Case Summary (G.R. No. 170735)
DOJ and CSC Legal Opinions
• DOJ’s January 2011 opinion: PAO posts are CES positions requiring CES eligibility for permanence; occupants lacking eligibility could be removed without violating tenure protection.
• CSC’s January 7, 2011 opinion: PAO officials’ eligibility mirrors that of prosecutors and Court of Appeals justices, requiring only RA 1080 (Bar) eligibility, not third-level (CESO) eligibility.
CESB Resolution No. 918
On January 12, 2011, CESB denied PAO’s declassification request. A position classification study found PAO senior posts required “executive or managerial functions,” fitting the CES criteria under E.O. 292. CESB asserted exclusive jurisdiction over third-level posts and held third-level eligibility mandatory for permanence.
Appeal to the CSC
PAO appealed to CSC, challenging CESB’s reliance on R.A. 9406, R.A. 10071, the Constitution, and the CSC’s letter-opinion. CESB moved to clarify CSC’s jurisdiction, claiming autonomy as an attached agency and appealing only lies to the Office of the President.
CSC Decision No. 110067
On February 15, 2011, CSC assumed jurisdiction, citing its broad mandate over civil service matters. It ruled that:
• CESB’s classification power cannot override R.A. 9406’s explicit qualification requirements;
• No statute prescribes third-level eligibility for PAO senior posts—only practice-of-law requirements implying bar eligibility;
• CESB exceeded its authority by imposing additional qualifications.
CSC reversed CESB Resolution No. 918, declaring third-level eligibility unnecessary for PAO senior positions.
Supreme Court Proceedings
CESB filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, contesting CSC’s jurisdiction and arguing appeals should lie only to the President per the Integrated Reorganization Plan. CSC and PAO respondents filed comments supporting CSC’s jurisdiction. The Office of the Solicitor General sided with CSC and PAO, urging declassification on grounds of specialized legal functions.
Issues
- Proper remedy: certiorari and prohibition vs. petition for review under Rule 43
- CSC’s jurisdiction to hear PAO’s appeal and reverse CESB
- Legality of CSC’s ruling that PAO positions do not require third-level eligibility
Remedy and Procedural Posture
The Court found Rule 43 provides a plain, speedy and adequate remedy (petition for review to Court of Appeals) but recognized exceptional circumstances may justify Rule 65. Given the grave jurisdictional conflict between CSC and CESB, certiorari was appropriate.
CSC’s Jurisdiction Over CES Matters
The 1987 Constitution designates CSC as the “central personnel agency” with comprehensive authority over all civil service matters (Art. IX-B, Sec. 3). The Administrative Code (E.O. 292, Book V, Sec. 12) vests CSC with power to administer merit principles, classify positions, promulgate policies, and review decisions of attached agencies. CESB’s narrow mandate—to identify CES positions and set entry requirements (Book V, Secs. 7 & 8)—is an exception to CSC’s general authority, not a bar to CSC review.
Classification and Eligibility Requirements
R.A. 9406 equates PAO senior posts with NPS counterparts, prescrib
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170735)
Factual Antecedents
- On September 24, 2010, PAO received the CESB report on DOJ–PAO CES occupancy: 33 out of 35 filled positions lacked CES eligibility.
- Deputy Chief Public Attorney Mosing (PAO) wrote to CESB (Sept. 29 & Nov. 9, 2010), arguing that Chief Public Attorney, Deputy Chiefs and Regional Public Attorneys are permanent under R.A. 9406 §6 and enjoy security of tenure.
- CESB replied (Nov. 18, 2010) that it would conduct a position classification study on the specified PAO positions.
- DOJ’s legal opinion (Jan. 3, 2011) by Chief State Counsel Paras III held that PAO key posts are CES positions requiring third-level eligibility; without it, appointments are temporary and security of tenure cannot be invoked.
- CSC’s letter-opinion (Jan. 7, 2011) ruled that PAO Chief, Deputies and Regionals need only RA 1080 (BAR) eligibility, not third-level (CESE/CSEE), for permanent appointment.
Proceedings in the CESB and CSC
- CESB issued Resolution No. 918 (Jan. 12, 2011), denying PAO’s declassification request, holding that these posts “require leadership and managerial competence” and remain CES positions requiring third-level eligibility.
- PAO filed an urgent appeal to the CSC, contesting Resolution 918 as contrary to R.A. 9406, R.A. 10071, the Constitution, and CSC’s own letter-opinion.
- CESB filed a Motion for Clarification (Jan. 25, 2011), disputing CSC jurisdiction (asserting autonomy and that appeals lie only to the President) and alleging CSC bias.
- CSC Decision No. 110067 (Feb. 15, 2011) assumed jurisdiction, reversed Resolution 918 for exceeding CESB authority by adding third-level eligibility, and declared BAR eligibility sufficient.
- CESB’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CSC Resolution No. 1100719 (June 1, 2011).
Petition to the Supreme Court
- CESB filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (Aug. 9, 2011) against CSC’s Decision and Resolution, alleging lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, and improper remedy (appeal should have been to the President).
- CSC, PAO respondents, and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed c