Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 101526. July 3, 1992.]

RODELA D. TORREGOZA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Jose S. Torregoza for Petitioner.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; CANNOT BE COMPELLED BY MANDAMUS TO PERFORM A DUTY NOT MINISTERIAL. — The principal issue is whether or not the writ of mandamus may be issued by this Court to compel the respondent Commission to grant the petitioner the privilege of securing an appropriate civil service eligibility under Republic Act No. 6850. The answer to this is NO. The simple reason being that under the law granting the privilege to government employees, there is a wide latitude of discretion given to the Commission which determines in Section 1 thereof, "who are qualified to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this Act." With such a discretion, Section 2 of the same law requires the Civil Service Commission to promulgate the rules and regulations to implement this Act using certain standards. From the above, it is crystal-clear that the Writ of Mandamus will not lie as the responsibility of the respondent Commission in implementing the law is not ministerial, besides, what the law granted is a mere privilege and not a right to those who are qualified according to the standards to be set by the Commission.

2. ID.; PUBLIC OFFICERS; CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS, OFFICE STAFF OF THE PRESIDENT; CONSIDERED NON-COMPETITIVE SERVICE. — The question that this Court deems appropriate for resolution is the categorization of the position in the Legal Office, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila. This categorization attaches to the entire Office of the President under Republic Act No. 6040. This particular law has never been repealed and therefore, it is still controlling with respect to the classification of the secretarial and office staff positions in the Office of the President as belonging to the non-competitive service. Thus, any subsequent classification of the same positions has to be made with the specific sanction of the legislative branch. The mere fact that the functions of the position in question are parallel or the same as those in the career service positions, do not make the said position eligible for conferment of the civil service eligibility specially given to other government employees in the competitive service.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; MANDAMUS; WHEN AVAILABLE. — In Marcelo v. Tantuico, Jr., (142 SCRA 439), citing other cases, this Court held that the "Remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but not where the reinstatement involves the exercise of sound judgment and discretion by the appointing power, absent a showing of a clear and certain right by petitioner."


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The petition filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeks to review the decision of the respondent Civil Service Commission, dated July 4, 1991, denying the petitioner the privilege granted under Republic Act No. 6850, entitled "An Act to Grant Civil Service Eligibility Under Certain Conditions to Government Employees Appointed Under Provisional or Temporary Status Who Have Rendered a Total of Seven (7) Years of Efficient Service, and for Other Purposes." The petition prays for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to grant the petitioner the appropriate civil service eligibility pursuant to the aforestated law, for having worked in the Legal Office, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila, since January 18, 1978, to the present.

The original appointment of the petitioner on January 18, 1978, was one of the six (6) Staff Aide positions, in the aforementioned office, specifically Item No. 198-6, (P.D. No. 1050), issued by then Presidential Assistant Juan C. Tuvera for a period of six (6) months. On June 5, 1978, less than five months after the first appointment, petitioner was given another appointment to the same position effective "as of June 18, 1978" and with a notation that "This appointment is declared confidential." (Rollo, p. 39)

Obviously, since 1978 to February 8, 1990 when Republic Act No. 6850 became a law, petitioner never left the same position. Then on March 5, 1990, respondent Commission issued the "Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 6850, enabling the petitioner to file her application for the appropriate eligibility to the position she has been occupying for the last thirteen (13) years and having accordingly rendered efficient service. (The Solicitor General’s Comment, pp. 3 & 13)

Petitioner’s request was returned unacted upon by respondent’s field office in Malacañang, Manila for the reason that based on the service record submitted by the Personnel Office of the Office of the President, petitioner’s position had allegedly been declared confidential. (Ibid., p. 4)chanrobles law library

In the course of time, after the Salary Standardization Law (Republic Act No. 6758) was passed, the same position was reclassified as Clerk II in July 1989. (Rollo, p. 5)

Subsequently, Deputy Executive Secretary Mariano Sarmiento sent a letter to the respondent dated November 7, 1990, (Petition, Annex "G") requesting that based on the present certified function and actual duties of the petitioner, the position be restored to the career service and that said petitioner be granted the civil service eligibility under R.A. No. 6850. (Rollo, p. 33)

Respondent Commission denied petitioner’s request on January 28, 1991, after determining that petitioner’s appointment in 1978 was declared by the Office of the President as "confidential in nature", nevertheless, respondent stated that "an analysis of the duties and responsibilities of the subject position reveals that they are the same with the other positions in the career service . . ." and specifically held, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing, the request for restoration of the position of Clerk II to career service is hereby granted effective January 1, 1991. However, the incumbent shall continue to occupy the position in a confidential status. Any subsequent appointment to subject position shall be covered by career service policies." (Petition, Annex "A")

On February 27, 1991, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the foregoing Decision, but the respondent stood firm in its resolution dated July 4, 1991, by issuing the following ruling:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After due consideration of the instant request for reconsideration of Torregoza, this Commission finds no ample reason to disturb its Opinion of January 28, 1991. The Office of the President declared her previous appointments as primarily confidential and they were all attested as such by this Commission. These twin actions, i.e., declaration by the Office of the President and confirmation by this Commission made the appointments in question to be primarily confidential. Moreover, granting en arguendo that the position in question may not have been properly and validly declared as primarily confidential, all concerned were of the belief that the appointments issued to Torregoza as Clerk II were indeed primarily confidential. Further, it cannot also be denied that from the time her first appointment was issued up to the time that she requested for the change of the status of her appointment, Torregoza enjoyed the benefits of the primarily confidential nature of her position. She is, therefore, estopped from questioning and impugning the validity of her previous appointments specially now, that she stands to benefit from the provisions of R.A. 6850, with a declaration of her appointment as temporary.

