(A Compilation of Jurisprudence on CS Law & Rules
by Roy R. Luga)
The Civil Service
The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the government including government owned or controlled corporations with original charter [Article IX [b], Section 2 [1], 1987 Constitution]. The Civil Service contemplated in this constitutional provision is very comprehensive in its scope, that it includes every category of officers or employees in the government, its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, and even employees of private corporations, if such corporations are controlled or owned by the government with original charter [EIIB vs, CSC 299 SCRA 373. 1989].
Government corporations may be created by special charters or by incorporation under the corporation law. Those created by special charters are governed by the Civil Service Law while those incorporated under the general incorporation law are governed by the Labor Code [Association of Dedicated Employees of the Philippine Tourism Authority [ADEPT] vs. Commission on
The Civil Service Commission
Powers and Function
Sole Personnel Agency of the Government
The State shall insure and promote the Constitutional mandate that appointments in the Civil Service shall be made only according to merit and fitness; that, the Civil Service Commission, as the Central Personnel Agency of the government shall established a career service, adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, and courtesy in the civil service, strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability; that public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people; and, that personnel functions shall be decentralized, delegating the corresponding authority to the departments, offices and agencies where such functions can be effectively performed [Section 10 Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I Book V, Administrative Code of 1987].
The CSC is the sole central personnel agency of the government. As such, it implements and enforces laws relative to the civil service. It is likewise clothed with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate and decide dispute and cases arising from personnel relationship of all employees embraced in the civil service [Ferer vs. CSC CA G.R. No. 37688 promulgated on June 1998]. The Civil Service Commission being the same category as the Commission on Elections, the jurisprudence laid down in Guevarra vs. COMELEC, 104 Phil. 268, may be said of, or applied to the former.
Composition
The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity forpublic administration, and must have not been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment [Section 10 Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987].
The Commission shall have not less than thirteen (13) regional offices each to be headed by a Director, an such field officers as may be needed, each to be headed by an official with at least the rank of Assistant Director. Each Regional Office shall have the following functions:
'(a) Enforce Civil Service law and rules, policies, standards on personnel management within their respective jurisdiction;
'(b) Provide technical advice and assistance to government offices and agencies regarding personnel administration; and,
'(c) Perform such other functions as maybe delegated by the Commission.
Decisions, orders and rulings of the Collegial Commission,
not the offices under it, is considered by law as final and executory
While the Commission's Regional Offices may enforce Civil Service law and rules, policies, standards on personnel management within their respective jurisdiction, it does not, however, construed to mean that its decision immediately becomes final and executory pending appeal with the Commission. It must be underscored that the Commission's power to decide with finality cases brought before it is exclusively lodged by E.O. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987) only to the Collegial Commission. Paragraph 11, Section 12 of the aforequoted law clearly provides that it is only the Collegial Commission's decisions, orders or rulings which are considered by law as final and executory and not that of the offices under it. Without the Collegial Commission's concurrence, it can not be said that the decisions of the CSCROs pending appeal with the Collegial Commission, may be considered as final and executory. The law has exclusively delegated only to the Collegial Commission's wisdom and discretion the power to decide with finality cases brought before it. Hence, under the principle of non-delegation of powers, 'potestas delegata non delegari potes' (what has been delegated can not be delegated), the Collegial Commission's mandate constitute not only a right but a duty to be performed through the instrumentality of its own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another [ENANO, Marilou et.al., CSC Resolution No. 00-1240 dated May 24, 2000].
Power to Interpret Laws
The Commission has the power to interpret laws pertaining to Civil Service as although the power to interpret is primarily judicial function, there are several instances where this power is also assumed by both legislative and executive departments of the government including constitutional commissions. A contemporaneous construction and interpretation of law by the implementing and administrative agency is accorded great respect by the court [Bagatsing vs. Committee on Privitization 234 SCRA 206 ].
It should be underscored, however, that when a administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means [Baltazar vs. Commission on Election 350 SCRA 518 [2001]].
