THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194976. February 12, 2014.]
JOSEPH G. ALAMBAT AND GABRIEL L. LINGAN, petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 12, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194976 (Joseph G. Alambat and Gabriel L. Lingan v. Civil Service Commission).This is a petition for review on centiorari seeking the reversal of the August 6, 2010 Decision 1 and the December 23, 2010 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101600.
The Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA) was created by vertue of Republic Act No. 7922 3 or the Cagayan Special Economic Zone Act of 1995. CEZA supervises and manages the Cagayan Special Economic Zone and Freeport with the primary aim of transforming it into a self-sustaining industrial, commercial, financial, and recreational center, so as to create employment opportunities around the Cagayan Freeport and to encourage and attract local and foreign investments.
A perusal of the record shows that on February 1, 2006, CEZA Administrator Jose Mari B. Ponce (Administrator Ponce) issued permanent appointments to Joseph G. Alambat, (Alambat), lemuel Sam M. Castro (Castro), Ralph Patrick M. Iloy (Iloy), and Gabriel L. Lingan (Lingan) for the positions of Civil Security Officer C, Head Technical Assistant, Port Operational Specialist and Senior Information Officer (subject positions), respectively. The appointees immediately assumed their duties on even date.
Thereafter, the proposed appointments were submitted to the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Cagayan (CSCFO-Cagayan) for attention. In its letter, 4 dated February 23, 2006, however, the CSCFO-Cagayan disapproved those appointments on the ground that they were issued in violation of Executive Order No. 366 (E.O. No. 366) as implemented by Department of Budget Management (DBM) Circular Letter by CEZA for exemption of the above four subject positions from the prohibition of E.O. No. 366. It clarified that CEZA commenced its rationalization efforts on October 1, 2005, the request it mode was for the exemption for the positions of Corporate Budget Specialist and Senior Corporate Attorney. Said request was approved by the DBM thru its latter dated December 1, 2005.
Alambat, Castro, Iloy, and Lingan (Alambat, et al.) moved for a reconsideration 5 stressing that: 1] the four subject positions were explicitly included in the September 6, 2005 Letter of CEZA requesting exemption from the proscription of E.O. No. 366; 2] the performance of the core functions of the subject positions was necessary for the effective and efficient operation of CEZA and in carrying out its mandated duties and responsibilities under its charter.
In its July 6, 2006 Decision, 6 the Civil Services Commission Regional Office No. 2 (CSCRO NO. 2) upheld the disapproval of the appointments of Alambat, et al. for lack of an express authority from the DBM to fill the vacant subject positions. The CSCRO No. 2 explained that it resolved the motion for reconsideration against the movants Alambat, et al. because no favorable action was taken by the letter-request of CEZA, dated March 22, 2006, April 10, 2006 and May 12, 2006, all seeking exemption from the provision on the non-filling of vacant regular positions despite the lapse of a considerable length of time. The CSCRO No. 2 declared that those letters would not suffice to exclude the subject positions from the coverage of E.O. No. 366, absent the requisite written exemption from the DBM.
Dissatisfied, Alambat, et al. appealed 7 the July 6, 2006 Decision of the CSCRO No. 2 before respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC). Alambat, et al. insisted that aside from the positions of Corporate Budget Specialist and Senior Corporate Attorney, CEZA also had the urgent need to fill the vacant positions of Civil Security Officer s, Head Technical Assistant, Port Operational Specialist, and Senior Information Officer and, hence their appointment should be approved by the CSC in the interest of equality. They contented that the performance of the functions of the subject positions was vital to the existence and operations of CEZA, as well as in the realization of its vision to effectively manage and direct the affairs of the Cagayan Special Economic and Free Port Zone.
During the pendency of the appeal, DBM Undersecretary Laura Pascua wrote a latter, dated October 11, 2006, informing Administrator Ponce that put of the proposed eighteen (18) regular for filling, the DBM granted exemptions for only two positions, to wit 1] Head of Technical Assistant; and 2] Port Operations Specialist. The DBM ratiocinated that these two positions were urgently necessary to provide services to the Office of the Administrator and Operations Department of CEZA.
On May 23, 2007, the CSC issued Resolution No. 070951 8 Holding that the issuance of the questioned permanent appointments were proscribed by E.O. No. 366, which prohibition was reterated in DBM Circular Letters No. 2005-8, dated June 3, 2005, and No. 2006-2, dated January 5, 2006. In view of the exemption obtained by CEZA from the DBM for the positions of Head of Technical Assistant and Port Operations Specialist, However, the CSC resolved to approve the appointments of Castro and Iloy. It affirmed the disapproval of the appointments of Alambat and Lingan for want of such exemption. The dispositive portion of the CSC 070951 Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Joseph G. Alambat, Lemuel Sam M. Castro, Ralph M. Iloy and Gabriel L. Lingan, all employees of the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority (CEZA), is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the permanent appointments of Castro and Iloy as Head Technical Assistant and Port Operations Specialist, respectively, are APPROVED.
However, the permanent appointments of Alambat and Lingan as Civil Security Officer C and Senior Information Officer, respectively, are DISAPPROVED The Commission rules, however, that Alambat and Lingan are ENTITLED to the salaries appurtenant to their respective appointments from CEZA for actual services rendered.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Commission on Audit (COA) for its information and appropriate action. 9
The motion for reconsideration filed by Alambat and Lingan was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 072039, 10 dated November 5, 2007.
Aggrieved, Alambat and Lingan filed a petition for review under Rule 43. of the Rules of Court before the CA seeking to reverse and set aside the May 23, 2007 Resolution No. 070951 and the November 5, 2007 Resolution No. 072039 of the CSC. In its assailed decision, dated August 6, 2010, the CA ruled that the appointments in question were clearly in violation of E.O. No. 366 and, hence, the disapproval was legally correct. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed CSC resolution are affirmed.
SO ORDERED. 11
Alambat and Lingan filed their motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its December 23, 2010 Resolution.
Hence, this petition anchored on the following.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1) The Honorable Commission seriously erred in disapproving the permanent of the petitioners.
2) The Appellate Court seriously erred in affirming the CSC Resolutions.
3) The disapproved appointments do not violate the provisions of E.O. 366. 12
The petition is devoid of merit.
The rule is that if a statue or provision of law is clear, pain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is known as the plain meaning rule enunciated by the maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statue there should be no departure. 13 Let us examine the provisions pertinent to the determination as to whether or not the disapproval of the subject permanent appointments is correct and proper.
E.O. No. 366, dated October 4, 2004 was issued to direct the strategic review of the operations and organizations of the executive branch and its agencies with end view of improving the delivery of public services. Section 1, 5 and 7 thereof state:
Section 1. Coverage. — This Executive Order shall cover all Department of the Executive Branch and their component units/bureaus, including all corporations, boards, task forces, council, commissions and all other agencies attached to or under the administrative supervision of a Department.
The Constitutional Offices, Legislature, Judiciary, and State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) may, on a voluntary basis, apply the parameters contained herein if they opt. to review their respective operations and organization.
Section 5. Submission of the Rationalization Plan. — The Rationalization Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Budget and Management for review, to ensure its consistency with the objectives of this effort, and subsequent submission to the President approval.
In case of non-submission of a Rationalization Plan by the Department Secretaries, the DBM shall submit to the President the area for rationalization and improvement in the department/agencies concerned.
Section 7. Prohibition on Hiring/Rehiring of Personnel During Plan Preparation. — Except for newly created agencies, the hiring of additional personnel (permanent, temporary, contractual or casual), and the renewal of contracts/appointments of all employees hired on contractual, casual or temporary basis is hereby prohibited during the preparation of the Rationalization Plan.
Meanwhile, Section 13, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of E.O. No. 366, provides:
Section 13. Personnel Actions. — The following guidelines on personnel actions shall be adopted:
a. Upon publication Actions. The following guidelines on personnel actions shall be adopted/observed in the Department/Agencies until the Rationalization Plan is approved.
a.1 Non-filling of vacant regular/permanent/itemized positions except in newly-created agencies. . . .
The foregoing prohibition was clarified by the DBM in its Circular Letter No. 2005-8, dated June 3, 2005:
2.1. Within fifteen days from June 4, 2005, the effectivity date of the IRR of E.O. 366, Department/Agencies heads are reminded to notity the DBM on the exact date between June 4, to October 4, 2005 when the rationalization efforts would start in their respective Departments/Agencies.
2.2. From this starting date, all departments/agencies are required to observed the following policies on personnel actions until their Rationalization Plans are approved by the President:
a.1. Non-filling of vacant regular/permanent/itemized positions, either through original appointment, promotion, transfer or reemployment, except in newly created agencies; . . . .
This rule was subsequent reiterated in DBM Circular Letter No. 2006-2 dated January 5, 2006, thus:
1.1 Reiterate the temporary suspension in all Departments/Agencies of the filling of vacant regular/permanent/itemized positions while in the process of preparing their respective Rationalization Plan as provided for in Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular Letter No. 2005-08 dated 03 June 2005. . . .
The above provisions explicitly enunciate that it is mandatory for the agencies in the Executive Department to prepare their respective rationalization plans to be submitted to the DBM for review and, thereafter, to the President for his persual and approval. During the preparation of the rationalization plan and until the same is approved by the President, an agency is expressly prohibited from hiring additional personnel on a regular, permanent, temporary, contractual or casual basis, as well as to promote, transfer, appoint or renew the contracts of all employees hired to fill vacant regular, permanent, temporary, contractual and casual positions. This proscription, however, does not apply to newly created agencies. Since the prohibition is clear, plain and unambiguous, there is no reason to go beyond the letter of E.O. No. 366.
