Civil Service Commission vs. Rasuman

The Civil Service Commission is an indispensable party to a Rule 108 petition for correction of birthdate that would substantially alter a government employee's service records and retirement age, and a judgment rendered without impleading it and affording it personal notice does not bind it.

Pacol Disumimba Rasuman served as Senior Executive Assistant in the Bureau of Customs, an agency within the civil service. Under Executive Order No. 292, the Civil Service Commission is mandated to keep and maintain personnel records of all officials and employees in the civil service. Petitions for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which requires the civil registrar and all persons with an interest that would be affected to be made parties.

On April 16, 2014, Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, a Senior Executive Assistant in the Bureau of Customs, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur, Branch 9, Marawi City, a verified petition for correction of his date of birth from February 12, 1952 to February 12, 1956, docketed as SPL. PROC. No. 2191-14, impleading the Local Civil Registrar of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. The RTC issued an Order setting the case for hearing and directing publication of the Order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Marawi City and Iligan City at respondent's expense, with the Order, petition and annexes to be furnished the Local Civil Registrar, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Civil Registrar General, with which respondent complied. Respondent later filed an Amended Petition to implead the Bureau of Customs.

In a Decision dated July 23, 2015, the RTC granted the petition and judicially declared February 12, 1956 as respondent's true and correct date of birth, directing the Local Civil Registrar to annotate the certificate of live birth and forward the corrected copy to the Administrator and Civil Registrar General, and directing the Bureau of Customs to correct respondent's official agency records. The decision became final and executory on October 8, 2015.

Thereafter, on January 21, 2016, respondent filed with the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region a request for correction of his date of birth in his service records. In a letter dated March 3, 2016, the CSC-NCR required submission of certain documents, and respondent submitted his Philippine Statistics Authority Certificate of Live Birth bearing the correction pursuant to the RTC Decision, his affidavits explaining the discrepancy and that he was not baptized as it is not a Muslim practice, affidavits of two witnesses attesting that his birthdate was February 12, 1956, and certified true copies of his service records card and Personal Data Sheet from the CSC Field Office, Department of Public Works and Highways, indicating his birthdate as February 12, 1952. On June 27, 2016, the CSC-NCR issued Resolution No. 1601236 denying the request, holding that while the belatedly registered birth certificate supported the 1956 claim, employment and school records showed otherwise, particularly that his Personal Data Sheet showed elementary attendance from 1957 to 1962, meaning he would have been only one year old when he started school if born in 1956.

Respondent sought review with the CSC Proper, which on January 13, 2017 issued Decision No. 170058 dismissing the petition and affirming the denial, with reconsideration denied on May 8, 2017. On review, the Court of Appeals on October 25, 2017 granted respondent's petition, reversed the CSC rulings, and directed compliance with the RTC Decision, denying reconsideration on April 26, 2018.

• Indispensable Party and Binding Effect: Petitioner argued that it was an indispensable party to the RTC petition for correction because the integrity and correctness of public personnel records in its custody would be affected by a substantial change in birthdate, and for not having been impleaded it was not bound by the RTC decision.
• Propriety of Denial: Petitioner maintained that it properly denied respondent's request for correction of his date of birth in his service records, the RTC decision having no effect insofar as the CSC was concerned.

• Indispensable Party and Due Process: Whether the CSC, though not impleaded in the Rule 108 petition for correction of birthdate, is bound by the RTC decision granting correction where the correction would substantially alter the employee's civil service records.
• Cure by Publication and Magoyag: Whether respondent's failure to implead the CSC was cured by publication of the RTC order and earnest efforts, or by the ruling in Civil Service Commission vs. Magoyag that an in rem correction binds the whole world.

• Indispensable Party and Due Process: No. The CSC is an indispensable party with a substantial interest in the correctness of civil service personnel records and, absent impleader and personal notice, the RTC judgment cannot bind it or compel correction of its records.
• Cure by Publication and Magoyag: No. Publication did not cure the omission and Magoyag was inapplicable, as none of the recognized excuses for non-joinder was shown and the CSC here was never impleaded nor specifically ordered to correct its records.

