Case Digest (G.R. No. 164561)
Facts:
The case involves the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as petitioner and the Pililla Water District (PWD) as respondent, adjudicated en banc by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, with a decision dated March 5, 2013 (G.R. No. 190147). Paulino J. Rafanan was first appointed as General Manager (GM) of the PWD on a coterminous basis under a Board of Directors (BOD) resolution dated August 7, 1998. His appointment was attested by the CSC Field Office in Rizal.
On October 4, 2001, the CSC issued Resolution No. 011624 amending rules concerning appointments of persons who have reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. It allowed appointments beyond 65 only for coterminous or primarily confidential positions. On April 2, 2004, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9286 amended Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 198, providing that the General Manager of a water district could only be removed “for cause and after due process.”
Despite reaching retirement age on June 25, 2004, the PWD Board exte
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164561)
Facts:
- Background and Initial Appointment
- Paulino J. Rafanan was appointed as General Manager of Pililla Water District (PWD) on a coterminous status via Board of Directors (BOD) Resolution No. 12 dated August 7, 1998.
- His appointment was signed by the BOD Acting Chairman and attested by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office-Rizal.
- Regulatory Framework on Retirement and Coterminous Appointments
- CSC Resolution No. 011624 (October 4, 2001) amended Section 12, Rule XIII of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 1999, which set the compulsory retirement age at 65 years but allowed:
- Extension of service for up to six months or one year in meritorious cases (subject to CSC approval).
- Appointment of persons beyond 65 years to coterminous or primarily confidential positions, automatically extended until the expiry of their appointment.
- Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9286 (April 2, 2004) amended Section 23 of P.D. No. 198 to provide that the General Manager shall not be removed except for cause and after due process.
- Extension and Reappointment of Rafanan
- On June 16, 2004, the PWD BOD approved Resolution No. 19 extending Rafanan’s services until December 31, 2008, co-terminus with the term of the last-appointed Director.
- CSC issued Resolution No. 04-1271 (November 23, 2004), denying the request for extension and considering Rafanan separated from service on June 25, 2004, upon reaching age 65.
- A motion for reconsideration was denied by CSC under Resolution No. 05-0118 (February 1, 2005).
- On April 8, 2005, the PWD BOD reappointed Rafanan as General Manager on coterminous status, duly signed and attested by the CSC Field Office-Rizal.
- In 2006, the BOD approved a resolution declaring Rafanan’s appointment as permanent, but this was not implemented.
- Questioning of Rafanan’s Appointment and CSC Actions
- Pililla Mayor questioned the appointment's validity in 2007, citing appointment beyond compulsory retirement age.
- CSC issued Resolution No. 080942 (May 19, 2008) invalidating the April 8, 2005 appointment, viewing it as a circumvention of the retirement rules and inconsistent with R.A. No. 9286.
- CSC denied Rafanan’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution No. 081846, September 26, 2008).
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
- The CA annulled and set aside CSC’s resolutions invalidating the appointment.
- The CA ruled that the General Manager of a water district is a primarily confidential position, allowing appointment even beyond retirement age, and upheld the validity of the April 8, 2005 appointment.
- Issues Brought Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the position of General Manager of a local water district is primarily confidential in nature.
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that Rafanan’s April 8, 2005 coterminous appointment was valid.
Issues:
- Is the position of General Manager of a local water district primarily confidential in nature?
- Was the April 8, 2005 coterminous appointment of Paulino J. Rafanan as General Manager valid under existing laws and CSC regulations?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)