A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the temporary prohibition against the filling of vacant regular, permanent and itemized positions in the agencies of the Executive Department, whether through appointment, promotion transfer or employment, is subject to the following exceptions: 1] the filling of vacant regular, permanent and itemized positions in newly created agencies; and 2] the filling of vacant regular, permanent and itemized positions in agencies, not newly created, but with exemption or express written authority from the DBM.
Here, CEZA was created in 1995. Hence, it cannot be considered as "newly created agency" so as to remove it from the coverage of the temporary prohibition. To fall within the purview of the exception, CEZA must obtain from the DBM the corresponding written exemption/s for the filling of its vacant positions. Without the said authority, any appointment extended by CEZA should be disapproved for being violative of E.O. No. 366, its implementing rules and DBM issuance. Consequently, the CSCFO-Cagayan was correct in rejecting the four (4) February 1, 2006 permanent appointments inasmuch as they were issued during the preparation by CEZA of its rationalization plan and the record is devoid of any showing that the said agency secured the required exemption.
Still bent in obtaining a favorable action on its appointment, CEZA wrote the DBM requesting permission to hire and/or fill a number of its vacant positions, including the four (4) subject positions. Letter, while the appeal of Alambat, et al. was pending before the CSC, the DBM sent a letter, dated October 11, 2006, to Administrator Ponce, the pertinent portions of which read:
This pertains to your latter requesting the filling of eighteen (18) regular positions, as an exemption from the prohibition provided under Section 13 of the IRR of Executive Order No. 366. Out of the proposed eighteen (18) positions for filling, only the following two (2) positions are deemed urgently necessary to provide vital services to the Office of the Administrator and Operations Department:
No. of Position Position Title SG
1 Head Technical Assistant 23
1 Port Operations Specialist 15
In view thereof, the request to fill said position is hereby approved, subject to existing CSC rules and regulations.
Taken in the light of this development, the Court sustain the CSC in approving the appointments of Castro and Iloy while maintaining the disapproval of the appointment of Alambat and Lingan. It ratiocinated:
Thus, since the required exemption was already obtained from the DBM with respect to the Head Technical Assistant and Port Operations Specialist positions, the appointment of Castro and Iloy may now be approved. However, with respect to the appointment of Alambat and Lingan, the same cannot be approved in the absence of such exemption, pursuant to E.O. No. 366 and other pertinent DBM issuances.
On March 13, 2012, petitioner Alambat and Lingan filed their Manifestation 14 informing this Court that the DBM sent a letter, 15 dated February 15, 2012, addressed to Administrator Ponce, authorizing CEZA to fill, among others, the position of senior Information Officer. Lingan now begs for the approval of his appointment contending that the aforesaid authority has rendered moot and academic any question regarding the disapproval of his appointment.
The Court cannot accede.
The propriety of granting exemption from E.O. No. 366 is a policy issue to be determined by the DBM in the exercise of its sound discretion. According, all arguments and questions anent the necessity of filling a vacant position should be addressed to the DBM for the purpose of securing the requisite exemption from the temporary ban on hiring of additional personnel. From a reading of the February 15, 2012 Letter, sent by the DBM, it appears that CEZA was again granted the authority to fill seven (7) more permanent positions, including the Senior Information Officer position, because DBM was convinced of the representation of Administrator Ponce that those positions were vital to the operations of the agency.
By no means, However, can this recent exemption be applied retroactively so as to render valid lingan's appointment conferred way back on February 1, 2006. To rule otherwise render inutile the prohibition set by the Section 7 E.O. No. 366. It will also prejudice the agency's coffer from which the employee's salary shall be paid out the meantime. Also, to give a stamp of validity on the appointment of Lingan would, in effect, reward CEZA for knowingly and deliberately extending a prohibited appointment. This the Court cannot allow.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 6, 2010 Decision and the December 23, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101600 are AFFIRMED
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guriaña III with Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 29-36.
2. Id.
3. An Act Establishing a Special Economic Zone and Free Port in the Municipality of Santa Ana Therefor, and Neighboring Islands in the Municipality of Aparri, Province of Cagayan, Providing Funds Therefore, and for other purposes.
4. Rollo, pp. 74-75.
5. Id. at 76-82.
6. Id. at 84-85.
7. Id. at 86-93.
8. Id. at 40-46.
9. Id. at 46.
10. Id. at 48-51.
11. Id. at 35.
12. Id. at 19.
13. Funa v. The Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 579, 663.
14. Rollo, pp. 150-152.
15. Id. at 152-153.