Monteciilo v. Civil Service Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, employees of the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) for six to seven years, applied for promotional appointment to the position of "Secretary to the Assistant General Manager" or "Private Secretary C." At the time, MCWD personnel structure was being re-classified to conform with civil service descriptions and salary grades. Procedural History: Their appointments were forwarded to the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSC FO), which refused to approve them as "permanent" because the position was classified as "primarily confidential" and "co-terminous." This ruling was upheld by the CSC Regional Office and affirmed by the respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) in Resolution No. 972512, based on CSC Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991. The Petition: Petitioners sought to nullify the CSC Resolution, alleging that Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. 1991, was issued with grave abuse of discretion, unduly amended and expanded the scope of the non-career service under P.D. 807, and exceeded the CSC's rule-making power. They argued that the circular was null and void, rendering the assailed CSC resolution baseless.
Issue(s)
Whether CSC Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and whether the CSC exceeded its rule-making power in classifying "Private Secretary" positions as primarily confidential.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Civil Service Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991, and its Resolution No. 972512.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and excess of power: The Court reiterated that in a special civil action for certiorari, the burden of proving grave abuse of discretion lies with the petitioners. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and mere abuse of discretion is insufficient. The Court found no clear and persuasive showing that the respondent CSC grossly abused its discretion or exceeded its powers when it issued the assailed circular. The CSC was expressly empowered by Section 12(9), Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 to declare positions as primarily confidential. This power signifies that the enumeration of non-career service positions in Section 6, Article IV of P.D. 807 is not exclusive. The CSC could supplement this enumeration, as it did with Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. 1991, by specifying positions that are primarily confidential and whose occupants are co-terminous with the official they serve. The circular was not an unauthorized amendment of the law but an exercise of a power expressly vested by law upon the respondent. Absent any showing of arbitrary or whimsical action, the contention of grave abuse of discretion could not be successfully maintained. The circular provided valid justification for the CSC's resolution, which affirmed the lower CSC offices' rulings after a thorough consideration of petitioners' plea, finding it devoid of substantial merit. Therefore, there was no sufficient ground to disturb the CSC's resolution.
Main Doctrine
The Civil Service Commission has the power to declare positions as primarily confidential, and its Memorandum Circulars issued pursuant to this power are valid, provided they do not amend existing law and are not issued with grave abuse of discretion.