• Indispensable Party and Due Process: Rule 108, Sections 3 to 5 requires that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected be made parties, with notice to named persons and publication to others, and summons served to satisfy fair play and due process rather than to vest jurisdiction. Applied here, correction from 1952 to 1956 would give respondent four additional years before compulsory retirement and directly affect records the CSC is mandated to keep under Executive Order No. 292, making the CSC indispensable under Police Senior Superintendent Macawadib vs. The Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management. Because the CSC was neither impleaded nor given personal notice and only the BOC was impleaded, the RTC decision could not affect the Commission's interest, so denial of the administrative request for correction was correct.
• Cure by Publication and Magoyag: While failure to implead may in exceptional cases be excused where earnest efforts were made, the interested party initiated the proceedings, there was no awareness of the interested party, or the omission was inadvertent, none applied where respondent knew the correction affected employment status yet impleaded only the BOC without exerting earnest efforts to join the central personnel agency. Magoyag was distinguished because there the RTC had specifically directed the CSC to correct its records, giving it knowledge and opportunity to oppose, whereas here the amended petition prayed only for the BOC to correct employment records and the CSC was never apprised of the RTC proceedings. The CA's view that an in rem proceeding validated by publication binds the whole world was therefore misplaced in light of the due process requirement that those with interests in the res be notified and heard.

• Indispensable Party in Rule 108 Correction Proceedings — An indispensable party is one with such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that no final adjudication can be made without injuring or affecting that interest, and its absence renders subsequent actions null for want of authority. The CSC, PNP and NAPOLCOM are indispensable parties to petitions involving substantial alterations in a government employee's service records because the integrity of public records in their custody stands to be adversely affected, so they must be impleaded and given opportunity to oppose.
• Due Process in In Rem and Quasi In Rem Actions — Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem, because only natural or juridical persons may be parties and resolution affects interests attached to the thing. In rem judgments bind the whole world only after due process is satisfied through notice to interested persons and opportunity to defend, with summons serving fair play rather than merely vesting jurisdiction.
• Rule 108 Notice Requirements — Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 108 mandate two sets of notices: personal notice to persons named in the petition and publication notice to other potential interested or affected oppositors, each with a fifteen-day period to oppose from notice or last publication. Failure to implead and personally notify a known interested indispensable party is not cured by publication alone absent recognized exceptional circumstances such as earnest efforts to join all parties, initiation by the interested party, lack of awareness of its existence, or inadvertent omission.

• "Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action - whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem." — States the controlling jurisdictional principle rejecting the CA view that in rem status dispenses with joinder and personal notice.
• "Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests." — Defines why publication alone was insufficient to bind the unimpleaded CSC despite the correction case being classified as in rem.
• "An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest." — Provides the canonical test applied to hold the CSC indispensable because its personnel records would be substantially altered.

• Police Senior Superintendent Macawadib vs. The Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management, 715 Phil. 484 (2013) — Controlling precedent followed to hold the PNP, NAPOLCOM and CSC indispensable parties in correction cases involving substantial changes in service records; absence renders judgment ineffective as to them.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Magoyag, 775 Phil. 182 (2015) — Distinguished; there the CSC was specifically ordered by the RTC to correct its records and thus had knowledge and opportunity to oppose, unlike the present case where it was never impleaded or ordered.
• De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (2014) — Authority for the rule that due process requires jurisdiction over parties even in in rem and quasi in rem actions and that “against the thing” assumes a vinculum over interested persons.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Dr. Uy, 716 Phil. 254 (2013) — Cited for the two sets of Rule 108 notices and the limited exceptional circumstances where failure to implead may be cured by publication, found inapplicable here.

• Section 3, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Requires the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected to be made parties when cancellation or correction of a civil registry entry is sought; applied to require joinder of the CSC.
• Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Require court order fixing hearing, reasonable notice to named persons, weekly publication for three consecutive weeks, and allow opposition within fifteen days from notice or last publication; applied to distinguish personal notice from publication notice.
• Executive Order No. 292 — Mandates the CSC to keep and maintain personnel records of all officials and employees in the civil service; basis for its substantial interest and indispensable-party status.
• Section 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court — Requires joinder of parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had; cited for the rule that absence of an indispensable party prevents effective and final adjudication.

Leonen, J., A. Reyes, Jr., J., and Inting, J., concur. Hernando, J., on official business.