Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
483
484
485
case, the specific powers of the CESB over members of the CES
must be interpreted in a manner that takes into account the
comprehensive mandate of the CSC under the Constitution and
other statutes.
Same; Same; Appeals; Since the Career Executive Service Board
(CESB) is an attached agency of the Civil Service Commission
(CSC), the formerÊs decisions are expressly subject to the CSCÊs
review on appeal.·It must likewise be emphasized that the CSC
has been granted the authority to review the decisions of agencies
attached to it under Section 12(11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I,
Book V of the Administrative Code: SECTION 12. Powers and
Functions.·The Commission shall have the following powers and
functions: (11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by
or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of
the agencies attached to it. Officials and employees who fail to
comply with such decisions, orders, or rulings shall be liable for
contempt of the Commission. Its decisions, orders, or rulings shall
be final and executory. Such decisions, orders, or rulings may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Since the
CESB is an attached agency of the CSC, the formerÊs decisions are
expressly subject to the CSCÊs review on appeal. Against the express
mandate given to the CSC in the foregoing provision, the contention
of the CESB that its decisions may only be appealed to the Office of
the President must fail.
Same; Same; Same; The rule on appeals to the Office of the
President only covers disciplinary cases involving members of the
Career Executive Service (CES). It is evident that this special rule
was created for that particular type of case, because members of the
CES are all presidential appointees. Given that the power to appoint
generally carries with it the power to discipline.·The supporting
provision cited by the CESB in support of its argument refers only
to administrative cases involving the discipline of members of the
CES: 5. The Board shall promulgate rules, standards and
procedures on the selection, classification, compensation and career
development of members of the Career Executive Service. The
Board shall set up the organization and operation of the Service in
accordance with the following guidelines: x x x x h. Discipline.
Investigation and adjudication of administrative complaints against
members of the Career Executive Service shall be governed by
Article VI, Chapter II and paragraph 1(d) of Article II, Chapter III
of this Part; provided, that
486
487
VOL. 819, MARCH 7, 2017 487
Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission
488
ing the two offices differently, given the plain provisions and
the rationale of the law. This Court would render nugatory both the
terms and the intent of the law if it sustains the view of the CESB.
We cannot construe R.A. 9046 in relation to P.D. 1275 only, while
disregarding the amendments brought about by R.A. 10071. To do
so would defeat the legislatureÊs very purpose, which is to equalize
the qualifications of the NPS and the PAO. Based on the foregoing
discussion, it is evident that the CSC acted within its jurisdiction
and authority as the central personnel agency of the government
when it passed upon the appeal filed by the PAO from CESB
Resolution No. 918. Further, there was no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the CSC when it reversed the said resolution, which
refused to declassify the subject PAO positions. As the CSC noted,
the third-level eligibility required by the CESB as an additional
qualification for these posts contravened not only the express terms,
but also the clear intent of R.A. 9406.
489
490
thority. As I see it, the petitioner has made out a case that falls
under the third exceptional circumstance. The CSC has been
alleged to have unduly exercised its jurisdiction over the appeal
filed by the Public AttorneyÊs Office (PAO). The petitioner
vigorously expressed its opposition to the CSCÊs jurisdiction over
the case. The majority opinion even cites the Motion for
Clarification of the petitioner made in the CSC to argue against the
CSCÊs jurisdiction because: (a) the appeal by the PAO involved a
controversy between two government agencies regarding questions
of law; and (b) the petitioner was an autonomous agency whose
decisions were appealable to the Office of the President.
Same; Civil Procedure; Petition for Review; View that the
assailed decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was not
within the purview of the coverage of Section 1, Rule 43, because it
was not in the category of the „awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions‰ that were reviewable under
Rule 43.·Section 1 of Rule 43 provides: Section 1. Scope.·This
Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the
Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders
or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies
are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the
President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents,
Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform
under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance
System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural
Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic
Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by
law. (n) The assailed decision of the CSC was not within the
purview of the coverage of Section 1, supra, because it was not in
the category of the „awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of
or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions‰ that were reviewable under Rule 43. It
related to the CSCÊs determination of the strictly legal question of
which between the petitioner and CSC had jurisdiction over the
question in dispute. The
491
SERENO, CJ.:
Factual Antecedents
_______________
492
_______________
493
_______________
_______________
495
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 96-101.
