Tag: CES Rank

Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service: Eligibility vs. Appointment

The Supreme Court clarified that merely possessing Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility does not guarantee security of tenure. To attain permanent status, a CES eligible must also be appointed to a CES rank by the President. In this case, the Court found that while Lodevico was CES eligible, she was never appointed to a CES rank, making her appointment temporary and subject to termination. This decision underscores the stringent requirements for achieving security of tenure within the Career Executive Service, ensuring that only those who meet all qualifications can claim a permanent position.

From Director III to Temporary Appointee: Navigating Security of Tenure in Public Service

This case revolves around the appointment and subsequent termination of Blesilda Lodevico as Director III within the Career Executive Service Board (CESB). Lodevico, possessing a Career Service Executive Eligibility, was appointed as Director III by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. However, following the issuance of Memorandum Circulars by the Office of the President declaring non-Career Executive Service positions vacant, the CESB terminated Lodevico’s services. The central legal question is whether Lodevico’s CES eligibility alone entitled her to security of tenure, preventing her termination. This necessitates a deep dive into the requirements for achieving permanent status within the Career Executive Service.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially sided with Lodevico, declaring her termination null and void, asserting that as a presidential appointee, only the President could terminate her services. The CESB, however, contested this decision, arguing that Lodevico’s appointment was not permanent due to the lack of appointment to a specific CES rank, rendering her service terminable under the presidential memorandum. The Supreme Court, in resolving this dispute, had to examine the interplay between CES eligibility, appointment to a CES rank, and the corresponding security of tenure within the civil service.

The Court addressed a procedural issue raised by the respondents regarding the propriety of the CESB’s choice of remedy. Respondents argued that the CESB should have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 instead of a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65. The Court acknowledged that Rule 43 would have been the proper mode of appeal but noted exceptions where a Rule 65 petition could be entertained. These exceptions include instances where public welfare dictates, the broader interests of justice require, the writs issued are null, or the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Citing precedents like Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU, the Court emphasized its discretion to relax procedural rules to serve the broader interests of justice. Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, prioritizing substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

Substantively, the Court delved into the core issue of whether the CSC had jurisdiction to resolve Lodevico’s appeal. The Court affirmed the CSC’s jurisdiction, citing Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which charges the CSC with the administration of the civil service. Furthermore, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the Administrative Code of 1987 outlines the CSC’s powers and functions, including the authority to decide and pass upon all civil service matters. While the CESB is responsible for the selection, classification, and career development of CES members, it remains administratively attached to the CSC, making its decisions subject to the CSC’s review on appeal, as stated in Career Executive Service Board, et.al. v. Civil Service Commission, et. al., G.R. No. 197762.

Turning to the nature of Lodevico’s position, the Court distinguished between career and non-career service positions. The Court emphasized the characteristics of the career service as defined in Jocom v. Judge Regalado, 278 Phil. 83, 93-94 (1991):

The career service is characterized by (1) entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) security of tenure; while a non-career position is characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was extended.

Within the career service, there are three levels: the first level involves clerical and custodial positions, the second level involves professional and technical roles, and the third level encompasses positions in the Career Executive Service, as noted in Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 8. Positions within the Career Executive Service, such as Undersecretary, Bureau Director, and Assistant Bureau Director, are appointed by the President, according to Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3). The Court reiterated that appointment in the career service can be either permanent or temporary, with permanent appointments requiring the fulfillment of all position requirements, including appropriate eligibility, in line with Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 5, Section 27.

The Court then clarified the specific requirements for attaining membership and security of tenure within the CES, referencing Sections 2 and 3, Article I, Circular No. 2 Series of 2003 issued by the CESB:

Section 2. Membership in the CES. Upon inclusion of his/her name in the Roster of CES Eligibles after the conferment of CES Eligiblity and compliance with the other requirements prescribed by the Board, a CES Eligible assigned to any CES position and appointed by the President to a CES Rank becomes a member of the CES.

