Feliciano vs. Department of National Defense

The CSC has jurisdiction over appeals involving CES positions, but an occupant of a CES position does not acquire security of tenure unless he possesses the Career Executive Service Eligibility and has a permanent appointment to the appropriate CES rank; absent the CSEE, the appointment remains temporary.

Petitioners Roberto Emmanuel T. Feliciano and Horacio S. Gonzalez were officials of the Department of National Defense occupying positions classified under the Career Executive Service. The Career Executive Service is governed by the Career Executive Service Board, an attached agency of the Civil Service Commission, while the CSC is the central personnel agency of the Government under Article IX-B, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987. The dispute implicated the CSC’s adjudicative authority over CES personnel matters and the eligibility requirements for security of tenure in the CES, including the four-stage CESE examination process under CESB resolutions.

At the time material to the case, petitioner Roberto Emmanuel T. Feliciano served as Assistant Secretary of the Department of National Defense (DND), while petitioner Horacio S. Gonzalez held the position of Chief of the Administrative Service Office of the DND; the CSC decision later referred to Gonzalez as former Director III of the DND. The records stated that Feliciano possessed a CSEE and that Gonzalez also had a CSEE. Both positions were within the Career Executive Service and were classified as third-level positions requiring the CSEE.

On June 30, 2010, Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa issued Memorandum Circular No. 1, which provided that all non-career executive service officials (non-CESO) occupying career executive service (CES) positions in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office and continue to perform their duties and discharge their responsibilities until July 31, 2010 or until their resignations have been accepted and/or their respective replacements have been appointed or designated, whichever comes first. Pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 1, DND Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin issued Department Order No. 154 to terminate 11 officials of the DND, including Gonzalez, on account of their lack of the CSEE, and to re-designate Feliciano as Assistant Secretary for Strategic Assessment of the DND. Subsequently, on July 13, 2010, Feliciano received Department Order No. 163 terminating his designation and services as Assistant Secretary for Strategic Assessment.

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed their respective appeals by letters-complaint in the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on the ground of illegal termination. The DND, through Secretary Gazmin, countered by citing Memorandum Circular No. 1, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 2, to the effect that all non-CESO officials occupying CES positions in all agencies of the Executive Branch would remain in office until their respective replacements were appointed and qualified, whichever came first, and that the petitioners, not being CESOs for having failed to complete all the necessary requisites, did not enjoy security of tenure.

The records showed that the positions of Assistant Secretary for Strategic Assessment and Chief of the Administrative Service Office were classified as third-level positions requiring the CSEE. The Court found that the petitioners did not possess the required CSEE and had not completed the four-stage CESE examination process under CESB Resolution No. 791-09; even assuming that Gonzalez and Feliciano possessed the CSEE, they still failed to comply with CESB Resolution No. 811 because they had not completed the assessment center and performance validation stages. These circumstances formed the factual basis for the Court’s determination that the petitioners’ appointments remained temporary and that they did not enjoy security of tenure.

• Illegal Termination: Petitioners filed their respective appeals by letters-complaint in the CSC on the ground of illegal termination.
• Eligibility and Qualification: Petitioners contended that although they did not have the CSEE, they were still eligible and qualified to hold their respective third-level positions at the DND.
• Possession of Eligibility: Petitioners insisted on having the required eligibility, even as the Court found that they did not possess the required CSEE.

• Lack of Security of Tenure: The DND countered that petitioners, not being CESOs for having failed to complete all the necessary requisites, did not enjoy security of tenure.
• Memorandum Circulars: The DND cited Memorandum Circular No. 1, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 2, providing that all non-CESO officials occupying CES positions in all agencies of the Executive Branch would remain in office until their respective replacements were appointed and qualified, whichever came first.
• Validity of Termination: The DND maintained that the termination was valid because petitioners lacked the required CSEE.

• CSC Jurisdiction: Whether the CSC had jurisdiction over the appeals of the petitioners.
• Validity of Termination: Whether the CA gravely erred in finding the petitioners’ termination valid.

• CSC Jurisdiction: Yes. The CSC, as the central personnel agency under Article IX-B, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 12 of EO No. 292, has adjudicative power over all personnel and civil service matters; the CESB’s specific powers are exceptions to the CSC’s comprehensive authority.
• Validity of Termination: No. The CA did not gravely err; the termination was valid because petitioners did not possess the required CSEE and had not completed the CESE process, so their appointments remained temporary and without security of tenure.

