Case Digest (G.R. No. 98093)
Facts:
Prima K. Gobantes v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 98093, October 08, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court. The respondents are the Civil Service Commission and Commissioners Patricia Sto. Tomas, Samilo Barlongay, and Mario D. Yango.Prima K. Gobantes entered government service as a public school teacher on October 19, 1975 at age fifty-five and served (more or less) continuously until July 1990. By her 65th birthday on June 9, 1985 she had not completed the fifteen years of government service required for full retirement under Presidential Decree No. 1146; she was short by at least one year and one month because much of her early service (as a Provisional Substitute Teacher from October 19, 1975 to March 31, 1979) was intermittent.
On July 31, 1990 Gobantes sought extension of service under P.D. 1146, Sec. 11(b), which provides that an employee who reaches compulsory retirement age of 65 with less than fifteen years “shall be allowed to continue in the service to complete the fifteen years.” Her request was filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office after an assistant superintendent so advised; the CSC Regional Director denied the request by indorsement dated August 21, 1990. The CSC Regional action credited Gobantes’ services from June 9, 1985 to August 21, 1990 for retirement purposes but denied further extension.
Gobantes appealed administratively to the Civil Service Commission. By Resolution No. 90-1035 (November 15, 1990) the Commission dismissed her appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the CSC Regional Director, citing CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1990 (Policy on the Extension of Services) which limited allowable extension to permanent appointees and to a period not exceeding one year. Gobantes filed an appeal/petition for review with the Office of the President on December 7, 1990 and simultaneously filed a civil action for declaratory relief, quo warranto, and damages in the Regional Trial Court (where she obtained injunctive relief to prevent her replacement). The Office of the President, via the Executive Secretary (March 6, 1991), agreed that statutory rights under P.D. 1146 cannot be diminished by administrative circulars; the Solicitor General likewise recommended invalidation of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27 and reversal of the CSC Resolutions. The CSC treated Gobantes’ submission to the Office of the President as a motion for reconsideration and denied it by Resolution No. 91-239 (promulgated in February 1991), notice of which was served on March 7, 1991.
Gobantes then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court under Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, seeking nullification of CSC Resolutions No. 90-1035 and No. 91-239 on the ground that Memorandum Circular No. 27 is inconsistent with P.D. 1146 and thus invalid. The Solicitor General fil...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Gobantes’ petition to the Supreme Court timely filed under Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did Gobantes engage in forum shopping by filing a civil action in the Regional Trial Court while administrative remedies were pending?
- Is CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1990 valid insofar as it limits extensions under P.D. 1146, Sec. 11(b) to permanent appointees and to not more than one year, and is petitioner entitled to continue ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)