"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Commission resolves to deny the instant request of Rodela Torregoza, Clerk II, Office of the President that she be issued a temporary appointment as Clerk II effective July 1, 1989, the effectivity date of RA 6758 for lack of merit. Hence, CSC Opinion of January 28, 1991 is hereby affirmed." (Petition, Annex "H")

From the above facts, there are two (2) issues to be resolved, however, one is subordinate to the other. The principal issue is whether or not the writ of mandamus may be issued by this Court to compel the respondent Commission to grant the petitioner the privilege of securing an appropriate civil service eligibility under Republic Act No. 6850. The answer to this is NO. The simple reason being that under the law granting the privilege to government employees, there is a wide latitude of discretion given to the Commission which determines in Section 1 thereof, "who are qualified to avail themselves to the privilege granted under this Act." With such a discretion, Section 2 of the same law requires the Civil Service Commission to promulgate the rules and regulations to implement this Act using certain standards. Following are the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 6850:cralawnad

"Section 1. All government employees as of the approval of this Act who are holding career civil service positions appointed under provisional or temporary status who have rendered at least a total of seven (7) years of efficient service may be granted the civil service eligibility that will qualify them for permanent appointment to their present positions.

"The Civil Service Commission shall formulate performance evaluation standards in order to determine those temporary employees who are qualified to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this Act.

"The civil service eligibility herein granted may apply to such other positions as the Civil Service Commission may deem appropriate.

"Sec. 2. The Civil Service Commission shall promulgate the rules and regulations to implement this Act consistent with the merit and fitness principle within ninety (90) days after its effectivity."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the above, it is crystal-clear that the Writ of Mandamus will not lie as the responsibility of the respondent Commission in implementing the law is not ministerial, besides, what the law granted is a mere privilege and not a right to those who are qualified according to the standards to be set by the Commission.

In Marcelo v. Tantuico, Jr., (142 SCRA 439), citing other cases, this Court held that the "Remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but not where the reinstatement involves the exercise of sound judgment and discretion by the appointing power, absent a showing of a clear and certain right by petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

The other question that this Court deems appropriate for resolution is the categorization of the position in the Legal Office, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila. This categorization attaches to the entire Office of the President under Republic Act No. 6040, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 5. The Non-Competitive Service. — The non-competitive service shall be composed of positions expressly declared by law to be in the non-competitive service and those which are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature.

"The following specific officers and employees shall be embraced in the non-competitive service:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(b) The secretarial and office staff of the President, of the Vice-President, of the President of the Senate, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of each Member of the Congress of the Philippines including the personnel of all offices of the Chairmen of committees of both Houses of the Congress;"

This particular law has never been repealed and therefore, it is still controlling with respect to the classification of the secretarial and office staff positions in the Office of the President as belonging to the non-competitive service. Thus, any subsequent classification of the same positions has to be made with the specific sanction of the legislative branch. The mere fact that the functions of the position in question are parallel or the same as those in the career civil service positions, do not make the said position eligible for conferment of the civil service eligibility specially given to other government employees in the competitive service.

Furthermore, the classification under the Salary Standardization Act, also known as the "Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989", Republic Act No. 6758, did not in effect amend the specific above-quoted provision of R.A. 6040. For the statement of policy of the former is distinctly clear as it states the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 2. Statement of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. In determining rates of pay, due regard shall be given to, among others, prevailing rates in the private sector for comparable work. For this purpose, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is hereby directed to establish and administer a unified Compensation Position Classification System, hereinafter referred to as the System, as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended, that shall be applied for all government entities, as mandated by the Constitution." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Moreover, this Court noted with alarm the attempt of the respondent Commission in subjecting the position in question to the coverage of the "career service policies" after the incumbent shall have ceased to occupy the position in a confidential status, without the necessary enabling act after the legislative branch of the Government has placed the secretarial and office staff of the Office of the President under the non-competitive category. To do so is a glaring violation of Republic Act No. 6040, the specific provision of which is quoted above.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., and Gutierrez, Jr., J., In the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

  • G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO PLETADO

  • G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDA DIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

  • A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

  • G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

  • G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v. MARTIN NERY

  • G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

  • G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

  • G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSA v. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v. ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNIE C. LAPAN

  • G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL. WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

  • G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO NECERIO

  • G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIA SECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX QUERRER

  • G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

    NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

  • G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACION FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

  • G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B. VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIME BINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MARTOS

  • G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v. ALBERTO B. MALA

  • G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

  • G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID S. SAULO

  • G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS