Modesto Agyao vs.

CSC
GR No. 182591
January 18, 2011

FACTS:

Petitioner was re-appointed, following the expiration of his previous temporary appointment, to PEZA
Director II by the PEZA Director-General de Lima. The appointment was submitted to the Civil Service
Commission. The re-appointment was invalidated by the CSC as petitioner lacked the prescribed Career
Executive Service Office/Career Service Executive Examination (CESO/CSEE) qualifications. The CSC ruled
that the position of PEZA Director II is above the Division Chief level, which falls properly under level 3, or
Career Executive Service. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which sustained the ruling of the
CSC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PEZA Director II falls under level 3 or Career Executive Service, of the Administrative
Code.

HELD:

Petition is impressed with merit.

It has been held in a long line of Jurisprudence that for a position to fall under Career Executive Service,
the appointing authority must be the President of the Philippines. The Administrative code makes this
classification based on the Constitutional powers granted to the President. As such, any deviation of
interpretation would not only be against the prevailing law (i.e. Administrative Code), but also be
unconstitutional. The position of PEZA Director II is appointed by the PEZA Director-General, not by the
President of the Philippines. Hence, the CESO/CSEE requirements are not needed by the appointee.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Civil Service Commission
GR No. 159940
February 16, 2005

FACTS:

On 31 Jul 2002, Melchor Arthur Carandang, Paul Elmer Clemente, and Jose Tereso de Jesus, Jr. were
appointed Graft Investigation Officers III of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Civil Service Commission
approved such appointments on the condition that appointees must obtain CES or CSE eligibility to acquire
security of tenure. Carandang and Clemente had been conferred with CSE eligibility on 06 Jun 2003.

ISSUE:
Whether or not de Jesus’ appointment may be properly changed from temporary status to permanent
despite non-compliance with the eligibility requirement for the position of Graft Investigation Officer III.

HELD:

YES. Under P.D.No. 807, Section 9(h) which authorizes the CSC to approve appointments to postitions in
the civil service, except those specified therein, its authority is limited only to whether or not the
appointee possess the legal qualifications and the appropriate eligibility, nothing else. Third level eligibility
is not required for third level officials appointed by the Ombudsman in light of the provisions of the
Constitution vis a vis the Administrative Code of 1987.
Araos, et. al vs. Hon. Regala
GR No. 174237
February 18, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioners are SSS employees who, in 1999, were appointed and/or promoted to CESO (Career Executive
Service Officer) Ranks. Respondents are a judge of the RTC together with the SSS.

The corporate auditor of the Commission on Audit thus advised the President of the SSS, by Memorandum
dated June 29, 2001, against the implementation of a onestep salary increment for SSS CESOs in view of
Memorandum Order No. 20 of the President. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC)
likewise issued, on August 13, 2001, an opinion, that unless approved by the Office of the President, a
one-step salary increment for SSS CESOs may not be implemented. Acting under the OGCC's advice, the
SSS recommended, on April 9, 2002, to the Office of the President the approval of a one-step salary
adjustment for SSS CESOs. DBM, however, was of the opinion that:

[T]he CES pay under CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 is based on SSL. The S[alary]
G[rade] equivalence for each CESO rank and the automatic 2nd step adjustment are all
based on the salary schedule and position classification and compensation system
prescribed under SSL. Since SSS is exempt from the SSL, we believe that CSC Resolution
No. 94-5840 does not apply to SSS and other SSL-exempt agencies.

Petitioners made repeated demands to SSS management for the release of the one-step salary
adjustment but was of no avail causing them to file a petition for mandamus praying that the SSS
be ordered to implement the one-step salary increment due them by virtue of their CESO rank.

BOTH RTC AND CA dismissed. Hence, this petition for review on Certioari.

ISSUE: WON the petition for MANDAMUS will lie.

HELD:

NO.

For mandamus to issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim
sought. It will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or
over which a substantial doubt exists. Thus, unless the right to the relief sought is unclouded, it will be
denied.

As to the issue of Clear legal right to the Claim sought:

The Court said that the intention of the law was to make a distinction between CESOs and Non-CESOs
(per P.D. 847). To maintain such, CSC Reso 94-5840 required that CESOs were already receiving at least
the second step of the salary grade of their rank due to longevity or merit. Without the increment, a CESO
who, due to longevity or merit, is already receiving the second step of the salary grade of his rank as of
the effectivity of CSC Resolution No. 94-5840, would be no different from a similarly situated non-CESO
within the same salary grade.
THEREFORE, PETITIONERS HAVE NO CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT BECAUSE:
1. Petitioners must thus establish that when they were appointed or promoted to CESO ranks in
1999, they were already receiving the second step of the salary grade of their ranks. Petitioners
failed to do so, however.

