Corsiga vs. Defensor

The Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over personnel actions affecting civil service employees, including reassignment; hence, the Regional Trial Court lacks jurisdiction over such controversies, and an employee must exhaust administrative remedies before the agency head and the CSC absent an applicable exception.

Petitioner Eduardo P. Corsiga was the Regional Irrigation Manager of the National Irrigation Administration, Region VI, while private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was a Senior Engineer B at the NIA's Jalaur-Suague River Irrigation System, Region VI, tasked with assisting the Irrigation Superintendent. The NIA was created under Presidential Decree No. 1702 and is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter, making its employees subject to the Civil Service Commission. NIA Administrator Memorandum Circular No. 47, Series of 1987, provided a rotation policy for certain NIA officials, a policy Ortizo later invoked in seeking exemption from his reassignment.

Private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was the Senior Engineer B in the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Jalaur-Suague River Irrigation System, Region VI, tasked with assisting the Irrigation Superintendent at that station. Petitioner Eduardo P. Corsiga was then the Regional Irrigation Manager of the NIA, Region VI.

Sometime in June 1995, Corsiga issued Regional Office Memorandum (ROM) No. 52, reassigning Ortizo to the Aganan-Sta. Barbara River Irrigation System, likewise to assist the Irrigation Superintendent thereat. Aggrieved, Ortizo wrote Corsiga requesting exemption, citing NIA Administrator Memorandum Circular No. 47, Series of 1987, which states that the policy of rotation applies only to Department Managers, Irrigation Superintendents, Provincial Engineers and Division Manager of Field Offices. Corsiga denied the request.

When Corsiga denied the request, Ortizo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City a complaint for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Corsiga moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Ortizo claimed his transfer violated the rule on reassignment because he was allegedly transferred to a lower position, while Corsiga refuted this and maintained that the reassignment was a lawful exercise of management prerogatives. Ortizo also alleged he was singled out among employees of his rank, but he presented no evidence to prove it; no convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion on Corsiga's part was shown.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of Civil Case No. 22462 pursuant to Section 13, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
• Exclusive CSC Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving personnel actions, including reassignment, affecting civil service employees, citing Mantala vs. Salvador and Dario vs. Mison.
• Speculative Fears: Petitioner averred that private respondent's allegations that the Civil Service remedy was neither speedy nor adequate, and that he would inevitably be subjected to administrative charges, were pure speculation and conjecture; such fears did not divest the CSC of exclusive jurisdiction.
• Non-Exhaustion and No Cause of Action: Petitioner asserted that private respondent had no valid cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the case was premature under Abe-Abe vs. Manta, and private respondent should have first complained to the NIA Administrator and, if necessary, appealed to the CSC.

• Security of Tenure: Private respondent maintained that as a civil service appointee to a position with a specification of a particular station, he could not be validly transferred or assigned to another unit in the same agency without his consent; doing so violated his constitutional right to security of tenure.
• Invalid Reassignment: Private respondent argued that ROM No. 52 was invalid because it reassigned him to a station different from that specified in his appointment papers.
• No Plain, Speedy, and Adequate Remedy: Private respondent contended that despite the patent illegality of the contemplated action, petitioner was adamant in implementing it, leaving him no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy but a petition for prohibition and injunction.
• Exceptions to Exhaustion: Private respondent invoked the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine: (1) where the issue involved is one of law and cannot be resolved administratively, (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive, (3) where irreparable injury exists, (4) where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and (5) where urgent circumstances require judicial intervention.
• Urgency and Bad Faith: Private respondent claimed urgency because he might be administratively charged if he resisted the order, yet estopped if he yielded without protest; he also alleged bad faith, capriciousness, whimsicality, arbitrariness, and discrimination because he was the only one of his rank reassigned, amounting to grave abuse of discretion.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Cause of Action: Whether private respondent has a cause of action despite his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

• Jurisdiction: No. The Regional Trial Court lacks jurisdiction over personnel actions, including reassignment, affecting civil service employees; the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction, and NIA employees are covered because NIA is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Cause of Action: No. Private respondent had no cause of action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies; he should have first complained to the NIA Administrator and, if necessary, appealed to the CSC, and no exception applied.

• Jurisdiction: The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. The NIA, created under Presidential Decree No. 1702, is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter; hence, Ortizo, as an NIA employee, was covered by the CSC. Section 13, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that appeals in connection with personnel actions are taken from the decision of a department or agency head to the Merit System Protection Board, now the CSC En Banc per CSC Resolution No. 93-2387. Rule XII, Section 6 of the same rules requires a grievance procedure under which decisions of lower-level officials are appealed to the agency head and then to the CSC, whose decisions may be elevated to the Court of Appeals. Under this setup, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over personnel actions and erred in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. It should have dismissed the case and let Ortizo question ROM No. 52 before the NIA Administrator and then the CSC. Mantala vs. Salvador held that cases involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service employees are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Cause of Action: As an NIA employee covered by the Civil Service Law, Ortizo should have first complained to the NIA Administrator and, if necessary, appealed to the CSC. Abe-Abe vs. Manta ruled that if a litigant goes to court without first pursuing administrative remedies, the action is premature and he has no cause of action to ventilate in court. Ortizo invoked exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, but the issue in Civil Case No. 22462 was not purely a question of law; certain facts needed to be resolved first. Whether his reassignment involved a reduction in rank was disputed: Ortizo claimed he was transferred to a lower position, while Corsiga refuted this and said the reassignment was a lawful exercise of management prerogatives. Whether Ortizo was the only one among employees of his rank who was reassigned was alleged but not proven. There was no convincing evidence of grave abuse of discretion; Ortizo's speculation that Corsiga intended to create a vacancy for someone close to him was unsubstantiated, and official functions are presumed regular unless proven otherwise. His claim of urgency was also speculative because the Omnibus Rules provided recourse by appeal to the agency head and then to the CSC, and the possibility of an administrative charge was merely speculative. In sum, Civil Case No. 22462 was not an exception to the general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in finding that the trial court did not err or gravely abuse its discretion in taking jurisdiction.

• Exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission over personnel actions — The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. Personnel actions, including reassignment, affecting civil service employees fall within this exclusive jurisdiction. The Court applied the doctrine because the NIA was created under Presidential Decree No. 1702 as a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter, making Ortizo a civil service employee; the Regional Trial Court therefore had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462.
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies — A litigant must first pursue available administrative remedies before resorting to court; failure to do so renders the action premature and leaves no cause of action. The doctrine admits exceptions, including where the issue is purely legal, the act is patently illegal, arbitrary, or oppressive, irreparable injury exists, there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, or urgent circumstances require judicial intervention. The Court found no exception because the case involved disputed facts, Ortizo presented no evidence of grave abuse or discrimination, and his claimed urgency was speculative; he should have complained to the NIA Administrator and then appealed to the CSC.
• Presumption of regularity of official functions — Official functions are presumed to be regularly performed unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence. The Court applied this presumption against Ortizo's allegations of bad faith and grave abuse of discretion, noting that he failed to substantiate his claim that Corsiga reassigned him to create a vacancy for someone close to him.
• Reassignment as a personnel action — Reassignment is among the personnel actions affecting civil service employees that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The Court cited Mantala vs. Salvador for this rule, even as it noted that Section 26(7), Chapter 5, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 permits reassignment within the same agency provided there is no reduction in rank, status, or salary. The merits of whether Ortizo's reassignment involved a reduction in rank were not resolved because the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction and administrative remedies had not been exhausted.

• "The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters." — This states the constitutional and statutory basis for the CSC's coverage, which the Court applied to the NIA as a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter.
• "As held in Mantala vs. Salvador, cases involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service employees, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission." — This is the ratio on exclusive jurisdiction, directly supporting the dismissal of the RTC case.
• "Under this set up, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over personnel actions and, thus, committed an error in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462." — This is the Court's conclusion that the RTC erred in denying the motion to dismiss.
• "Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil Service Law, in our view, private respondent should have first complained to the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal to the Civil Service Commission." — This states the required administrative route and the basis for finding the complaint premature.

• Mantala vs. Salvador, 206 SCRA 264, 267 (1992) — Controlling precedent cited by the Court for the rule that cases involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service employees are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.
• Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979) — Cited for the rule that a litigant who goes to court without first pursuing administrative remedies files a premature action and has no cause of action.
• Rimonte vs. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 498, 502 (1995) — Cited for the principle that the Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.
• Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84, 111-112 (1989) — Invoked by petitioner for the proposition that the Civil Service Commission, like the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, is a constitutional body left alone in enforcing laws within its sphere, and is the single arbiter of civil service controversies.

• Article IX-B, Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Applied to the NIA as a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter, making Ortizo a civil service employee.
• Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 6(1), Book V, Executive Order No. 292 — Provides the statutory coverage of the civil service over government employees, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Applied to establish CSC jurisdiction over NIA employees.
• Section 13, Rule VII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Governs appeals in connection with personnel actions; a decision of a department or agency may be appealed to the Merit System Protection Board, now the CSC En Banc per CSC Resolution No. 93-2387. Applied to show the administrative appeal route Ortizo should have taken.
• Section 6, Rule XII, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 — Establishes the grievance procedure, including oral discussion, written grievance, and appeal to the agency head, with further appeal to the Merit System Protection Board or Public Sector Labor Management Council. Applied to show Ortizo had available administrative remedies.
• CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dated June 29, 1993 — Provides that decisions in administrative cases involving civil service officials and employees, including personnel actions, are appealed directly to the Civil Service Commission and not to the Merit System Protection Board. Applied to identify the CSC En Banc as the appellate body.
• Section 26(7), Chapter 5, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 — Defines reassignment and allows an employee to be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency, provided the reassignment does not involve a reduction in rank, status, or salary. Applied to frame Ortizo's claim that his reassignment involved a reduction in rank, a factual issue the Court said should have been resolved administratively.
• Rule 16, Section 1, Rules of Court — Lists grounds for a motion to dismiss, including that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. Applied to petitioner's motion to dismiss based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of Court — Provides disputable presumptions, including that official duty has been regularly performed. Applied against Ortizo's unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith and grave abuse of discretion.

Justices Bellosillo (Acting Chief Justice and Chairman), Mendoza, and Callejo, Sr. concurred. Justice Austria-Martinez was on leave.