Contempt Power of the CSC
The Civil service Commission being the same category as the Commission on Elections, the jurisprudence laid down in Guevarra vs. Comelec, 104 Phil. 268, may be said of, or applied to the former. Being an independent administrative body with quasi-judicial function, the Civil Service Commission's contempt power may be exercise only in the furtherance of its quasi-judicial function, and not in the exercise of purely administrative matter [EIIB vs. CSC, Ibid.]. CSC Resolution No. 07-1245 dated June 22, 2007 provides for the rules in the exercise of the contempt power of the Commission.
Fiscal Autonomy
CSC enjoys fiscal autonomy. [I]t is understood that the judiciary, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, and Office of the Ombudsman, which enjoys fiscal autonomy are not covered by the amount fixed by the President in the granting of benefits to its employees [ADEPT vs. COA, Ibid.]. The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards to the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based [Bensson vs. Drillon, 208 SCRA 133].
[T]he Constitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions of which petitioner is one, and the Ombudsman. To hold that petitioner may be subjected to withholding or reduction of funds in the event of revenue shortfall would, to that extent, place petitioner and the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy on equal footing with all others which are not granted the same autonomy, thereby reducing to naught the distinction established by the Constitution. The agencies which the Constitution has vested with fiscal autonomy should thus be given priority in the release of their approved appropriations over all other agencies not similarly vested when there is a revenue shortfall [Civil Service Commission vs. Department of Budget and Management, S.C. G.R.No. 158791 dated July 22, 2005].
II. PERSONNEL ACTION
Personnel Action
Personnel action is defined as any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service. It includes appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion and separation from the service [Section 26, Chapter V, Title A Book V, E.O. 292].
Appointment
Appointment is the act of designation by the executive officer, board or body to whom that power has been delegated, of the individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office [Section 26, Chapter V Title A. Book V EO 292] . It is essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the condition being that the appointee possess the qualifications required by law [Lapinid vs. CSC 197 SCRA 106]. It is, however, subject to review by the Civil Service Commission. Until its approval. The appointment maybe considered only as temporary [Aguila vs. Castro 15 SCRA 565] and if the appointment is temporary, it did not confer upon him the vested right to occupy a permanent position. The Civil Service Commission checks only the qualification of the appointee. It is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of appointment [Luego vs. CSC 143 SCRA 327].
Appointing Officer Defined.
"Appointing Officer is the person or body authorized by law to make appointments in the civil service" [Section 2 [b], Rule I, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V.of E.O. 292].
Appointing Power -
Regional directors has the power to issue appointments in Regional Office, such power only covers positions in the first level, casual and seasonal employees [Apurillo vs. Civil Service Commission, 227 SCRA 230]. The power to appoint resides exclusively in the appointing authority and is not deemed delegated to one who is merely an Officer-In-Charge. The designation of an OIC is nothing more than a temporary and convenient arrangement intended to avert paralization of the day to day operations of an office in the meantime that the chief or head of office is temporarily absent [REALCE, Patricio, CSC Resolution No. 93-5026]. Head of Office in an acting capacity, however, can exercise the power to appoint and to discipline only after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the time the appointing authority is temporarily incapacitated [DAY, Amado, CSC Resolution No. 94-6892].
CSC has no power to specify with
the nature or status of appointment.
It is the appointing authority that specifies the nature of appointment. The Commission is tasked only to approve or disapprove the appointment as proposed and cannot alter the nature of the appointment issued by the appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission has no authority to change the status of the appointment from permanent to temporary. It can only approve or disapprove an appointment. Its authority is limited to the determination of whether or not the appointee possess the required qualification for the position [CASAMARA , Guillermo G., CSC Resolution 92-0700 citing: Romualdez vs. CSC G.R. No. 94878 dated may 15, 1991]. The authority of the Commission is limited to approving or disapproving an appointment upon reviewing it in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law [Luego vs. CSC 143 SCRA 327]. Appointments under temporary status may be allowed in the absence of qualified eligibles. Only in cases where there are no eligibles who are willing and able to assume the position that a temporary appointment to a person who meets all the requirements except eligibility is allowed [CAPARROS, Ramon et. al., CSC Resolution No. 96-3158]. Appointees to personal and confidential positions must meet the educational requirement., no experience, eligibility and training are required [NOVENO, Benito, CSC Resolution No. 96-0488].