2. CESB CIRCULAR NO. 12 is UNENFORCEABLE for failure to file three (3) copies of said circular with
the Office of the National Register (ONAR) of the UP Law Center as required under the
Administrative Code of 1987. As such it has yet to take effect and therefore, unenforceable.
CSC vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Charity Sweepsteaks Office
GR No. 185766
November 23, 2010

FACTS:

In GR No. 185766, the Board of Directors of PCSO resolved to appoint Sarsonas as Asst. Department
Manager II of the Internal Audit Department (IAD) of PCSO under temporary status. Thus, on the same
day, PCSO General Manager Rosario Uriarte issued a temporary appointment to Sarsonas as Assistant
Department Manager II.

Civil Service Commission Field Office Office of the President (CSCFO-OP) disapproved the temporary
appointment of Sarsonas as she failed to meet the eligibility requirement for the position. CSCFO-OP
certified that there were qualified individuals who signified their interest to be appointed to the position,
namely, Mercedes Hinayon and Reynaldo Martin.

PCSO filed an appeal with the CSC-NCR but the latter affirmed the disapproval. PCSO filed an appeal with
the CSC but the same was dismissed. PCSO elevated the case to the CA, which reversed the CSC resolution.
CSC filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied.

In GR No. 185767, PCSO Board of Directors resolved to appoint Lemuel G. Ortega as Assistant Department
Manager II of its Planning and Production Department. The same events transpired as in G.R. No. 185766.

In both petitions to the CA, it was ruled that CSC erred in finding that the position of Assistant Department
Manager II requires CSE eligibility, rendering improper the temporary appointments of Sarsonas and
Ortega, respectively. In G.R. No. 185766, the CA held that the resolution of the PCSO Board to appoint
Sarsonas as Assistant Department Manager II was a policy decision and an exercise of management
prerogative over which the CSC has no power of review. In G.R. No. 185767, the CA similarly ruled that
the Career Executive Service does not cover the position of Assistant Department Manager II in the
Planning and Production Department of the PCSO.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the CSC resolutions disapproving the temporary
appointments of Sarsonas and Ortega.

HELD:

No. CA Decisions Affirmed.

POLITICAL LAW- Elements in order for a position to be covered by the CES

In Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation v. Civil Service Commission, the Court stated that the position
of HIGC Vice President is not covered by the CES as (1) the position is not enumerated by law as falling
under the third level; (2) respondent Cruz has not established that the position is one of those identified
by the CESB as being of equivalent rank to those listed by law; and (3) the holder thereof is not appointed
by the President.
In the 2005 case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission, the Court used a similar process
of deduction to arrive at the conclusion that the position of Graft Investigation Officer III was not a CES
position. In the said case, the Court wrote:

From the provisions of the Administrative Code, persons occupying positions in the CES are presidential
appointees. A person occupying the position of Graft Investigation Officer III is not, however, appointed
by the President but by the Ombudsman as provided in Article IX of the Constitution.

To classify the position of Graft Investigation Officer III as belonging to the CES and require an appointee
thereto to acquire CES or CSE eligibility before acquiring security of tenure would be absurd as it would
result either in 1) vesting the appointing power for said position in the President, in violation of the
Constitution; or 2) including in the CES a position not occupied by a presidential appointee, contrary to
the Administrative Code.

Thus, the CES covers presidential appointees only. As this Court ruled in Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC:

"From the above-quoted provision of the Administrative Code, persons occupying positions in the CES are
presidential appointees.

The above 2007 case was, in turn, cited by the Court two years later in National Transmission Corporation
v. Hamoy, where again, it was categorically stated that the CES covers only presidential appointees.

Thus, from the long line of cases cited above, in order for a position to be covered by the CES, two
elements must concur. First, the position must either be (1) a position enumerated under Book V, Title I,
Subsection A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987, i.e. Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief
of Department Service, or (2) a position of equal rank as those enumerated, and identified by the Career
Executive Service Board to be such position of equal rank. Second, the holder of the position must be a
presidential appointee. Failing in any of these requirements, a position cannot be considered as one
covered by the third-level or CES.

In the case at bench, it is undisputed that the position of Assistant Department Manager II is not one of
those enumerated under the Administrative Code of 1987. There is also no question that the CESB has
not identified the position to be of equal rank to those enumerated. Lastly, without a doubt, the holder
of the position of Assistant Department Manager II is appointed by the PCSO General Manager, and not
by the President of the Philippines. Accordingly, the position of Assistant Department Manager II in the
PCSO is not covered by the third-level or CES, and does not require CSE eligibility.
Jose M. Caringal vs. Philippine Charity Sweepsteaks Office
GR No. 161942
October 13, 2005

FACTS: