EN BANC
|
CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, - versus - NELIA O. TAHANLANGIT, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 180528 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
and BERSAMIN,
JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Via petition for review, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC or petitioner) seeks the reversal of the Court of
Appeals Decision of
On
As
a consequence of the reorganization, 137 incumbents of the BPTTT including
respondent were appointed to new positions in the approved staffing pattern of
the IPO. Under the BPTTT plantilla,
respondent occupied the position of Trademark Principal Examiner I -- a
position said to be comparable to the item of Intellectual Property Rights
Specialist I (IPRS-I) under the new IPO plantilla to which she was appointed.
By
Decision[5] of
May 8, 2001, petitioner’s National Capital Regional [NCR] Office disapproved respondent’s
permanent appointment, along with those of two (2) other appointees, Manuel S.
Rojas (Rojas) and Ferdinand G. Quevedo (Quevedo), on the ground that they did
not qualify to the respective positions to which they were appointed, respondent
and Rojas having lacked the requisite educational qualifications, and Quevedo have
lacked the appropriate eligibility.
In
the meantime, or on
Then
Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Manuel Roxas II, in his capacity as
the appointing authority, appealed the NCR Office Decision to petitioner which
it, by Resolution No. 03-0237 of
On
Petitioner further held that the same
ruling applied to Rojas, who retired mandatorily on March 11, 2003, after its Resolution
No. 03-0237 was issued on February 21, 2003; but in view of the timely filing by
Rojas of a motion for reconsideration of said Resolution, his appointment to
the position of Intellectual Property Rights Specialist I should also be deemed
valid and subsisting. Petitioner affirmed the disapproval of respondent’s
appointment, however.
Respondent appealed petitioner’s
Resolution of
By the assailed Decision dated
The appellate court held that petitioner’s
challenged Resolutions had been rendered moot and academic by respondent’s
retirement from the government service on
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of
Petitioner
contends that its ruling in Quevedo’s and Rojas’ cases cannot be applied to
respondent’s case, because the attendant circumstances are not analogous, it
pointing out that in the former’s cases, while the NCR disapproved their
appointments as IPRS II and IPRS I, respectively, the disapproval was not yet
final and executory at the time of their retirement, whereas in respondent’s
case, she availed of optional retirement only on August 31, 2003 or after its Resolution
No. 03-0814 of July 30, 2003 had become final
and executory, pursuant to Item 6 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s.
2002, which states:
6. The denial of the Commission proper of the Motion for Reconsideration shall be final and executory.
Petitioner
further contends that while respondent appealed its Resolutions to the
appellate court, the appeal did not stay the execution thereof; hence, at the
time she retired, the disapproval of her appointment had been affirmed.
Petitioner
also maintains that upholding respondent’s appointment to the IPO as IPRS I
despite its disapproval thereof having become final and executory would
establish a bad precedent in government reorganization, as it relaxes the
requirements of the law on appointments/reappointments. Moreover, it
contends that a permanent appointment can be issued only to a person who
meets all the requirements for the position to which he or she is being
appointed; and if respondent did not qualify as IPRS I due to lack of a college degree, the disapproval of her
appointment is justified.
Petitioner goes on to debunk respondent’s
claim that as a permanent employee of BPTTT she is entitled, as a matter of
right, to a permanent position in the IPO, it ratiocinating that the circumstance
arose out of a valid reorganization plan and, therefore, her security of tenure
was not violated. It adds that with the abolition of BPTTT under
Republic Act No. 8293, the plantilla positions thereunder ceased to exist and,
therefore, there is in law no occupant thereof and no security of tenure to
speak of.
Citing De La Llana v. Alba,[6]
petitioner furthermore avers that the abolition of an office within the
competence of a legitimate body, if done in good faith, suffers from no
infirmity; and a valid abolition of office results in neither removal nor
separation of the incumbents.
Finally, petitioner asserts that,
contrary to respondent’s position, there is no vested property right to be
re-employed in a reorganized office, following National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil
Service Commission.[7]
Respondent,
in her Comment,[8] insists
that her retirement rendered moot and academic the present petition. Invoking humane considerations and illnesses,
she begs for the Court’s indulgence in order that the retirement benefits that
she is presently enjoying be not disturbed.
The Court notes that neither the
assailed Decision of the appellate court nor respondent’s Comment touched on
the validity of Republic Act No 8293. Neither
was the propriety of petitioner’s disapproval of respondent’s appointment
passed upon.
The only issue thus presented for
resolution is whether respondent’s optional retirement mooted the disapproval of
her appointment.
The Court holds in the affirmative.
When respondent retired from the
service on
Section 80 of petitioner’s Resolution No. 99-1936, “The
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,” provides that a decision
of the CSC or its Regional Office shall be immediately executory after fifteen
(15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is
seasonably filed, thus:
Section 80. Execution of Decision. – The decisions of the Commission Proper or its Regional Offices shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed, in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In respondent’s
case, she received petitioner’s Resolution of July 30, 2003
on August 18, 2003l; hence, she had until September 2, 2003 to file with the
Court of Appeals her appeal or motion for extension of time
to file it, in accordance with Section 12, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure; otherwise, the said Resolution would become final and
executory. Records show that respondent timely filed the petition for review on
Petitioner contends, however, that
under Item 6 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 2002, its denial of “the
Motion for Reconsideration shall be final and executory.” The
Circular must, however, be read in conjunction with the above-stated rule on the disposition of cases before the CSC, as
well as Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Procedure providing appeal from
decisions and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies of which it is one. To rule that respondent was effectively
terminated from office as of July 30, 2003, the date of promulgation of petitioner’s
Resolution affirming the disapproval of her appointment would render nugatory
and inutile the relief provided for under Rule 43, wherein one can even ask for
a stay of the execution of the questioned Resolution.
When respondent was then allowed to
avail herself of optional retirement under the law after having served the
government for more than 40 years, within the 15-day period to appeal under
Rule 43, petitioner’s
Courts have generally refrained from
even expressing an opinion on cases where the issues have become moot and
academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a
determination thereof would be of no practical use or value.[9] In the present case, when her appointment was
disapproved by petitioner, respondent would still have been able to retire
under the applicable law, R.A. 8291, as said law only requires that the
employee concerned must have rendered at least 15 years of service and must not have been receiving disability
benefits at the time of retirement. Petitioner,
having retired on
This leaves it unnecessary to pass on petitioner’s
apprehension that upholding as valid the appointment of one who has not
qualified for the position would set a bad precedent. Suffice it to state that petitioner failed to
show that according respondent the same treatment granted to Rojas and Quevedo
would result in prejudice to the government or to any individual.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Annex “A” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 44-54. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
[2] Annex “B” of the Petition, rollo, p. 55. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
[3] Annex “E” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 66-70. Penned by then Chairperson Karina Constantino David and concurred in by Commissioners Jose F. Erestain, Jr. and J. Waldemar V. Valmores.
[4] Annex “D” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 58-65. Penned by then Chairperson Karina Constantino David and concurred in by Commissioners Jose F. Erestain, Jr. and J. Waldemar V. Valmores.
[5] Annex “C” of the Petition, rollo, 56-57. Penned by Atty. Myrna Macatangay, Director III, CSC-NCR.
[6] No. L-57883,
[7] G.R. No. 84301,
[8] Rollo, pp. 136-138.
[9] Engaño v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156959, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 323, 329..