Facts:

The case involves Augusto Toledo as the petitioner against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Resurreccion Z. Borra, in his capacity as Executive Director of COMELEC, along with the Civil Service Commission as respondents. The events leading to this case began on May 21, 1986, when Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed as Manager of the Education and Information Department of COMELEC, assuming office on June 16, 1986, at the age of 59. On January 29, 1989, his appointment was revoked by COMELEC, citing a violation of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1990, which prohibits the appointment of individuals aged 57 or older without prior CSC approval. Toledo appealed this decision, and the CSC upheld the revocation. Subsequently, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which on October 4, 1991, ruled in his favor, reinstating him to his position.

Toledo was reinstated on April 7, 1992, but was designated as Acting Provinci...

Facts:

1. Appointment and Initial Service

   • On May 21, 1986, Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed Manager of the Education and Information Department of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by then Chairman Ramon Felipe, Jr. He assumed office on June 16, 1986, at the age of 59.
   • On January 29, 1989, COMELEC revoked his appointment, declaring it null and void for violating Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1990, which prohibits the appointment of persons aged 57 or older without CSC approval.

2. Legal Challenges and Reinstatement

   • The CSC upheld COMELEC's revocation. Toledo appealed, and on October 4, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement.
   • Toledo was reinstated on April 7, 1992, but was immediately designated Acting Provincial Election Supervisor of Basilan, a position four salary grades lower. He refused the designation and filed a motion to cite COMELEC in contempt for non-compliance with the Court's decision.

3. Extension of Service

   • Toledo reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 in 1992. However, COMELEC, through Minute Resolution No. 92-3198, allowed him to continue in service to complete 15 years of service, subject to the outcome of an administrative case.
   • On August 26, 1993, COMELEC reinstated Toledo as Director IV of the Education and Information Department.

4. Performance Issues and Further Extensions

   • In 1995, Toledo received an "unsatisfactory" performance rating due to prolonged leave. This rating was later changed to "satisfactory" under a new COMELEC Chairman.
   • On May 31, 1995, the Supreme Court, in Rabor vs. CSC, upheld CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1990, limiting the extension of service for compulsory retirees to one year.

5. Final Limitation of Service

   • On October 6, 1998, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 98-2768, limiting Toledo's extended service to October 31, 1998, citing his unsatisfactory performance ratings and age (71 years old).

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Discretionary Authority of COMELEC

   • Under the Cena vs. CSC doctrine, the head of a government agency has the discretion to extend the service of an employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 but has not completed 15 years of service.
   • This discretion is subject to reasonable limitations, such as the employee's performance and the needs of the service.

2. Validity of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27

   • The Supreme Court upheld the validity of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1990, which limits the extension of service for compulsory retirees to one year.
   • The Court emphasized that this limitation is reasonable and aligns with the policy objectives of civil service laws, such as promoting efficiency and providing opportunities for younger employees.

3. Unsatisfactory Performance as Ground for Limitation

   • An employee's unsatisfactory performance is a valid factor in deciding whether to extend their service. In Toledo's case, his consecutive "unsatisfactory" ratings justified COMELEC's decision to limit his extended service.

4. Non-Retroactivity of Rabor vs. CSC

   • The Rabor ruling, which imposed a one-year limit on extensions, could not be applied retroactively to Toledo's case because his extension was granted under the Cena doctrine, which was in effect at the time.