HANDOUT for CSC

8/3/2019 HANDOUT for CSC

1/11


2/11


3/11

4. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system;-The 1935 Constitution firmly established the merit system as basis for employment in

government

5. It shall integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks;

- Provide leadership and assistance in formulating, administering, and evaluating programs

relative to the development and retention of a competent and efficient work force in the publicservice

6. It shall institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.-Inspect and audit periodically the personnel work programs of the different departments,

bureaus, offices, agencies and other instrumentalities of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, conduct periodic review of decisions and actions of offices or

officials to whom authority has been delegated by the Commission as well as the conduct of theofficials and employees in these offices and apply appropriate sanctions whenever necessary

7. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

(Article IX-B, Section 3)- The CSC shall submit to the President an annual report which shall contain an adequate

evaluation of the progress of the merit system and the problems encountered in itsimplementation

C. Jurisprudence on Art IX-B: Civil Service Commission

Section 1. (1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil ServiceCommission composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall benatural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, atleast thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, andmust not have been candidates for any elective position in the electionsimmediately preceding their appointment.

(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President withthe consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years withoutreappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for sevenyears, a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three years,without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for theunexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed ordesignated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Term of Office

The term of office in the Civil Service Commission was given light in the case ofGaminde

v. COA (G.R. 140335, 13 December 2000). In this case, the President appointed petitioner asCommissioner of the CSC for a term expiring on February 2, 1999. She took her oath of office on

June 22, 1993 and was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on September 7, 1993.The Commission on Audit issued a decision that her term expired on Feb. 2, 1999.

In resolving the issue of the term of office of Gaminde, the Supreme Court held that, in

appointing the commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions, the Constitution adopted arotational system. The operation of the rotational plan requires that the terms of the first

Commissioners should start on a common date and any vacancy before the expiration of the termshould be filled only for the unexpired balance of the term. Consequently, the term of the first


4/11

Chairman and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions must start on a common date,

irrespective of variations in the dates of appointments and qualifications of the appointees in orderthat the expiration of the first terms should lead to the regular recurrence of the two-year interval

between the expiration of the terms. February 2, 1987 is the proper starting point of the terms of

office of the first appointees to the Constitutional Commission, as the beginning of the term ofoffice is understood to coincide with the effectivity of the Constitution upon its ratification.

Fiscal Autonomy

In the case ofCSC v. DBM(482 SCRA 233), CSC sought to compel the DBM to release thebalance of its budget however, DBM denied to do so. The Supreme Court thus held that, theConstitution grants the enjoyment of fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the Constitutional

Commissions, and the Ombudsman. To hold that petitioner may be subjected to withholding orreduction of funds in the event of a revenue shortfall would, to that extent, place petitioner and

the other entities vested with fiscal autonomy on equal footing with all others which are notgranted 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 begiven priority in the release of their approved appropriations over all other agencies not similarly

vested when there is a revenue shortfall.

Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-ownedor controlled corporations with original charters.

Scope of the System

The scope of the system of CSC is explained in the case of Cuevas v. Bacal (G.R. 139382, 6

December 2000). To wit:

Doctrine for the scope of system of Career Executive Service, a system establishedby CSC.

The present Civil Service system is not geared to meet the executive manpower needsof the government. The filling of higher administrative positions is often based onconsiderations other than merit and demonstrated competence. The area of promotion iscurrently confined to the person or persons next-in-rank in the agency. Moreover, personnelclassification and compensation are uniformly based on concepts and procedures which aresuited to positions in the lower levels but not to managerial posts in the higher levels.

To fill this crucial gap, it is recommended that a Career Executive Service beestablished. This group of senior administrators shall be carefully selected on the basis of highqualifications and competence. Skilled in both techniques and processes of management,these career executives will act as catalysts for administrative efficiency and as agents ofadministrative innovation. (Those below senior administrators shall be selected throughrelative Civil Service Laws)

The status and salary of the career executives will be based on their rank, and not onthe job that they occupy at any given time . . . . In this sense, the rank status of the CareerExecutive Service is similar to that of the commissioned officers in the Armed Forces or

members of the Foreign Service. Unlike these latter organizations, however, entrance to theCareer Executive Service will not be generally at an early age in a relatively junior level but ata senior management level.

