Case Digest (G.R. No. 117218) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The petition arises from G.R. No. 197762, decided March 7, 2017, between the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), represented by Chairperson Bernardo P. Abesamis, Executive Director Ma. Anthonette Velasco-Allones, and Deputy Executive Director Arturo M. Lachica, and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), represented by Chairman Francisco T. Duque III, together with officials of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) led by Chief Public Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta and other key PAO lawyers. On September 24, 2010, the CESB’s report on Career Executive Service (CES) occupancy in the Department of Justice noted that 33 of 35 filled PAO positions were held by non-CES eligibles. The PAO, citing Republic Act No. 9406 (2007 PAO Law), asserted that its senior posts enjoyed security of tenure and only required RA 1080 bar eligibility. The CESB initiated a position classification study and, on January 12, 2011, issued Resolution No. 918, declaring these PAO positions part of the CES and re Case Digest (G.R. No. 117218) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner: Career Executive Service Board (CESB).
- Respondents: Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) officials.
- Core dispute: Classification of key PAO positions (Chief Public Attorney; Deputy Chief Public Attorneys; Regional Public Attorneys; Assistant Regional Public Attorneys) as Career Executive Service (CES) posts and requirement of third-level (CESO) eligibility for permanent appointment.
- Factual Antecedents
- CESB Report (24 Sep 2010) on Department of Justice CES occupancy: 33 of 35 PAO positions occupied by non-CES eligibles.
- PAO Letters (29 Sep & 9 Nov 2010): Argued subject positions are permanent under Section 6 of R.A. 9406, secured tenure, and requested declassification.
- DOJ Legal Opinion (3 Jan 2011): Held PAO positions are CES posts, require CES eligibility; non-eligibles hold only temporary appointments.
- CSC Legal Opinion (7 Jan 2011): Concluded only RA 1080 (Bar) eligibility required for PAO positions by analogy to judiciary; third-level eligibility improper.
- CESB Resolution No. 918 (12 Jan 2011): Conducted position classification study; ruled subject positions CES in nature; denied declassification; imposed third-level eligibility.
- PAO Appeal to CSC: Filed urgent appeal; CSC assumed jurisdiction (15 Feb 2011), reversed CESB Resolution 918, held no third-level eligibility needed.
- CESB Petition to the Supreme Court (9 Aug 2011): Sought certiorari and prohibition to annul CSC Decision and Resolution.
Issues:
- Proper Remedy
- Whether certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 was the appropriate remedy to challenge the CSC Decision and Resolution.
- Jurisdiction
- Whether the CSC had jurisdiction to resolve the PAO’s appeal from CESB Resolution No. 918 and to review decisions of the CESB.
- Merits – Eligibility Requirement
- Whether third-level eligibility (CESO rank) is required for permanent appointment to the key PAO positions under R.A. 9406 in relation to PD 1275 and R.A. 10071.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)