Civil Service Commission v. Tulali

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225238. February 28, 2018.]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner,vs. REGIDOR B. TULALI, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 28, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 225238 (Civil Service Commission vs. Regidor B. Tulali). — The Court:

(1) GRANTS respondent's Motion to Admit dated January 5, 2018, the attached Explanation and Comment (on the petition for review on certiorari), and NOTES the Notice of Change of Address to Cayapas Building, New Market Road, Brgy. Tiniguiban, Puerto Prinsesa City; and

(2) NOTES said explanation and comment on the petition.

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the January 19, 2016 Decision 1 and June 17, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132935. There, the CA reversed the May 23, 2013 Decision and October 23, 2013 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) disapproving Regidor B. Tulali's (Tulali) permanent appointment as City Government Department Head II, City Environment and Natural Resources Officer II (CENRO II) for failure to meet the minimum supervisory experience required for the said position.

Facts show that on April 25, 2012, the CSC Regional Office No. IV rendered a decision disapproving Tulali's appointment for, as reflected in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), he fell short of two (2) years and three (3) months to satisfy the five (5) years minimum requirement of relevant experience. According to the Regional Office, Tulali was appointed as a legal officer in the Environmental Legal Assistance Center from May 15, 2003 until February 14, 2006. There, he performed the relevant experience required of his new appointment. However, upon validation, the minimum five (5) years of relevant experience requirement has not been met as he had only served two (2) years and nine (9) months in the said position.

In his motion for reconsideration before the CSC, Tulali submitted two (2) certifications, one issued by the Executive Director of Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the other, by the Chief Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan. On one hand, the PCSD Certification highlighted Tulali's work and participation in the deliberation of technical evaluation of projects requiring Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) clearances, formulation of environmental policies, providing legal advice in the prosecution of environmental cases filed by or pending before the PCSD and the court, as well as giving technical assistance in drafting, review and revision of policy issuances of PCSD. The certification issued by the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan, on the other hand, attested to the fact that from 2006 to November 2011, he was the designated environmental prosecutor in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the various municipal courts in the province of Palawan. With all these, he insists that he acquired more than two (2) years and three (3) months experience and alleged that CSC deliberately failed to discuss and consider his work experience with PCSD. The CSC, however, denied the said motion for reconsideration, and affirmed the previous ruling of the Regional Office.

In another motion for reconsideration, Tulali maintained that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Code (IRR-LGC) or Republic Act No. 7160, as well as the 1997 Revised Qualifications Manual, do not require that an applicant for the position of CENRO must have a supervisory experience. At any rate, his workload during his employment as a government prosecutor gave him the necessary experience relevant to environmental and natural resources management, conservation and utilization. The motion for reconsideration was again denied, on the ground that the arguments raised were already judicially passed upon and resolved by the CSC.

Undaunted, Tulali filed a petition for review before the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA reversed the CSC 2 and ruled that the latter erred in not considering Tulali's work experience as an associate prosecutor and as alternate representative in PCSD, in computing his total work experience. In doing so, it discussed the IRR-LGC, which prescribes the qualification standards for the position of CENRO II. Accordingly, "no person shall be appointed environment and natural resources officer unless he x x x acquired experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation, and utilization for at least five (5) years in the case of the provincial or city environment and natural resources officer, and three (3) years in the case of the municipal environment and natural resources officer." 3

In this case, the Area Manager of Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. (ELAC) certified that Tulali worked for the center from 2003 to February 2006 as a legal officer. As such, he was responsible for the Calamianes Group of Islands in Northern Palawan, composed of the municipalities of Coron, Busuanga, Culion and Linapacan. He has also worked on institutional endeavors involving Honda Bay, Puerto Bay, Nagtabon, Napsan Cabayugan, and in other communities within Puerto Princesa. His principal duties and responsibilities include overseeing staff assignments, environmental law enforcement, conducting trainings on environmental and resource use management, and drafting national and local environmental legislations, drafting policy issuances, guidelines and regulations of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and litigating and prosecuting crimes against environmental law violators, among others. Aside from this, he worked as an associate prosecutor from February 26, 2006 to November 11, 2011, where he was assigned to lead preliminary investigation and prosecution of environmental cases involving violations of different environmental laws such as the Forestry Law, the Fisheries Code of the Philippines and the Chainsaw Act. 4 Further, the CA noted that the PCSD Certification explicitly showed that he served the council from 2006 until October 2011, where he acted as an official representative of Chief Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez, and as alternate of City Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn since November 2011. While in office, he participated in the deliberations of technical evaluation of projects for Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) clearances and in the formulation of environmental policies. The CA concluded that clearly, Tulali had gained the minimum required years of relevant experience in environmental management. Thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The May 23, 2013 Decision and October 23, 2013 Resolution of the Civil Service Commission are REVERSED. Petitioner's appointment as City Government Department Head II, City Environment and Natural Resources Officer II, is hereby APPROVED. aScITE

SO ORDERED.

A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the CSC, but the same was denied in a Resolution 5 dated June 17, 2016. The CSC thus filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. 6

In its petition, CSC pointed out that the CA disregarded CSC Circular No. 13, Series of 2011 in ruling for the approval of Tulali's appointment. Said circular specifically sets forth the requirements to qualify for an Executive/Managerial position in the second level. It requires non-presidential appointees, among others, to have five (5) years supervisory experience. This, according to the CSC, is in addition to the five (5) years experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation, and utilization, required under the IRR-LGC. Since the nature of Tulali's work as a government prosecutor centered on rendering legal advice and opinion and in attending court hearings, it cannot be considered compliant to the circular, as these were not performed in a supervisory capacity.

The Issue

CSC proffers the issue of whether or not the CA Decision contravenes CSC Circular No. 13, Series of 2011, which requires appointees to executive or managerial positions in the second level to have at least five (5) years supervisory experience before they can assume into office.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is without merit.

Although the CSC, being the central personnel agency of the government, is empowered to issue circulars to set certain standards for civil service, said issuances cannot extend a law nor amend a legislative enactment. Thus, CSC Circular No. 13, Series of 2011 cannot require at least five (5) years supervisory experience for the position of CENRO II, when the LGC only requires at least five (5) years experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation, and utilization, without regard to whether such experience was held in a supervisory capacity. 7

Section 3, Article IX of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.

The proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission reveal the intention to emphasize the status of the CSC as the "central personnel agency of the Government with all powers and functions inherent in and incidental to human resources management." 8 Although the specific powers of the CSC are not enumerated in the final version of the 1987 Constitution, it is evident from the deliberations of the framers that the concept of a "central personnel agency" was understood to be sufficiently broad as to include the authority to promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions, to classify positions, and to exercise all powers and functions inherent in and incidental to human resources management:

MR. FOZ.

   Can we say that all of the powers enumerated in the original provision are still being granted by the Civil Service Commission despite the elimination of the listing of these powers and functions?

MS. AQUINO.

   Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, in the nature of a central personnel agency, it would have to necessarily execute all of these functions.

MR. FOZ.

   And will the elimination of all these specific functions be a source of ambiguity and controversies later on as to the extent of the powers and functions of the commission?

MS. AQUINO.

   I submit that this would not be susceptible of ambiguity because the concept of a central personnel agency is a generally accepted concept and as experience would bear out, this function is actually being carried out already by the Civil Service Commission, except that we are integrating this concept. I do not think that it would be susceptible of any ambiguity.

xxx xxx xxx

MR. REGALADO.

   May we, therefore, make it of record that the phrase " . . . promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions, classify positions, prescribe conditions of employment except as to compensation and other monetary benefits which shall be provided by law" is understood to be subsumed under and included in the concept of a central personnel agency.

MS. AQUINO.

   I would have no objection to that. 9

In line with the above deliberations, the mandate of the CSC should therefore be read as the comprehensive authority to perform all functions necessary to ensure the efficient administration of the entire civil service. This view is further reinforced under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the Administrative Code of 1987. The said provision enumerates the specific powers and functions of the CSC while recognizing its comprehensive authority over all civil service matters. Section 12, Item (4) is of particular relevance to the present case:

SECTION 12. Powers and Functions. — The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

xxx xxx xxx

(4) Formulate policies and regulations for the administration, maintenance and implementation of position classification and compensation and set standards for the establishment, allocation and reallocation of pay scales, classes and positions.

It is evident, therefore, from the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions that the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government, has been granted the authority to implement position classifications and set standards for its establishment. HEITAD

As an exercise of such authority, the CSC has released several circulars, one of which is CSC Circular No. 13, Series of 2011. It contains, among others, several qualifications for executive or managerial positions in the second level, which are as follows:

Education: Master's Degree

Experience: Five (5) years of supervisory experience

Training: 120 hours of managerial training

Eligibility: Appropriate eligibility for second level positions

Appropriate (RA 1080) Bar/Board (for positions involving practice of profession)

In the present petition, the CSC insists that the CA failed to consider the above circular when it approved Tulali's appointment as CENRO II. In line with this, the Court wishes to point out that although such circular is recognized, it cannot apply to the position of CENRO II, since the LGC itself only required at least five (5) years relevant experience, without regard to its supervisory nature. The law is clear-cut and categorical in terms of the minimum requirements for the position. There is no mention that the person should hold a supervisory position for at least five (5) years before he can be qualified, as what the CSC suggests. The pertinent Section of the LGC reads:

ARTICLE XIV

The Environment and Natural Resources Officer

Section 484. Qualifications, Powers and Duties. —

(a) No person shall be appointed environment and natural resources officer unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local government unit concerned, of good moral character, a holder of a college degree preferably in environment, forestry, agriculture or any related course from a recognized college or university, and a first grade civil service eligible or its equivalent. He must have acquired experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation, and utilization, of at least five (5) years in the case of the provincial or city environment and natural resources officer, and three (3) years in the case of the municipal environment and natural resources officer. (emphasis ours)

In Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, 10 We ruled that while the grant of the CSC's rule-making power is untouchable by Congress, the laws that the CSC interprets and enforces fall within its prerogative. As an administrative agency, the CSC's quasi-legislative power is subject to the same limitations applicable to other administrative bodies. Administrative regulations cannot extend the law nor amend a legislative enactment and must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. In case of a conflict between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, the former must prevail.

Therefore, the LGC, being an enactment of Congress, shall prevail when it comes to the qualifications for the position of CENRO II. This applies to all other positions considered as executive or managerial in the second level listed under the LGC, in case there is a conflict between CSC Circular No. 13, Series of 2011, and the LGC.

The CA is thus correct in approving Tulali's appointment, as CENRO II. The various positions he handled from 2003-2011 (legal officer of ELAC, associate prosecutor handling environmental cases in Palawan, representative of Mayor Hagedorn in PCSD) are more than sufficient to meet the minimum requirement of at least five (5) years experience in environmental and natural resources management, conservation, and utilization provided under the LGC.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The January 19, 2016 Decision and June 17, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.

2.Rollo, pp. 34-45.

3. Local Government Code, Section 484, Article XIV.

4.Rollo, p. 41.

5.Id. at 47-49.

6.Id. at 14-27.

7.Grego v. COMELEC and Basco, G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997.

8. RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 525 (14 July 1986).

9. RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 592-593 (July 15, 1986), cited in Career Executive Service Board v. CSC, et al., G.R. No. 197762, March 7, 2017.

10. G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 2013.