Mobility and flexibility in the assignment of personnel, the better to cope with theexigencies of public service, is thus the distinguishing feature of the Career Executive Service.Civil Service Laws would generally govern all officials. But Career Executive Service is a systemfor senior administrators. CES qualified officials are the ones who are most likely to handle toppositions in Government. An official gets into the CES by passing CES examination. Six ranks(I-the highest, VI- the lowest).

Under the Civil Service


5/11

GOCCs with charter

In the case ofMWSS v Hernandez (143 SCRA 602), it was shown that GOCCs with acharter are under the supervision of the Civil Service. To illustrate, MWSS refused to pay the wagedifferentials, monetary benefits, and allowances of 2500 or so of its contractual workers thus a

case was filed in NLRC. NLRC Arbiter Hernandez ruled against MWSS, hence this petition. MWSS

claims Hernandez erred in his decision as the case, in the first place, was not under thejurisdiction of NLRC. The MWSS is a GOCC and its contractual employees must then be governedby their respective contracts. The Court held that the MWSS being a GOCC, is indeed not

governed by the Labor Code but not either by their own contracts, rather, all of its employees,whether contractual or regular, are governed by the Civil Service Law.

GOCCs created by a special law

In the case ofUP v. Regino, Angel Pamplina was mimeogrpah operator in UP School ofEconomics and was accused of photocopying the leakage to Prof. Monsod's exam. UP Board ofRegents found him guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him.

UP contends that under its charter, Act 1870, enacted on June 18, 1906, it enjoys not only

academic freedom but also institutional autonomy. Section 6(e) of the said Act grants the UPBoard of Regents the power "to appoint, on recommendation of the president of the university,

professors, instructors, lecturers, and other employees of the university, to fix their compensationand to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have been had." Pamplina

was dismissed by virtue of this provision. They claim that they are not covered by the Civil ServiceLaw with regard to administrative cases.

Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of thegovernment, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. As a

mere government-owned or controlled corporation, UP was clearly a part of the Civil Service under

the 1973 Constitution and now continues to be so because it was created by a special law and hasan original charter.

GOCCs under Corporation Code

In the case ofBLISS v Callejo, petitioner, a duly registered labor union, filed with theDepartment of Labor, National Capital Region, a petition for certification election of privaterespondent Bliss Development Corporation (BDC). Based on the position papers submitted by the

parties, Med-Arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando, in an order dated January 26, 1987, dismissed thepetition for lack of jurisdiction stating that the majority of BDC's stocks is owned by the Human

Settlement Development Corporation (HSDC), a wholly-owned government corporation.Therefore, BDC is subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations.

The Supreme Court held that, it is not disputed that majority of the stocks of BDC are

owned by Human Settlement Development Corporation, a wholly government owned corporation,

hence, this Office cannot, but otherwise conclude that Bliss Development Corporation is agovernment owned corporation whose employees are governed not by the Labor Code but by theCivil Service law, rules, and regulations. Its employees therefore, are prohibited to join or form

labor organization.

Executive Order No. 180 was issued the then President Corazon C. Aquino extending togovernment employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Section 1 of Executive Order

No. 180 expressly limits its application to only government-owned or controlled corporations withoriginal charters. BDC is a government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Law. It

is without a charter, governed by the Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law hence,


6/11

Executive Order No. 180 does not apply to it.

(2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit andfitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which arepolicy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitiveexamination.

Classification and Appointments

In order to understand the scope of the powers of The Civil Service Commission, it isimportant to first differentiate between two classifications of government employees: confidentialand non-confidential, as well as competitive and non-competitive. This is important as the

classification has been the source of conflict between different branches of the government,ranging from local government units to the Office of the President. The court defined a confidential

position as "'not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office butprimarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom

from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state' (Pinero vs.Hechanova, 18 SCRA 417; citing De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289).

