G.R. No. 182591 - Agyao, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

On June 16, 2004, Modesto Agyao, Jr. was re-appointed as Department Manager II of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) through a temporary appointment submitted by PEZA to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The appointment was subject to the requirement that a qualified eligible must be available, as stipulated in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998.

On July 16, 2004, the CSC Field Office – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (CSCFO-BSP) invalidated Agyao’s re-appointment.

The invalidation was based on his lack of the prescribed Career Executive Service Office (CESO)/Career Service Executive Examination (CSEE) eligibility.
It was also noted that there were qualified eligibles available for the position.

The grounds for the invalidation invoked Section 2(b), Rule III of the CSC Memorandum Circular, which allowed temporary appointments only in the absence of a qualified eligible.

On August 31, 2004, PEZA Director-General Lilia B. De Lima sent a letter-appeal to the CSC to reconsider the action taken against Agyao’s appointment.
Despite the appeal, the CSC, on June 16, 2005, issued Resolution No. 05-0821, denying the reconsideration and reaffirming the invalidation.

The resolution referenced CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 9, Series of 2005, which limits the renewal of temporary third-level appointments.
Although Agyao’s appointment had been renewed four times, he still had not obtained the necessary third-level eligibility.

On July 18, 2005, Agyao was informed of his appointment as Division Chief III, Permanent, effective July 16, 2005.
Agyao filed a Letter-Motion for Reconsideration on August 21, 2005 with the CSC concerning its prior resolution, which was again denied in Resolution No. 05-1486 dated October 17, 2005.
The matter was eventually brought before the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 26, 2007 affirmed the CSC’s resolution, holding that Agyao was not qualified as he did not meet the Career Civil Service Eligibility (CESE) requirements.

Agyao contended that CSC MC No. 9, Series of 2005, would be favorable to him because it should allow a renewal of his temporary appointment, made before the cutoff date, irrespective of previous renewals.
He argued that there were no qualified applicants available for the position as the list provided by Director Tabao included candidates from other agencies who had not applied.
Moreover, Agyao claimed that since the position of Department Manager II is not a presidential appointee and is not covered by the Career Executive Service (CES), he should not be required to possess CESO/CSEE eligibility.

Whether the CA erred and abused its discretion in upholding the CSC’s findings that declared Agyao’s appointment as Department Manager II invalid.

Whether the CA was correct in holding that the position of Department Manager II is a third-level appointment that requires CESO or CSEE eligibility.
Whether the position, not being a presidential appointee, falls outside the ambit of the Career Executive Service (CES) and should not necessitate said eligibility.

Whether CSC MC No. 9, Series of 2005, and its clarifying Office Memorandum No. 05, Series of 2005, can apply retroactively to Agyao’s case given that their issuance followed the invalidation of his fifth temporary appointment.