Access over 20 million homework & study documents

204466334_admin_law_cases.docx

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/52
1
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 152574. November 17, 2004]
FRANCISCO ABELLA JR., petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Both the appointing authority and the appointee are the real parties in interest, and both have legal standing, in a
suit assailing a Civil Service Commission (CSC) order disapproving an appointment. Despite having legal interest and standing,
herein petitioner unsuccessfully challenges the constitutionality of the CSC circular that classifies certain positions in the career
service of the government. In sum, petitioner was appointed to a Career Executive Service (CES) position, but did not have the
corresponding eligibility for it; hence, the CSC correctly disapproved his appointment.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review
[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the November 16, 2001
Decision
[2]
and the March 8, 2002 Resolution
[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 58987. The Assailed Decision
disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.”
[4]
The challenged Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The CA narrates the factual antecedents in this wise:
“Petitioner Francisco A. Abella, Jr., a lawyer, retired from the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), now the Philippine
Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), on July 1, 1996 as Department Manager of the Legal Services Department. He held a civil
service eligibility for the position of Department Manager, having completed the training program for Executive Leadership and
Management in 1982 under the Civil Service Academy, pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 850 dated April 16, 1979, which was
then the required eligibility for said position.
“It appears, however, that on May 31, 1994, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 21, series of 1994,
the pertinent provisions of which read:
‘1. Positions Covered by the Career Executive Service
x x x x x x x x x
(b) In addition to the above identified positions and other positions of the same category which had been
previously classified and included in the CES, all other third level positions of equivalent category in all
branches and instrumentalities of the national government, including government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters are embraced within the Career Executive Service provided that they meet
the following criteria:
‘1. the position is a career position;
‘2. the position is above division chief level
‘3. the duties and responsibilities of the position require the performance of executive or managerial
functions.
‘4. Status of Appointment of Incumbents of Positions Included Under the Coverage of the
CES. Incumbents of positions which are declared to be Career Executive Service positions for the first time
pursuant to this Resolution who hold permanent appointments thereto shall remain under permanent status in
their respective positions. However, upon promotion or transfer to other Career Executive Service (CES)
positions, these incumbents shall be under temporary status in said other CES positions until they qualify.’
“Two years after his retirement, petitioner was hired by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) on a contractual basis. On
January 1, 1999, petitioner was issued by SBMA a permanent employment as Department Manager III, Labor and Employment
Center. However, when said appointment was submitted to respondent Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. III, it was
disapproved on the ground that petitioner’s eligibility was not appropriate. Petitioner was advised by SBMA of the disapproval of
his appointment. In view thereof, petitioner was issued a temporary appointment as Department Manager III, Labor and
Employment Center, SBMA on July 9, 1999.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/52
2
“Petitioner appealed the disapproval of his permanent appointment by respondent to the Civil Service Commission, which issued
Resolution No. 000059, dated January 10, 2000, affirming the action taken by respondent. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration thereof was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 001143 dated May 11, 2000.”
“x x x x x x x x x
“Undaunted, petitioner filed with [the CA] a petition for review seeking the reversal of the CSC Resolutions dated January 10,
2000 and May 11, 2000 on the ground that CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994 is unconstitutional as it rendered his
earned civil service eligibility ineffective or inappropriate for the position of Department Manager [III]”
[5]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA shunned the issue of constitutionality, arguing that a constitutional question should not be passed upon if there are
other grounds upon which the case may be decided.
[6]
Citing CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998 and Mathay v. Civil Service
Commission,
[7]
the appellate court ruled that only the appointing officer may request reconsideration of the action taken by the
CSC on appointments. Thus, it held that petitioner did not have legal standing to question the disapproval of his appointment.
[8]
On reconsideration, the CA added that petitioner was not the real party in interest, as his appointment was dependent on
the CSC’s approval. Accordingly, he had no vested right in the office, since his appointment was disapproved.
[9]
Unsatisfied, petitioner brought this recourse to this Court.
[10]
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
“A. Whether or not Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ruling that petitioner lacks the personality to question the disapproval by respondent office of petitioner’s
appointment as Department Manager III, Labor and Employment Center, SBMA.
“B. Whether or not Respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ruling that petitioner is not the real party in interest to question the disapproval by respondent office of petitioner’s
appointment as Department Manager III, Labor and Employment Center, SBMA.
“C. Whether or not 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.
[11]
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition is partly meritorious.
First Issue:
Who May File Reconsideration or Appeal
Preliminary Observation
Petitioner imputes to the CA “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction” for ruling that he had no legal
standing to contest the disapproval of his appointment.
[12]
Grave abuse of discretion is a ground for a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Nevertheless, this Court resolved to grant due course to the Petition and to treat it appropriately
as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The grounds shall be deemed “reversible errors,” not
“grave abuse of discretion.
Approval Required for
Permanent Appointment
A permanent appointment in the career service is issued to a person who has met the requirements of the position to which
the appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of law, the rules and the standards promulgated pursuant
thereto.
[13]
It implies the civil service eligibility of the appointee.
[14]
Thus, while the appointing authority has the discretion to
choose whom to appoint, the choice is subject to the caveat that the appointee possesses the required qualifications.
[15]
To make it fully effective, an appointment to a civil service position must comply with all legal requirements.
[16]
Thus, the
law requires the appointment to be submitted to the CSC which will ascertain, in the main, whether the proposed appointee is
qualified to hold the position and whether the rules pertinent to the process of appointment were observed.
[17]
The applicable
provision of the Civil Service Law reads:
“SECTION 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall administer the Civil Service and shall
have the following powers and functions:
“x x x x x x x x x

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/52

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 52 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
EN BANC [G.R. No. 152574.  November 17, 2004] FRANCISCO ABELLA JR., petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent. D E C I S I O N PANGANIBAN, J.: Both the appointing authority and the appointee are the real parties in interest, and both have legal standing, in a suit assailing a Civil Service Commission (CSC) order disapproving an appointment.  Despite having legal interest and standing, herein petitioner unsuccessfully challenges the constitutionality of the CSC circular that classifies certain positions in the career service of the government.  In sum, petitioner was appointed to a Career Executive Service (CES) position, but did not have the corresponding eligibility for it; hence, the CSC correctly disapproved his appointment. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the November 16, 2001 Decision[2] and the March 8, 2002 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 58987.  The Assailed Decision disposed as follows: “WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.”[4] The challenged Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.   The Facts The CA narrates the factual antecedents in this wise: “Petitioner Francisco A. Abella, Jr., a lawyer, retired from the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), now the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), on July 1, 1996 as Department Manager of the Legal Services Department.  He held a civil servic ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4