Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service Commission

Permanent status and security of tenure in the Career Executive Service (CES) require the concurrence of two distinct requisites: (1) possessing CES eligibility and (2) being appointed by the President to an appropriate CES rank; possessing eligibility alone is insufficient to confer a permanent appointment.

Following a change in presidential administration in 2010, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 (MC 1), which declared all non-Career Executive Service positions in the Executive Branch vacant as of June 30, 2010. Subsequent implementing guidelines and Memorandum Circular No. 2 (MC 2) extended the service of non-Career Executive Service Officers (non-CESOs) until a specified date or until their replacements were appointed. This policy led to the termination of officials, like respondent Lodevico, who held CES positions but were not appointed to a specific CES rank, prompting legal challenges regarding their employment status and security of tenure.

• On May 14, 2008, Blesilda Lodevico was appointed by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as Director III, Recruitment and Career Development Service, a Career Executive Service (CES) position within the CESB.
• Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility, which she obtained on November 29, 2001.
• On June 30, 2010, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 (MC 1), declaring all non-Career Executive Service positions vacant.
• On July 16, 2010, implementing guidelines for MC 1 were issued, stating that non-CESOs would remain in office until July 31, 2010, or until their replacements were appointed.
• Acting on MC 1, CESB Chairman Bernardo Abesamis issued a Memorandum informing Lodevico that her service was terminated effective July 31, 2010.
• On July 29, 2010, Memorandum Circular No. 2 (MC 2) was issued, extending the term of non-CESOs until October 31, 2010.
• Lodevico appealed her termination to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
• On January 31, 2011, the CSC granted Lodevico's appeal, ruling that the CESB Chairman had no power to terminate her as she was a presidential appointee, and declared the termination null and void.
• The CSC denied CESB's subsequent motion for reconsideration on April 7, 2011.

• The CSC has no jurisdiction to resolve the appeal of Lodevico.
• Lodevico's removal from service was justified because her appointment as Director III was not permanent, as she was never appointed to a specific CES rank.
• Lacking a permanent appointment, Lodevico was not entitled to security of tenure, and her termination pursuant to MC Nos. 1 and 2 was valid.

• The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by CESB is the wrong mode of appeal and should be dismissed, as the proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 43.
• The CSC acted within its jurisdiction when it heard and decided Lodevico's appeal, as it is the central personnel agency of the government with appellate jurisdiction over its attached agencies like the CESB.
• The termination of Lodevico by the CESB Chairman was void because only the President, as the appointing authority, has the power to remove a presidential appointee.

• Procedural Issues:
• Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 is the proper remedy for the petitioner to assail the CSC's decision.
• Substantive Issues:
• Whether the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction to review on appeal a decision of the Career Executive Service Board.
• Whether Lodevico's appointment as Director III was permanent and entitled her to security of tenure.
• Whether the termination of Lodevico's service was proper.

• Procedural:
• The Court held that while the proper mode of appeal was a petition for review under Rule 43, it would relax the application of procedural rules and give due course to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the broader interest of justice and to resolve the substantive issues of the case.
• Substantive:
• The Court affirmed that the CSC has appellate jurisdiction over the CESB, as the latter is an agency administratively attached to the CSC.
• The Court ruled that Lodevico's appointment was merely temporary because she did not meet the two requisites for a permanent appointment in the Career Executive Service: (1) CES eligibility and (2) appointment to an appropriate CES rank. While she possessed eligibility, she was never appointed to a CES rank.
• Consequently, the Court found that Lodevico did not possess security of tenure and served at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Her removal from service based on MC Nos. 1 and 2, which discharged all non-CESOs occupying CES positions, was therefore proper and valid.

• Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service — To attain permanent status and security of tenure in a CES position, an employee must possess both CES eligibility and an appointment to a specific CES rank by the President. The Court applied this doctrine to rule that Lodevico, having only eligibility but no rank, held a temporary appointment and thus had no security of tenure.
• Liberal Application of Procedural Rules — Courts may suspend procedural rules or except a case from their operation when the rigid application thereof would frustrate rather than serve the ends of justice. In this case, the Court allowed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, despite Rule 43 being the proper remedy, to accommodate the broader interest of justice.
• CSC Appellate Jurisdiction over Attached Agencies — As the central personnel agency of the government, the Civil Service Commission has the authority to review on appeal the decisions of agencies administratively attached to it. The Court affirmed that the decisions of the CESB are expressly subject to the CSC's review on appeal.

• "As clearly set forth in the foregoing provisions, two requisites must concur in order that an employee in the career executive service may attain security of tenure, to wit: a) CES eligibility; and b) Appointment to the appropriate CES rank."
• "[T]he temporary appointee accepts the position with the condition that he shall surrender the office when called upon to do so by the appointing authority."

• Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU — Cited as precedent for relaxing the application of procedural rules and giving due course to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, instead of the proper remedy under Rule 43, to serve the broader interest of justice.
• Eugenio v. CSC — Referenced to support the principle that the CESB, as an autonomous entity administratively attached to the CSC, has its decisions subject to the CSC's review on appeal.
• General v. Roco — Cited to establish that conferment of CES eligibility alone does not complete one's membership in the CES or confer security of tenure; an appointment to a CES rank is also necessary.
• CSC v. Engr. Darangina — Used to support the legal principle that a temporary appointee serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority and can be removed at any time.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The procedural rule under which the petition was filed, whose strict application was relaxed by the Court in favor of substantive justice.
• Rule 43, Rules of Court — Identified as the proper, though unused, mode of appeal from a final order of the Civil Service Commission.
• Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution — Cited as the constitutional basis for the CSC's role as the central personnel agency of the Government.
• Administrative Code of 1987, Book V — Provisions from this code were cited to define the powers of the CSC, classify positions into career and non-career service, and distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments.
• CESB Circular No. 2, Series of 2003 — This circular was crucial to the ruling as it provides the rules for membership in the CES and appointment to a CES Rank, forming the basis for the Court's two-requisite test for security of tenure.