Title
Civil Service Commission vs. Pililla Water District
Case
G.R. No. 190147
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2013
Paulino Rafanan’s reappointment as General Manager of Pililla Water District was upheld despite reaching retirement age, as the position was deemed primarily confidential and coterminous, affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190147)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Respondent: Pililla Water District (through its Board of Directors) and Paulino J. Rafanan (General Manager).

Key Dates

  • August 7, 1998: Rafanan first appointed General Manager (coterminous status).
  • October 4, 2001: CSC Resolution No. 011624 (amendment/clarification to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s.1999).
  • April 2, 2004: Republic Act No. 9286 approved (amendment to PD No. 198, affecting removal of General Managers).
  • June 16, 2004: Pililla BOD Resolution extending Rafanan’s services to December 31, 2008.
  • November 23, 2004 and February 1, 2005: CSC denials of extension requests; deemed Rafanan separated as of his 65th birthday (June 25, 2004).
  • April 8, 2005: BOD reappointed Rafanan as General Manager (coterminous), attested by CSC Field Office-Rizal.
  • May 19, 2008: CSC Resolution No. 080942 invalidated the April 8, 2005 coterminous appointment.
  • July 28, 2009: Court of Appeals decision reversed CSC, upholding the coterminous appointment.
  • March 5, 2013: Final decision of the Supreme Court (uses the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional basis).

Applicable Law and Normative Instruments

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process and other relevant guarantees).
  • Presidential Decree No. 198 (The Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) as amended by PD No. 768 and subsequently by R.A. No. 9286 (2004). Relevant sections: Section 23 (appointment/removal of General Manager), Section 24 (duties), Section 11 (term of BOD members), Section 36 (LWUA powers on default).
  • Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), in particular Sections 13–14 (definitions of permanent, temporary and coterminous appointments) and Sections 7 and 9 (career vs non‑career service).
  • CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, s.1999 (and CSC Resolution No. 011624 dated October 4, 2001 amending Section 12, Rule XIII).
  • CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, s.2006 (guidelines after R.A. No. 9286) and CSC Resolution No. 91-1631 (Dec. 27, 1991).
  • Relevant jurisprudence cited and applied in the decision (e.g., De los Santos v. Mallare; Paloma v. Mora; Civil Service Commission v. Javier; PiAero v. Hechanova; Tanjay Water District v. Quinit, Jr.).

Factual Background and Administrative Actions

Rafanan was initially appointed as coterminous General Manager in 1998. Upon reaching age 65 in June 2004, the Pililla BOD attempted to extend his services and later adopted a resolution reappointing him coterminously (April 8, 2005). The CSC denied extension requests and declared him separated as of his 65th birthday under its November 23, 2004 Resolution (and denied reconsideration). After a complaint from the mayor questioning the legality of the 2005 reappointment, the CSC invalidated the April 8, 2005 appointment by Resolution No. 080942 (May 19, 2008) and denied reconsideration. The Pililla Water District sought judicial relief; the Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

Administrative: BOD actions to extend and reappoint Rafanan; CSC resolutions denying extensions and later invalidating the 2005 coterminous appointment. Judicial: Petition for review filed by respondent in the Court of Appeals under Rule 43; CA reversed CSC (July 28, 2009) and denied CSC’s motion for reconsideration. Supreme Court: CSC filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; the SC affirmed the CA decision.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the position of General Manager of a local water district is primarily confidential in nature.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Rafanan’s April 8, 2005 coterminous appointment was valid.

Definitions and Legal Standards on Status of Appointments

  • Permanent appointment: issued to persons meeting all statutory and civil service requirements including appropriate eligibility.
  • Temporary appointment: for persons who meet requirements except civil service eligibility, limited to 12 months or until a qualified eligible is available.
  • Coterminous appointment: issued when continuity depends on trust and confidence of the appointing authority or is co‑existent with the appointing authority’s tenure or specific duration; coterminous appointees (except those coterminous with the appointing authority) are considered permanent for GSIS/tenure purposes. (Section 14, Omnibus Rules.)
  • Career service: defined by entrance based on merit and opportunity for advancement and security of tenure.
  • Non‑career service: characterized by entrance on other bases and tenure limited by law or coterminous with appointing authority or project duration. (Administrative Code Book V, Sections cited in the decision.)

Legal Standards on Primarily Confidential Positions (Proximity Rule)

The “proximity rule” (De los Santos v. Mallare and subsequent jurisprudence) determines primarily confidential positions by the closeness of the working relationship between appointer and appointee—positions requiring the highest degree of trust and intimate communication, involving policy‑determining or non‑routine functions. Executive or administrative classifications are initial but not conclusive; the judiciary independently determines whether a position is primarily confidential (PiAero; Civil Service Commission v. Javier). Loss of trust and confidence stands as a recognized ground affecting tenure of confidential appointees.

Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Analysis on the Nature of the General Manager Position

The CA (and the Supreme Court in affirming) applied the proximity rule to the General Manager of a water district and found the following indicia of a primarily confidential position: (1) appointment by majority vote of the BOD; (2) direct reporting to the BOD; (3) duties and responsibilities determined by the BOD indicating close working relationship; (4) non‑clerical and non‑routinary character involving policy and decision making; (5) compensation fixed by the BOD; and (6) direct accountability and disciplinary jurisdiction of the BOD over the General Manager. Section 24 of PD No. 198 (duties) reinforces this proximity because the General Manager exercises full supervision and control over operations, is empowered to appoint personnel (subject to BOD approval for supervisory level), and implements policies set by the BOD. The relationship demands a high degree of trust and confidence, making the General Manager’s position primarily confidential in nature.

Effect of R.A. No. 9286 on Classification and Tenure

R.A. No. 9286 amended Section 23 of PD No. 198 to provide that the General Manager “shall not be removed from office, except for cause and after due process,” removing the prior language that the officer “shall serve at the pleasure of the board.” The Court held that this amendatory provision must be given prospective effect and cannot be applied retroactively to deprive the BOD of powers it legitimately exercised under PD No. 198 prior to the amendment (Paloma v. Mora principle). The amendment tempered the BOD’s discretion by requiring observance of due process before removal, thereby implementing constitutional due process protections under the 1987 Constitution; however, the amendment did not ipso facto convert the General Manager position into a career appointment. The Court reasoned that security of tenure under R.A. No. 9286 does not abolish the essential characteristic of a primarily confidential, non‑career position—namely, that the tenure may still end upon loss of trust and confidence, and that loss of confidence is a form of “cause” recognized in civil service jurisprudence. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, s.2006 (setting qualification standards and transition rules) was held to be applicable prospectively and not to nullify the status of incumbents already holding coterminous appointments before its issuance.

Application to Rafanan’s Reappointment

Because the position of General Manager of a water district remains primarily confidential and thus falls within the non‑career service classification, a person ap

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms