Feliciano v. Department of National Defense
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At the time of the events, Roberto Emmanuel T. Feliciano served as Assistant Secretary of the Department of National Defense (DND), and Horacio S. Gonzalez held the position of Chief of the Administrative Service Office of the DND. Both individuals possessed a Career Executive Service Examination (CESE) eligibility. On June 30, 2010, Memorandum Circular No. 1 was issued, directing non-career executive service officials (non-CESO) occupying career executive service (CES) positions to continue their duties until July 31, 2010, or until their replacements were appointed. Subsequently, DND Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin issued Department Order No. 154, terminating Gonzalez and 10 other officials due to their lack of CESE, and re-designating Feliciano. Later, Feliciano received Department Order No. 163, terminating his designation and services. Procedural History: Aggrieved by their termination, Feliciano and Gonzalez filed separate appeals with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), asserting illegal termination. The DND countered by citing Memorandum Circular No. 1, as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 2, arguing that the petitioners, not being full CESOs due to incomplete qualification stages, lacked security of tenure. The CSC ruled in favor of both petitioners, declaring their terminations invalid and ordering their reinstatement with back salaries. The DND appealed these decisions to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in separate rulings, reversed the CSC's decisions, finding the terminations valid because the petitioners lacked the required CESE to secure their positions and thus did not possess security of tenure. The CA also questioned the CSC's jurisdiction in Feliciano's case, suggesting the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) had primary jurisdiction. The Petition: The petitioners, Feliciano and Gonzalez, have separately appealed to the Supreme Court by petitions for review on certiorari. They raise two main issues: first, whether the CSC possessed the jurisdiction to hear and decide their appeals, and second, whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the validity of their termination. The core of their argument revolves around their entitlement to security of tenure in their respective CES positions within the DND, despite not having fully completed all prescribed stages for the CESE. They contend that their existing CESE eligibility and their appointments should have afforded them protection against termination without just cause.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) had jurisdiction over the appeals of the petitioners. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely erred in finding the petitioners' termination valid.
Ruling
The appeals are bereft of merit. The Court AFFIRMS the decisions of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 3, 2011, and October 12, 2011, in so far as the validity of the petitioners' termination was concerned, and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the respective costs of suit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the CSC: The Supreme Court affirmed that the CSC has jurisdiction over the cases of the petitioners. The Court reiterated that the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the Government, is vested with comprehensive powers under Article IX-B, Section 3 of the Constitution and Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). These powers include rendering opinions and rulings on all personnel and Civil Service matters, and hearing and deciding administrative cases on appeal. While the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) has specific powers over members of the CES, these are interpreted as exceptions to the CSC's broad mandate. The Court emphasized that the CESB is an attached agency of the CSC, making its decisions subject to CSC review on appeal. Therefore, the mere fact that the positions involved were CES positions did not divest the CSC of its constitutional power to hear and decide the cases. On the validity of the petitioners' termination: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the petitioners' termination. The Court found that both petitioners, despite their claims, had not completed the required four stages for obtaining Career Executive Service Eligibility (CESE) as mandated by CESB Resolution No. 791-09. Specifically, they had not completed the assessment center and performance validation stages, which were necessary to acquire the CESE. The Court clarified that security of tenure in the CES requires two requisites: (1) the CESE, and (2) an appointment to the appropriate CES rank. Since the petitioners lacked the CESE, their appointments were considered temporary, not permanent. Consequently, they were not entitled to security of tenure, and their termination was deemed effective and valid.
Main Doctrine
Individuals appointed to Career Executive Service (CES) positions who have not completed the required four stages for Career Executive Service Eligibility (CESE) do not possess security of tenure and their appointments are considered temporary, thus their termination is valid.