15 Id., at pp. 101-102.
16 Id., at pp. 103-105.
17 Id., at pp. 109-112; See letter dated 7 January 2011 Re:
Appropriate Eligibility for Key Positions in PA (Legal Opinion).
18 Id., at pp. 106-107; Letter dated 10 January 2011 sent by PAO
Deputy Chief Public Attorney Silvestre A. Mosing to CESB Executive
Director Maria Anthonette V. Allones.
19 Id., at pp. 109-112.
496
The law is explicit that the positions [of] Chief Public Attorney,
Deputy Chief Public Attorney and Regional Public Attorney in PAO
shall have the same qualifications for appointment, among other
things, as those of the Chief State Prosecutor, Assistant Chief State
Prosecutor and Regional State Prosecutor, respectively. These, of
course include, the eligibility requirement for these positions. x x x.
xxxx
The Prosecution Service Act of 2010 explicitly provides that the
Prosecutor General (the retitled position of Chief State Prosecutor)
has the same qualifications for appointment, among other things, as
those of the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA). Further,
the Senior Deputy State Prosecutor and the Regional Prosecutor
have the same qualifications as those of an associate justice of the
CA. x x x.
xxxx
No less than the Constitution provides that justices and judges
in the judiciary are required, among other things, practice of law as
requirement for appointment thereto. Pointedly, the Presiding
Justice and the Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) have
the same qualifications as those provided for in the Constitution for
Justices of the Supreme Court[,] which includes, among other
requirements, practice of law. This means that the Constitution and
the Civil Service Law prescribe RA 1080 (BAR) as the appropriate
civil service eligibility therefor. Accordingly, any imposition of a
third-level eligibility (e.g., CESE, CSEE) is not proper, if not, illegal
under the circumstances. In fact, even in the 1997 Qualification
Standards Manual of the Commission, ail of these positions require
RA 1080 BAR eligibility for purposes of appointment.
xxxx
497
_______________
498
499
500
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission
_______________
_______________
502
503
_______________
504
_______________
505
Issues
_______________
506
507
508
509
510
_______________
511
_______________
512
513
powers and functions of the CSC and the CESB are well-
defined. After analyzing and harmonizing the legal
provisions pertaining to each of these two agencies, the
Court concludes that the CSC has the authority to review
CESB Resolution No. 918. We have arrived at this
conclusion after a consideration of (a) the broad mandate of
the CSC under the Constitution and the Administrative
Code; and (b) the specific and narrowly tailored powers
granted to the CESB in the Integrated Reorganization Plan
and the Administrative Code.
As the central personnel
agency of the government,
the CSC has broad author-
ity to pass upon all civil
service matters.
_______________
514
_______________
515
MR. FOZ. Will the amendment reduce the powers and functions of
the Civil Service as embodied in our original draft?
MS. AQUINO. No, it will not. The proposed deletion of lines 35
to 40 of page 2 until line 1 of page 3 would not in any way
minimize the powers of the Civil Service [Commission]
because they are deemed implicitly included in the all-
embracing definition and concept of „central personnel
agency of the government.‰ I believe that the lines we have
mentioned are but redundant articulation of that same concept,
unnecessary surplusage.
MR. FOZ. For instance, will the power or function to promulgate
policies on personnel actions be encompassed by the
CommissionerÊs amendment?
MS. AQUINO. It is not an amendment because I am retaining lines
33 to 35. I proposed an amendment after the words „career
service.‰ I am only doing away with unnecessary redundancy.
MR. FOZ. Can we say that all of the powers enumerated in
the original provision are still being granted by the Civil
Service Commission despite the elimination of the listing
of these powers and functions?
MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, in the nature of a
central personnel agency, it would
_______________
516
517
_______________
518
519
_______________
54 See Section 4 of R.A. No. 5435 as amended by R.A. Nos. 6076 and
6172.
55 Integrated Reorganization Plan (1972).
520
521
_______________
62 Id.
63 Id., Article IV 5(g).
64 Id., Article IV 5(h)
65 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2,
Section 7, states in relevant part:
SECTION 7. Career Service.·The Career Service shall be
characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive examination, or based on
highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher
career positions; and (3) security of tenure.
The Career Service shall include:
xxxx
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely, Undersecretary,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director,
Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department
Service and other officers of equivalent rank as may be identified by the
Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the
President;
66 Id., Section 8, states:
SECTION 8. Classes of Positions in the Career Service.·(1) Classes of
positions in the career service appointment to which requires
examinations shall be grouped into three major levels as follows:
xxxx
522
_______________
_______________
524
525
526
_______________
527
under P.D. 1275. The latter law is the old one that governs
the NPS and requires third-level eligibility for senior
prosecutorial posts. According to the CESB, R.A. 10071
cannot apply, because R.A. 9406 could not have referred to
a law that had not yet been enacted at the time. It also
asserts that the subsequent declassification of prosecutors
cannot benefit members of the PAO, because the
prosecutors exercise quasi-judicial functions while the PAO
members do not.
On the other hand, the CSC argues that nowhere in R.A.
9406, P.D. 1275, R.A. 10071 or Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.)
129 is there a reference to third-level eligibility and CESO
rank as qualification requirements. It emphasizes that the
CESB cannot add to the provisions of these laws, which
only require the practice of law for a certain period of time
and presuppose a bar license. The PAO, for its part,
maintains that the posts concerned are highly technical in
nature because they primarily involve legal practice, and
any managerial functions performed are merely incidental
to their principal roles. It also claims that the legislature
could never have intended to require third-level eligibility
for occupants of the subject posts when it enacted R.A.
9406.
After a careful consideration of the relevant statutes and
rules, this Court agrees with the conclusion of the CSC. To
require the occupants of the subject PAO positions to
possess third-level eligibility would be to amend the law
and defeat its spirit and intent.
528
_______________
75 See Flores v. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, 22 June 1993, 223 SCRA
568; Manalang v. Quitoriano, 94 Phil. 903 (1954).
76 The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales, 714
Phil. 468; 701 SCRA 635 (2011).
77 Id.
529
530
_______________
531
xxxx
SECTION 16. Qualifications, Ranks and Appointments of
Prosecutors and Other Prosecution Officers.·Prosecutors with the
rank of Prosecutor V shall have the same qualifications for
appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary grade and
salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be
subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall
enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of an
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
Prosecutors with the rank of Prosecutor IV shall have the same
qualifications for appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary
grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges,
shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and
shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of a
Judge of the Regional Trial Court.
_______________
532
_______________
533
_______________
against the express terms and the clear intent of R.A. 9406
and is therefore untenable.
As stated previously, Section 5 of R.A. 9406 amended the
Administrative Code of 1987. The amendment was done to
provide for „the same qualifications for appointment, rank,
salaries, allowances, and retirement privileges‰ of senior
officials of both the PAO and the NPS. The deliberations of
Congress on R.A. 9406 reveal its intention to establish
parity between the two offices. The lawmakers clearly
viewed these officers as counterparts in the administration
of justice:
_______________
84 Records (Vol. II), Senate 13th Congressional Session, p. 386 (13
November 2006).
535
SEN. DRILON. Yes, this is our amendment that the PAO chief
should have the same salary as the Chief State Prosecutor and
down the line, the Assistant Chief State Prosecutor, etcetera. And I
want to put this on record because there are PAO lawyers here.
There are PAO lawyers here before us and we want to explain why
we have placed this.
xxxx
SEN. DRILON. All right. As I said · you know, I want to put on
record why we had tried to streamline the salary structure and
place it at the same level as the Chief State Prosecutor. Because we
do not want a salary distortion in the Department of Justice where
you have the PAO higher than the prosecutors. ThatÊs why we want
to put them on equal footing rather than mag · you know, thereÊll
be whipsawing. You place the prosecutors below the PAO. I can
assure you that tomorrow the PAO will come to us · the
prosecutors will come to us and say, „Put us higher than the PAO
lawyers.‰ So you will have whipsawing here.85
536
537
BERSAMIN, J.:
538
_______________
539
_______________
540
_______________
541
_______________
542
Petition dismissed.
543
··o0o··