It is the fact of loss of confidence, not the reason for it, that is important and controlling.As holder of a primarily confidential position, petitioner's foreign assignment was at the pleasure

of the President. The recall order terminating her tour of duty in Geneva and returning her to the

home office was merely a change of post or transfer of location of work. (Santos vs. Macaraig 208SCRA 74)

Clearly, offices or positions occupied by personnel who are placed, not only because of theirmerits, but because of the relationship of trust they enjoy with their appointing superior. These

positions are determined mainly by the nature of the work. As can be seen in CSC vs. Salas, theSupreme Court had the opportunity to rule on the nature of work. The contention is between a

position specified by Presidential Decree as confidential, as opposed to the actual nature of thework. The Court held that "Taking into consideration the nature of his functions, his organizational

ranking and his compensation level, it is obviously beyond debate that private respondent cannotbe considered a confidential employee. As set out in the job description of his position, one is

struck by the ordinary, routinary and quotidian character of his duties and functions. Moreover, themodest rank and fungible nature of the position occupied by private respondent is underscored by

the fact that the salary attached to it is a meager P2,200.00 a month. There thus appears nothingto suggest that private respondents's position was "highly" or much less, "primarily" confidential

in nature. The fact that, sometimes, private respondent may handle ordinarily "confidentialmatters" or papers which are somewhat confidential in nature does not suffice to characterize his

position as primarily confidential." These confidential positions, as also held in Santos, supra,enjoy a tenure as long as the appointing official has confidence in them. This is further elucidated

in Grio vs. CSCwhere the Court held that, the office of Provincial Attorney, a confidential office,"ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in

them endure; and thus their cessation involves no removal (Corpus vs. Cuaderno). When such

confidence is lost and the officer holding such position is separated from the service, suchcessation entails no removal but an expiration of his term. In the case of Hernandez vs.Villegas, it was held

It is to be understood of course that officials and employees holding primarily confidential positionscontinue only for so long as confidence in them endures. The termination of their official relation can be

justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from office involves noremoval but merely the expiration of the term of office two different causes for the termination ofofficial relations recognized in the Law of Public Officers." This cannot be validly encroached on by the Civil

Service Commission. Hence, in the Salas case, supra, the Court upheld his reinstatement by the CSC.


7/11

On the discussion of competitive and non-competitive positions, the Court, in deciding the

nature of Government emissaries in the case Astaquillo vs. Manglapus, stated "By thesestatutory standards, it seems plain that all three (3) petitioners: Isabelo J. Astraquillo, Alunan C.

Glang, and Alejandro Melchor, Jr., pertained to the Non-Career Service. Their appointments to the

Foreign Service were made on "bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitnessutilized for the career service;" their entrance was not 'based on merit and fitness . . . determined

. . . by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications." This being so, their

"tenure . . . (was) coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasures, . .. ." (190 SCRA 280) As can be seen here, non-competitive positions are those that are not basedon "tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service" are under the authority of the

appointing officer. The authority of the CSC over competitive positions, on the other hand, isdemonstrated in the case in Samson vs. CA (145 SCRA 654) where the Court upheld theauthority of the CSC in reinstating an Assistant Secretary to the Mayor as it classified saidposition as competitive.

It must be taken into consideration that the powers of the Civil Service Commission is not

absolute. Its powers are limited to checking the conformity of appointments to legalrequirements. It cannot substitute its own judgement to the appointing officer as can be seen in

Mauna vs. CSC (232 SCRA 388). The Court said "The CSC has no authority to revoke anappointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular position. It will

be in excess of its power if it substitutes its will for that of the appointing authority. The CSC doesnot have the authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice." This doctrine in

further reiterated in Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA where the Supreme Court upheld theauthority of the Civil Service Commission in declaring that the private respondent remaind

unqualified for his position despite passing the Civil Service Exam.

(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspendedexcept for cause provided by law.

Loss of Confidence as Removal for Cause

The Section 2(3), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides that No officer or employee

of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. In the caseof Hernandez vs. Villegas, wherein the petitioner, who was the Deputy of Security for theBureau of Customs, was demoted to another position because of loss of confidence, the Supreme

Court, held that his removal was without cause and therefore illegal, to wit:

It is to be understood of course that officials and employees holding primarily confidentialpositions continue only for so long as confidence in them endures. The termination of their official relationcan be justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from officeinvolves no removal but merely the expiration of the term of office two different causes for thetermination of official relations recognized in the Law of Public Officers. But the point is that as long asconfidence in them endures and it has been shown that it has been lost in this case the incumbent isentitled to continue in office.

Reorganization in Good Faith

The above-ctied provision was also upheld in the case ofRomualdez v. Yap wherein whenYap was on leave, the PNB made a reorganization and issued E.O. 80 causing for the separation of

Yap from office. The Court held that reorganizations are regarded as valid provided they arepursued in good faith. As a general rule, reorganization is carried out in 'good faith' if it is for the

purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal orseparation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. As opposed to good faith,

bad faith has been defined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or withsome motive of self interest or ill will or for an ulterior purpose. It is the performance of an act

with the knowledge that the actor is violating the fundamental law or right, even without willful


8/11

intent to injure or purposive malice to perpetrate a damnifying harm. PNB's reorganization, was

by virtue of a valid law, i.e. E.O. 80. At the time of reorganization, due to the critical financialsituation of the bank, departments, positions and functions were abolished or merged. The

abolition of the Fund Transfer Department was deemed necessary and in good faith.

Right to due process

In the case ofRubenencia v. CSC, wherein the petitioner alleged that he was not given the rightto due process, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was accorded due process by the CivilService Commission when they resolved to dismiss petitioner on ground of dishonesty, nepotism,

oppression and violation of Civil Service Rules to wit:

Petitioner questions the validity of CSC Resolution Nos. 93-4067 a The fundamental rule of due to processrequires that a person be accorded notice and an opportunity to be heard. These requisites wererespected in the case of petitioner Rubenecia.

The Formal Charge prepared by the Merit System Protection Board and given to petitioner Rubeneciaconstituted sufficient notice which, in fact, had enabled him to prepare his defense. The Formal Charge

contained the essence of the complaint and the documents in support thereof and the conclusion of theMSPB finding a prima facie case against Rubenecia. Rubenecia himself admitted that he had beenfurnished with copies of an affidavit and testimonies of the principal witnesses against him that were givenduring the preliminary hearing of the case against Rubenecia.

We are also not persuaded by petitioner's complaint that he had not been furnished copies of all thedocuments that had accompanied the Formal Charge. Rubenecia was given an opportunity by theInvestigating Officer, the Regional Director of CSC, to obtain those documents from the CSC RegionalOffice. Rubenecia did not avail himself of that opportunity and he cannot now be heard to complain thathe was not given such documents. At all events, as already noted, he sent a formal letter-answer toChairman Sto. Tomas controverting the charges against him and submitted voluminous documents in

support of his claim of innocence and prayed for dismissal of the Formal Charge. This letter-answerconstitutes proof that he did have notice of the accusations against him and was in fact able to present hisown defense.

Petitioner's answer to the Formal Charge was considered by the Investigating Officer. This Officer,however, concluded in his report that "the evidence presented by respondent [Rubenecia] could notoutweigh that of the prosecution as contained in the records. 8

Finally, the motion for reconsideration filed by Rubenecia before the Commission cured whatever defectmight have existed in respect of alleged denial of procedural due process. Denial of due process cannot besuccessfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion forreconsideration. In the instant case, petitioner was heard not only in respect of his motion forreconsideration; he was also in fact afforded reasonable opportunity to present his case before decisionwas rendered by the Commission finding him guilty.

(4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, inany electioneering or partisan political campaign.

Electioneering or Partisan Political Activity

In the case ofSantos v CA ( 106 PHIL 21) , Santos claimed that his retirement gratuityunder R.A. 910 is not additional or double compensation. He was previously assigned at the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City for which he already has been given retirement gratuityand pension. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service

Commission that for the purpose of computing or determining petitioners separation pay underSection 11 of R.A. No. 7924, his years of service in the Judiciary should be excluded and that his

separation pay should be solely confined to his services in the MMA (Metropolitan ManilaAuthority).

(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.


9/11

Right to Self-Organization and Right to Strike

In the case ofJacinto v. CA (281 SCRA 557), it was tackled whether or not civil servantsare allowed to hold strikes, unauthorized mass leaves and other forms of mass actions in the

exercise of their right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress ofgrievances. The Supreme Court replied in the negative stating that their absences were

unauthorized and against the Civil Service Laws. Had they used their free time (recess, weekends,holidays), they would not have been liable for any sanctions.

(6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection asmay be provided by law.