Steps for Valid Appointment
The appointment to be complete involves several steps. First comes the nomination by a body authorized to screen, evaluate and determine the nominees qualification and fitness. Then to make that nomination valid and permanent, the confirmation of the designation by issuance of appointment by the appointing authority.
'The first two steps, nomination and confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. 'But the last step to make the appointment complete and effective rest solely with the appointee itself. He may or may not accept the appointment or nomination as there is no power in this country which can compel a man to accept an office [Antonnio Lacson vs. Romero 84 SCRA 740].'
Publication Requirement; Qualification Standard
Information regarding the position, titles, item numbers, salary grades and other relevant requirements including the corresponding qualifications must be published pursuant to R.A. 7041 [CATARROJA, Cecilio,CSC Resolution No. 96-1772]. The qualification requirement for a position in the civil service is provided for by the Constitution, by law creating an office and, the Qualification Standards Manual of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission as the sole central personnel agency of the government implements and enforces laws relative to the civil service [Ferer vs. CSC
Agencies, however, are not precluded from establishing higher standards for their positions without need of approval by the Commission [CSC MC No. 1 series of 1997; cited in Elmer R. Esplana, CSC Resolution No. 00-1147 dated May 11, 2000]; and, in the absence of a clear and convincing evidence that a person is not qualified for the position, his appointment cannot be invalidated solely on the basis of an alleged violation of an internal policy adopted by the office in implementing its merit and promotion plan. As the Commission in Cirila Lu C. Ruña (CSC Resolution No. 00-1260 dated May 24, 2000) has ruled:
"[I]n the absence of a clear and convincing evidence that Ruña is not qualified for the position, her appointment cannot be invalidated solely on the basis of an alleged violation by DARRO No. VIII of the internal policy adopted by DAR in implementing its merit and promotion plan."
A merit promotion plan which provides for an evaluation tool to screen candidates to a given position maybe dispensed with by the appointing authority should the latter has a prerogative to dos so. In Rosalie S. Gallego (Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 97-0770 dated January 28, 1977), the Commission has ruled, that:
"x x x [I]t should be noted that while the MPP (Merit promotion Plan) adopted the ACT (Assessment Center Technology) as an evaluation tool to screen candidates for third level positions, the DBP Chairman is vested with the prerogative to dispense with the ACT. Thus, whether Gallego underwent the ACT evaluation as management claim she did, or she was in effect exempted, as Ronquillo alleged, does not affect the validity of the appointment issued, as Gallego met the qualification standards for BEO I position."
Role of the Personnel Selection
Board (PSB) in the selection process.
The PSB's role in the selection and appointment process under Section 1 (h) of the Civil Service Commission Circular No. 40 series of 1998 [dated December 14, 1998] is merely to determine whether the appointee is qualified to a given position; and, whether all the necessary legal requirements prior to the issuance of an appointment has already been complied with.
Once the PSB fulfilled its role and the appointing authority has chosen who among the nominees is qualified to a given position, issuance of an appointment and the required attestation by the Human Resource Management Officer Chief and the Chairman of the PSB of such fact becomes merely a ministerial act.
The Chairmanship of the Local Chief Executive
in the Personnel Selection Board of Local
Government Units (LGUs) is not exclusive.
The provision of the Local Government Code (Section 80 [c] R.A. 7160) which provides that the personnel selection board in every province, city or municipality shall be headed by the local chief executive is not restrictive. The Vice-Governor or Mayor, as the case maybe, as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Bayan may preside and convene the personnel Selection Bard to pass upon the fitness of the appointees of the Sanggunian.
The CSC in BERMUDEZ, Edwin F. (CSC Resolution No. 00-0828 dated March 28, 2000; citing Nolasco Reyes et. al. vs. Hon. Roman R. Rosales, C.A. G.R. SO No. 48533 dated November 26, 1999), the Commission ruled:
"A strict interpretation of Section 80 of the Local Government Code would result in a mischief where the exercise of power of the municipal vice-mayor to appoint employees of the Sangguniang Bayan could be rendered nugatory if the municipal mayor is placed as chairman of the PSB.
