add to it; to carry the law into
effect or execution, not to supply perceived omissions in it.

It cannot be justified as a valid exercise of its function of promulgating rules and

regulations for that function, to repeat, may legitimately be exercised only for the
purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect; and since there is no prohibition
or restriction on the employment of 57-year old persons in the statute—or any provision
respecting age as a factor in employment—there was nothing to carry into effect
through an implementing rule on the matter.

Second, these rules and regulations (CSRPAP) were never published either in the
Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation. The fact of non-publication of
these rules was even admitted by CSC itself. As such, these rules can be said to have
never taken effect.