Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Rabor v.


Dionisio M. Rabor is a Utility Worker in the Office of the Mayor, Davao City. He
entered the government service as a Utility Worker on 10 April 1978 at the age of
55 years. Sometime in May 1991, an official in the Office of the Mayor of Davao
City, advised Dionisio M. Rabor to apply for retirement, considering that he had
already more than 68 years old. Rabor responded by showing a GSIS certificate with
a notation to the effect that his service is extended for him to complete the 15-
years requirement for retirement. The Davao City Government wrote to the
Regional Director of the Civil Service Commission, Region XI, Davao City informing
the latter of the foregoing and requesting advice as to what action should be taken
on Rabor’s case. Director Caward replied by saying that Rabor’s continued
employment is contrary to OP M.C. No. 65 hence, it is non-extendible. Mayor
Duterte furnished Rabor a copy of Cawad’s letter and order him not to work
anymore. Rabor asked Director Cawad for extension of his job until he completed
the 15-year requirement but was denied. Rabor then asked OP for an extension. His
request was referred by OP to CSC and thereafter CSC denied Rabor’s request.
Rabor asked for reconsidered of CSC ruling citing Cena case but was denied. Rabor
reiterated his request to Mayor Duterte but was rebuffed. Hence, this petition.

WON Rabor request for extension should be granted in view of Cena case

No. Cena doctrine overturned. In Cena v. CSC, the Court reached its
conclusion primarily on the basis of the "plain and ordinary meaning" of Section 11
(b) of P.D. No. 1146. While Section 11 (b) appeared cast in verbally unqualified
terms, there were (and still are) two (2) administrative issuances which prescribe
limitations on the extension of service that may be granted to an employee who has
reached sixty-five (65) years of age. These are CSC Circular No. 27, s. 1990 and OP
M.C. No. 65. The Court resolved the challenges posed by the above two (2)
administrative regulations by, firstly, considering as invalid Civil Service
Memorandum No. 27 and, secondly, by interpreting the Office of the President's
Memorandum Circular No. 65 as inapplicable to the case of Gaudencio T. Cena.
Nevertheless, the Court now ruled that the SC in Cena made a narrow
interpretation. It is incorrect to decide the issue on the basis only of PD 1146.
Reading the pertinent provisions the Admin Code particularly the provisions
governing the CSC, it is clear that both the Admin Code and PD 1146 are the
governing laws relating to retirement of government officials and employees. It was
on the basis of the above quoted provisions of the 1987 Administrative Code that
the Civil Service Commission promulgated its Memorandum Circular No. 27. In doing
so, the Commission was acting as "the central personnel agency of the government
empowered to promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for efficient,
responsive and effective personnel administration in the government." It was also
discharging its function of "administering the retirement program for government
officials and employees" and of "evaluat[ing] qualifications for retirement." It is
also incorrect to say that limitation of permissible extensions of service after an
employee has reached sixty-five (65) years of age has no reasonable relationship or
is not germane to the foregoing provisions of the present Civil Service Law. The
physiological and psychological processes associated with ageing in human beings
are in fact related to the efficiency and quality of the service that may be expected
from individual persons.
CSC Memo No. 27 is not invalid for having gone beyond the parameters set
by PD 1146. In fact what the legislature intends is that the CSC should “fill in the
details” in the implementation of PD 1146.