"This is bolstered by the fact that Article 166 of the aforesaid Implementing Rules of the Local Government Code of 1991 recognizes the authority of the presiding officer of the sanggunian, which is the vice-mayor (Section 445 [I] of R.A. 7160), to appoint personnel for employment as well as for promotion, were applicable. x x x"
PERSONNEL MOVEMENT
Transfer/Re-assignment
"An employee maybe re-assigned from one organizational unit to the other in the same agency. Provided, that such re-assignment shall not involve reduction in rank, status or salary [Section 26, Paragraph 7 Book V E.O. 292]." For the good of the public service and whenever public interest demands, public officials maybe temporarily assigned or detailed to other duties even over his objection without necessarily violating his fundamental legal rights of security of tenure in the civil service [Cruz vs. Navarro, 66 SCRA 79]. Transfer or re-assignment is a management prerogative. Unless malice and bad faith are shown and in the absence of any diminutions in rank, status and salary on the part of the officer or the employee being temporarily reassigned, the Commission does not interfere with the exercise thereof [ODERON, Richard, CSC Resolution No. 99-0137 dated January 13, 1999]. If the employee concerned believes that there is no justification therefore (for his/her transfer, detail and reassignment), he she may appeal his/her case to the Civil Service commission. Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the decision to detail an employee shall be executory [Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 192].
Transfer from one place of assignment to another because of the agency's need for an expert in another branch of their office is justifiable [ODERON, Richard, CSC Resolution No. 99-0137 dated January 13, 1999]. However, even if the transfer is in the exigency of the service if the appointment of the person to be re-assigned or transferred is station specific, re-assignment can be only with the employee's consent [BERMEJO-DULAY, Dimpna, CSC Resolution No. 99-0118 dated January 12, 1999]. Where the appointment does not indicate a specific station, an employee may be transferred or re-assigned provided, the transfer affects no substantial change in title, rank and salary [Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637].
'C. DESIGNATION
Non-career officials maybe designated by the Local
Chief Executive as his representative in the PSB
Designation of non-career officials to positions exercising control and supervision over regular and career personnel is prohibited. (Tagoranao, Gampong, et. al., CSC Resolution No. 99-0499 dated February 22, 1999).
'However, the Local Chief Executive may designate non-career official as his representative in the Personnel Selection Board without violating the rule prohibiting designation of non-career officials to position exercising control and supervision over regular career personnel. The nature and functions of the position
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
COMPLAINT/FORMAL CHARGE
A complaint against a civil service official or employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the compliant need not be under oath. No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations therein or supported by documentary evidence, in which case the person complained of may be required to comment. The complaint should be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
The Civil Service Rules [Rule III, Section 16 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides: "Section 16. Formal Charge - After finding of a prima facie case, the disciplining authority shall formally charge the person complained of . x x x ] as well as the Administrative Code of 1987 [Section 48 [2], chapter 2, Book V Title I of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: In case of a complaint filed by any persons, the complaint shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony and those of his witnesses together with his documentary evidence], provides that, in complaints initiated by the disciplining authority, it is indispensable that the disciplining authority 'shall' issue a formal charge containing a specification of the charge[s] filed against a subordinate official/employee before conducting a formal hearing. A formal charge is required whenever a prima facie case is found to exist. The word 'shall' which connotes compulsion, was used in the aforementioned provision of the Uniform Rules, which requires the filing of a formal charge before a formal investigation of the case, prior to rendition of judgment.
In MORALDE, Gabriel (CSC Resolution No. 05-0569, dated May 3, 2005). The Civil Service Commission ruled:
"The shortcut proceedings undertaken by the governor in dismissing Moralde from the service without having been formally charge is a blatant disregard of Moralde's right to due process. The preliminary investigation of the Provincial Attorney should have merely determined the existence or non-existence of a prima facie case against Moralde. What should have been done by the governor after he is convinced that there exists a prima facie case against Moralde for Falsification is to issue the corresponding formal charge and not outrightly dismiss Moralde."
"In Civil Service Commission vs. Lucas (301 SCRA 560), the Supreme Court, ruled:
'We sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals that: (a) a basic requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him and that (b) a person cannot be convicted of a crime with which he was not charged.'
"Accordingly, the memorandum of Governor Calingin terminating the services of Moralde is legally infirm. Therefore, the instant case should be remanded to the Governor of Misamis Oriental for further investigation pursuant to Section 48, rule 3, of the Uniform Rules which provides:
"Section 49. When Case is Remanded for Violation of Respondent's Right to Due Process. - If the case on appeal with the Commission Proper is remanded to the Proper disciplining authority for further investigation, the said disciplining authority shall finish the investigation within three (3) calendar months from the date of receipt of the records from the Commission, unless the investigation is delayed due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, or an extension is granted by the Commission Proper in meritorious cases. The period of delay shall not be included in the computation of the prescribed period.
"Within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the investigation, the disciplining authority shall render its decision if at the end of said period, the disciplining authority fails to decide the case, the Commission Proper shall vacate and set aside the appealed decision and declare respondent exonerated of the charge. If the respondent is under preventive suspension, he shall be immediately reinstated and shall be entitled to back salaries and other benefits.
"The Civil Service Regional Office and the Office for Legal Affairs of the Commission Proper shall evaluate requests for extension of formal investigation and grant the same on meritorious ground. In disposing the requests, these offices shall be guided by the principles of justice and fair play, provided, that the extension shall not be more than twenty days (20) days."
"WHEREFORE, the appeal of Gabriel A. Moralde is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the appealed Memorandum is hereby SET ASIDE for violation of respondent's right to due process. Accordingly, the instant case is hereby remanded to the Governor of Misamis Oriental for the issuance of the formal charge, if the evidence so warrants, and to thereafter proceed with the formal investigation of the case. The formal investigation should be completed within three (3) calendar months from the date of receipt from the Commission. Within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the investigation, the disciplining authority shall render its decision; otherwise, the Commission shall vacate and set aside the appealed decision and declare respondent exonerated from the charge."
If the facts, however, disclose that there is a clear denial of due process totally denying respondent of his right to be informed of the charges against him and to present his side, the case may be dismissed outright without remanding the same for being void 'ab initio', as the Supreme Court in Aducayen vs. Flores (51 SCRA 78) has ruled:
"Where the facts disclosed a clear denial of due process, in that the municipal judge defaulted the defendant, even though he duly filed an answer to the complaint and was not notified of the date of pre-trial, and then a judgment was rendered against him on plaintiff's evidence ex parte, such a judgment is void and in this sense 'it may be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head."
The formal charge against a respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is appraised of the substance of the charge against him. What is controlling are the allegations of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense [Dadubo vs. CSC 223 SCRA 747].
Under Section 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292 and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint may be initiated against a civil service officer or employee by the appropriate disciplining authority, even without being subscribed and sworn to [Civil Service Commission vs. CA S.C. G.R. No. 147009 dated March 11, 2004].
Complaint filed by the disciplining
authority need not be subscribed
CSC vs. CA S.C. G.R. No. 147009 dated March 11, 2004 -
"As can be seen from the bare contents of the anonymous letter, it was not a complaint within the purview of Section 8, Rule III of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which requires, among others, the full name and address of the complainant and the person complained of, a narration of the relevant and material facts, and certification of non-forum shopping. Neither did it, by itself, commence administrative proceedings, requiring an answer from Dumlao described under Sction 48 (2) of E.O. No. 292, but merely triggered an investigation by the CSC.
Indeed, the letter complaint is just a plain and simple letter. It was merely a communication sent to the CSC Regional Office to call its attention to the educational background of Dumlao that is not different from an information or tip given by telephone to the Regional Office. To say that the CSC cannot act upon the information because it was from an anonymous caller, or in this case, an anonymous writer, would result in an absurd and restrictive interpretation of E.O. 292 and effectively deprive the Government of its disciplining power over people who hold public trust.
In David vs. Villegas [81 SCRA 642], a case cited by the CSC, private respondent therein Padlan charged petitioner David before the Office of the Mayor with 'brazen dishonesty'. The Mayor issued a memorandum to David ordering him to explain within seventy-two hours why no administrative action should be taken against him. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Mayor ordered the matter investigated and the case was docketed as an administrative case. Among the issues that reached the Court was David's argument that Padlan's complaint was not subscribed and sworn to in accordance with Republic Act No. 2260, which provides that no complaint against a civil servant shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed to by the complainant. The Court therein ruled that it was the Mayor who filed the complaint which, consequently, need not be subscribed and sworn to."