Temporary Employees

In the case of Gloria v. CA (G.R. 119903, 15 August 2000), DECS Sec. Ricardo Gloriarecommended to the Pres. the re-assignment of Bienvenido Icasiano from being Schools Div.Superintendent of QC to Superintendent of Marikina Inst. of Science & Technology (MIST) to fill up

a temporary vacancy. This was approved by Pres. Ramos. Icasiano sues for violation of security of

tenure due to indefinite duration of assignment.

The Supreme Court held that, the reassignment was invalid as it constituted an indefiniteduration and thus in violation of the security of tenure of persons in the service. To wit:

After a careful study, the Court upheld the finding of the respondent court that thereassignment of petitioner to MIST"appears to be indefinite". The same can be inferred from the Memorandum of Secretary Gloria

for President Fidel V. Ramos to the effect that the reassignment of private respondent will "bestfit his qualifications and experience" being "an expert in vocational and technical education." Itcan thus be gleaned that subject reassignment is more than temporary as the privaterespondent has been described as fit for the (reassigned) job, being an expert in the field.Besides, there is nothing in the said Memorandum to show that the reassignment of privaterespondent is temporary or would only last until a permanent replacement is found as no

period is specified or fixed; which fact evinces an intention on the part of petitioners toreassign private respondent with no definite period or duration. Such feature of thereassignment in question is definitely violative of the security of tenure of the privaterespondent. As held in Bentain:"Security of tenure is a fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed feature of our civilservice. The mantle of its protection extends not only to employees removed without cause butalso to cases of unconsented transfers which are tantamount to illegal removals (Departmentof Education, Culture and Sports vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 555; Ibanez vs. COMELEC, 19SCRA 1002; Brillantes vs. Guevarra, 27 SCRA 138).While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without theemployees prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step toward hisremoval, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or designed toindirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer would in effectcircumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil

Service (Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 651; Garcia vs. Lejano, 109 Phil. 116)."Having found the reassignment of private respondent to the MIST to be violative of his securityof tenure, the order for his reassignment to the MIST cannot be countenanced.

Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of theGovernment, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promotemorale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in thecivil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human


10/11

resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize amanagement climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to thePresident and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

Section 4. All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation touphold and defend this Constitution.

Section 5. The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation ofgovernment officials and employees, including those in government-owned orcontrolled corporations with original charters, taking into account the nature ofthe responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for, theirpositions.

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year aftersuch election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation inany capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, noappointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government orany subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Government-ownedor controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receiveadditional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law,nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office,

or title of any kind from any foreign government.

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirectcompensation.

Additional Compensation

In the case ofDrilon v Flores, the Supreme Court did not allow Drilon to hold the positionof CEO of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority while he is incumbent mayor of Olongapo City. The

basic idea of the first paragraph of Art. 9 B Sec. 7 is to prevent a situation where a local electiveofficer will work for his appointment in an executive position in government and thus neglect his

constituents.

Double compensation was again denied in the case of Sadueste v. Municipality ofSurigao (72 PHIL 482). There being no law by which the appellant is specificallyauthorized toreceive additional compensation for his services as Sanitary and Waterworks Engineer, his claimtherefor must fail. The purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit generally payment of additional or

double compensation except in individual instances where the payment of such additionalcompensation appears to be not only just but necessary. Thus in Sec. 17 of Act No. 4187, it was

provided that:

Section 17 of Act No. 4187 explicitly gives exemptions:


11/11

Abolition of additional compensation. Any existing act, rule or order to the contrarynotwithstanding, no full time officer or employee of the government shall thereafterreceive directly or indirectly any kind of additional or extra compensation or salaryincluding per diems and bonuses from any fund of the government, its dependencies,and semi-government entities or boards created by law, except (a) officers serving aschairmen or members of boards of entities and enterprises organized, operated,owned or controlled by the Government, who may be paid per diems for each meetingactually attended or when on official travel; (b) auditors and accountants; (c)

provincial and municipal treasurers and their employees; (d) employees serving asobservers of the Wheather Bureau; and (e) those authorized to receive extra oradditional compensation by virtue of the provisions of this Act. This section is herebymade permanent legislation.

Documents

HANDOUT for CSC