Theresa Faye A.

De Guzman
JD 1-2

GR No. 152574
November 17, 2004

Francisco Abella, Jr., petitioner

vs.
Civil Service Commission, respondent

FACTS

Francisco A. Abella, Jr., a retired lawyer formerly with the Export Processing Zone Authority
(EPZA), contested the rejection of his permanent appointment as Department Manager III at
the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). The rejection was grounded in Memorandum
Circular No. 21, series of 1994, issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which extended
the scope of the Career Executive Service (CES). Despite meeting the eligibility requirements for
his previous role, Abella's appointment was declined by the CSC. The Court of Appeals (CA)
declined to examine the circular's constitutionality, citing procedural issues and questioning
Abella's legal standing. Unhappy with the CA's decision, Abella appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

WON respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on a mere technicality considering that petitioner is
questioning the constitutionality of respondent office’ issuance of Section 4 of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994, which deprived petitioner his property right without due
process of law

HELD

NO. The CSC maintained that CES positions required specific eligibility criteria.The CSC has the
authority to issue regulations to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the civil service. The
Circular aimed to define CES positions clearly and provide guidelines for appointments. Despite
the petitioner's contention, his appointment was found incompatible with the eligibility
requirements for CES positions. The Circular protected incumbents of positions affected by the
CES classification, allowing them to retain their positions despite lacking CES eligibility.
However, upon reemployment, individuals must meet the eligibility criteria set for the
respective positions.
The petitioner's claim of impairment of security of tenure was dismissed, as security of tenure
in the CES pertains to rank, not specific positions. Additionally, his due process rights were not
violated, as the Circular was a quasi-legislative act, not a quasi-judicial one, and thus did not
necessitate prior notice and hearing.
Overall, the issuance of CSC Memorandum Circular 21, s. 1994, was deemed lawful and
consistent with administrative procedures.