• CSC Jurisdiction: The CSC is one of the three independent Constitutional Commissions invested with adjudicative powers. Article IX-B, Section 3 designates it as the central personnel agency of the Government. EO No. 292 grants the CSC the power to render opinions and rulings on all personnel and other Civil Service matters, to hear and decide administrative cases, and to review decisions and actions of agencies attached to it. The CESB, established under the Integrated Reorganization Plan, has specific powers over the CES: to promulgate rules, standards, and procedures; to set up the organization and operation of the CES; to prepare training and career development programs; and to investigate and adjudicate administrative complaints against CES members. In Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service Commission, the specific powers of the CESB were narrowly construed as exceptions to the CSC’s comprehensive authority. Because the CESB is an attached agency of the CSC, its decisions are subject to CSC review on appeal. The mere fact that the positions involved are CES positions does not divest the CSC of its constitutional power to hear and decide the cases. Thus, the CSC had jurisdiction over both petitioners’ appeals.
• Validity of Termination: The positions of Assistant Secretary for Strategic Assessment and Chief of the Administrative Service Office were classified as third-level positions requiring the CSEE. CESB Resolution No. 791-09 required the four-stage CESE examination process: the CES written examination, the assessment center, the performance validation, and the board interview. Only upon completion of all four stages could the CSEE be granted. The CSEE was necessary to qualify for and hold CES positions. Petitioners contended that although they did not have the CSEE, they were still eligible and qualified; this contention was unwarranted. While Gonzalez possessed the CSEE, and assuming Feliciano also possessed the CSEE, they still failed to justify non-compliance with CESB Resolution No. 811, which required them to take and complete the last two stages—the assessment center and the performance validation. Upon completion of those stages, they would be granted the CSEE and qualify for CES positions. Petitioners did not complete the process. Without the CSEE, they were not entitled to security of tenure. In the CES, security of tenure presupposes a permanent appointment. Under General vs. Roco, two requisites must concur for a CES employee to attain security of tenure: (1) the CSEE; and (2) appointment to the appropriate CES rank. Petitioners were undisputedly not yet holders of the CSEE. Their appointments remained temporary, a status that denied them security of tenure. Under Amores vs. Civil Service Commission, an appointment is permanent where the appointee meets all requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed, and temporary where the appointee meets all requirements except the appropriate civil service eligibility. Possession of the required CES eligibility makes an appointment in the CES permanent. The law permits the appointment of non-CES eligibles to CES positions in the absence of appropriate eligibles and when necessity requires, but such appointment is merely temporary and conditioned on the subsequent obtention of the required CES eligibility. Thus, the termination was valid.

• CSC’s Comprehensive Jurisdiction over Civil Service Personnel Matters — The CSC, as the central personnel agency under Article IX-B, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 12 of EO No. 292, has comprehensive authority to render opinions and rulings on all personnel and other Civil Service matters and to hear and decide administrative cases. The CESB’s specific powers over the CES are exceptions to this comprehensive authority and must be narrowly interpreted; because the CESB is attached to the CSC, its decisions are subject to CSC review on appeal. The mere fact that positions are CES positions does not divest the CSC of jurisdiction.
• Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service — Security of tenure in the CES presupposes a permanent appointment and requires the concurrence of two requisites: (1) the CSEE; and (2) appointment to the appropriate CES rank. Absent the CSEE, the appointment remains temporary and the occupant does not enjoy security of tenure.
• Permanent vs. Temporary Appointment in the Civil Service — An appointment is permanent where the appointee meets all requirements for the position, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed; it is temporary where the appointee meets all requirements except the appropriate civil service eligibility. The possession of the required CES eligibility makes an appointment in the CES permanent. Non-CES eligibles may be appointed to CES positions when no appropriate eligibles are available and necessity requires, but such appointment is temporary and conditioned on subsequent obtention of the required CES eligibility.
• Four-Stage CESE Examination Process — Under CESB Resolution No. 791-09, attainment of the CSEE requires hurdling four stages: (1) the CES written examination; (2) the assessment center; (3) the performance validation; and (4) the board interview. Under CESB Resolution No. 811, CSEEs must complete the last two stages—the assessment center and the performance validation—to be granted the CSEE and qualify for CES positions.

