Case Summary (G.R. No. 152574)
Petitioner
Francisco A. Abella Jr., retired from PEZA in 1996, reemployed by SBMA in 1998, and appointed permanently on January 1, 1999.
Respondent
Civil Service Commission, acting on regional office certification of eligibility and issuing resolutions disapproving petitioner’s permanent appointment.
Key Dates
• May 31, 1994 – CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994 classifies certain third-level positions as CES requiring Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE).
• January 1, 1999 – SBMA issues permanent appointment to petitioner.
• July 9, 1999 – SBMA issues temporary appointment after CSC disapproval.
• January 10, 2000 & May 11, 2000 – CSC Central Office resolves to affirm disapproval.
• November 16, 2001 & March 8, 2002 – Court of Appeals denies petitioner’s challenge.
• November 17, 2004 – Supreme Court decision appealed.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article IX-B (Civil Service as central personnel agency; merit-based appointments)
• PD 807 and EO 292 (Civil Service Law and Administrative Code of 1987)
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994 (CES coverage)
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998 (Omnibus Rules on appointments)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (petition for review)
Factual Background
Petitioner held ELM eligibility from 1982 for a PEZA department manager post. CSC Circular 21, s. 1994 later classified all third-level positions as CES, requiring CSEE. Upon SBMA’s submission of petitioner’s permanent appointment to the CSC, it was disapproved for lack of CSEE. Petitioner was offered a temporary appointment instead.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal on two grounds: lack of legal standing and absence of real party in interest, relying on CSC Circular 40, s. 1998 provision that only appointing authorities may seek reconsideration of CSC disapprovals. The CA also declined to address the circular’s constitutionality, citing alternative grounds for decision.
Issues on Review
A. Whether petitioner has legal standing to question CSC’s disapproval.
B. Whether petitioner is a real party in interest.
C. Whether CSC Memorandum Circular 21, s. 1994 is unconstitutional for depriving property rights without due process.
Supreme Court Decision
The petition is partly meritorious.
Standing to Appeal
– Appointments become complete only upon CSC approval.
– CSC disapproval challenges the appointing authority’s discretion, thus the appointing authority has clear cause to seek reconsideration.
– Similarly, the appointee suffers direct prejudice and has personal stake in having his eligibility recognized.
– The concepts of “legal standing” (personal stake sharpening adverseness) and “real party in interest” (one injured or benefited by the judgment) both support allowing the appointee to appeal.
Real Party in Interest
– Petitioner’s inability to assume permanent office injures him and would confer tangible benefits if reversed.
– He possesses a substantial, present interest, satisfying the “real party” requirement.
Constitutionality of CSC Memorandum Circular 21, s. 1994
– CSC’s classification of career service levels and eligibility requirements falls within its constitutional and statutory mandate.
– Circular 21 did not revoke prior ELM eligibility for incumbents, applied prospectively, and
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152574)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the November 16, 2001 Decision and March 8, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 58987.
- The CA Decision denied the petition for review for lack of merit, and the Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- Petitioner thereafter elevated the case to the Supreme Court en banc, challenging both the CA rulings and the constitutionality of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994.
Facts of the Case
- Francisco A. Abella, Jr. retired on July 1, 1996 from EPZA (now PEZA) as Department Manager of Legal Services, holding civil service eligibility by completing Executive Leadership and Management training in 1982 under CSC Resolution No. 850.
- On May 31, 1994, CSC issued Memorandum Circular No. 21 s. 1994 classifying “all other third level positions” meeting specified criteria as Career Executive Service (CES) positions and prescribing Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE) for permanent appointment.
- Two years post-retirement, Abella joined SBMA contractually, then received a permanent appointment on January 1, 1999 as Department Manager III, Labor and Employment Center.
- CSC Regional Office No. III disapproved the appointment for lack of appropriate eligibility; Abella was thereafter given a temporary appointment on July 9, 1999.
- Abella appealed to CSC Central Office which, by Resolution No. 000059 (Jan. 10, 2000) and Resolution No. 001143 (May 11, 2000), affirmed the disapproval.
- Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review, contending that CSC Memorandum Circular No. 21, s. 1994 is unconstitutional for depriving his earned eligibility of effectivity and violating due process.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- The CA declined to pass upon the constitutionality issue, invoking the prudential rule against deciding constitutional questions when other grounds suffice.
- Citing CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40 s. 1998 and Mathay v. CSC, the CA held only the appointing authority