• "The CSC is one of the three independent Constitutional Commissions invested with adjudicative powers to render final arbitration on disputes and personnel actions involving matters relating to the Civil Service." — States the constitutional basis for the CSC’s adjudicative jurisdiction, which the Court used to reject the CA Fourteenth Division’s ruling that the CSC lacked jurisdiction over Feliciano’s case.
• "It is a basic principle in statutory construction that statutes must be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and other laws. In this case, the specific powers of the CESB over members of the CES must be interpreted in a manner that takes into account the comprehensive mandate of the CSC under the Constitution and other statutes." — Explains why the CESB’s specific powers do not oust the CSC of jurisdiction over CES personnel matters.
• "In the CES, the attainment of security of tenure presupposes a permanent appointment. In that regard, and as opined in General v. Roco, two requisites must concur in order that an employee in the CES could attain security of tenure, namely: (1) the CSEE; and (2) the appointment to the appropriate CES rank." — States the two-requisite test for CES security of tenure; central ratio for upholding the termination.
• "An appointment is permanent where the appointee meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed, and it is temporary where the appointee meets all the requirements for the position except only the appropriate civil service eligibility." — Defines permanent and temporary appointments, supporting the conclusion that lack of the CSEE left petitioners’ appointments temporary.

• Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 197762, March 7, 2017 — The Court relied on this precedent to hold that the CESB’s specific powers over the CES are narrowly construed exceptions to the CSC’s comprehensive authority, and that CESB decisions are subject to CSC review because it is an attached agency.
• General vs. Roco, G.R. Nos. 143366 & 143524, January 27, 2001, 350 SCRA 528 — Cited for the rule that security of tenure in the CES requires the concurrence of (1) the CSEE and (2) appointment to the appropriate CES rank.
• Amores vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 170093, April 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 160 — Cited for the distinction between permanent and temporary appointments and for the rule that possession of the required CES eligibility makes a CES appointment permanent.
• Ong vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 184219, January 30, 2012, 664 SCRA 413 — Cited for the effect that petitioners’ appointments remained temporary and denied them security of tenure.

• Section 3, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution — Designates the CSC as the central personnel agency of the Government and mandates it to establish a career service. Applied to affirm the CSC’s comprehensive authority over civil service personnel matters, including the petitioners’ appeals.
• Section 12, Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Grants the CSC the power to render opinions and rulings on all personnel and other Civil Service matters, to hear and decide administrative cases, and to review decisions and actions of agencies attached to it. Applied to hold that the CSC had jurisdiction over the CESB-related cases and that CESB decisions are subject to CSC review.
• Section 7(3), Article IV, Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines), as amended by Executive Order No. 292 — Includes positions in the Career Executive Service—such as Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director, and others of equivalent rank identified by the CESB—within the Career Service. Applied to classify petitioners’ positions as third-level CES positions requiring the CSEE.
• CESB Resolution No. 791-09 (Revised Integrated Rules on the Grant of Career Executive Service Eligibility), dated February 10, 2009 — Requires the four-stage CESE examination process: the CES written examination, the assessment center, the performance validation, and the board interview. Applied to require completion of all four stages before the CSEE may be granted.
• CESB Resolution No. 811 (Amendatory Guidelines on the Appointment to Career Executive Service (CES) Ranks of Career Service Executive Eligibles (CSEEs)), dated August 17, 2009 — Required CSEEs to complete the last two stages—the assessment center and the performance validation—to be granted the CSEE and qualify for CES positions. Applied to petitioners, who had not completed those stages.
• Memorandum Circular No. 1, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 2 — Provided that all non-CESO officials occupying CES positions in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office until their replacements were appointed and qualified, whichever came first. Cited by the DND to argue that petitioners, as non-CESOs, did not enjoy security of tenure.
• Presidential Decree No. 1 (Integrated Reorganization Plan), dated September 24, 1972 — Established the CESB as the governing body of the CES. Applied to describe the CESB’s specific functions and its relationship to the CSC.

Velasco, Jr., Leonen, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.