Section 3. Original Appointment to CES Rank. Appointment to appropriate classes, based on ranks in the CES, shall be made by the President from a list of CES Eligibles recommended by the Board.

Only a CES Eligible assigned to a CES position may be appointed by the President to a CES Rank. The Entry Rank in the CES shall be CESO Rank VI regardless of the position to which a CES Eligible is assigned.

The Court emphasized that CES eligibility is acquired through a rigorous examination process, as mentioned in Señeres v. Sabido, et al., 772 Phil. 37, 62 (2015), and conferment is done by the CESB. However, merely possessing CES eligibility does not automatically grant security of tenure. An individual must also be appointed to a CES rank by the President upon the CESB’s recommendation. This appointment to a CES rank is what solidifies an employee’s permanent status and entitles them to security of tenure, as stated in General v. Roco, 403 Phil. 455, 460 (2001).

Applying these principles to Lodevico’s case, the Court acknowledged that she possessed CES eligibility. However, the Court found no evidence that she had been appointed to a CES rank. As such, the Court concluded that Lodevico’s appointment remained temporary. Citing CSC v. Engr. Darangina, 542 Phil. 635, 639 (2007), the Court reiterated that temporary appointees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and can be terminated with or without cause. Therefore, Lodevico’s termination, pursuant to MC Nos. 1 and 2, which discharged non-CESOs occupying CES positions, was deemed valid.

In essence, the Supreme Court emphasized that attaining security of tenure in the Career Executive Service requires more than just CES eligibility; it necessitates an appointment to a specific CES rank. This distinction is crucial for understanding the conditions under which civil service employees can claim a permanent position. This ruling serves as a clear guideline for those seeking to solidify their positions within the CES, highlighting the importance of not only achieving eligibility but also securing the necessary appointment to a CES rank.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether possessing Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility alone entitled an employee to security of tenure, preventing their termination from a CES position.
What is the Career Executive Service (CES)?	The CES is a distinct group of positions in the Philippine civil service, encompassing high-level managerial and executive roles. It aims to foster a corps of leaders capable of driving government initiatives.
What are the requirements for attaining security of tenure in the CES?	To attain security of tenure in the CES, an employee must possess CES eligibility and be appointed to an appropriate CES rank by the President. Meeting only one of these requirements is insufficient.
What is the difference between CES eligibility and appointment to a CES rank?	CES eligibility is obtained by passing a series of examinations and assessments conducted by the CESB. Appointment to a CES rank is a formal appointment by the President to a specific rank within the CES hierarchy.
Why was Blesilda Lodevico’s termination upheld by the Supreme Court?	Lodevico’s termination was upheld because, while she possessed CES eligibility, she had not been formally appointed to a CES rank. This made her appointment temporary and subject to termination under existing presidential directives.
What is the role of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in CES matters?	The CSC is the central personnel agency of the Philippine government, responsible for administering the civil service. It has the power to review decisions made by the CESB on appeal.
What was the impact of Memorandum Circulars 1 and 2 on this case?	Memorandum Circulars 1 and 2, issued by the Office of the President, declared non-CES positions vacant and extended the terms of service for non-CESOs occupying CES positions. These circulars provided the basis for Lodevico’s termination.
What does this case mean for other civil service employees?	This case clarifies that CES eligibility alone is not enough to guarantee job security. Civil service employees aspiring for permanent status in the CES must actively seek and obtain appointment to a CES rank.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of meeting all the requirements for permanent employment in the civil service, particularly within the Career Executive Service. Employees should be aware of the distinction between eligibility and appointment to a rank, and actively pursue the latter to secure their tenure. This ruling will guide the CESB and CSC in future decisions regarding career service appointments and terminations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Career Executive Service Board v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 196890, January 11, 2018

October 8, 2018

Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service: Eligibility vs. Appointment

This case clarifies the requirements for security of tenure within the Career Executive Service (CES) in the Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that merely possessing CES eligibility is insufficient; an individual must also be appointed to the appropriate CES rank to attain security of tenure. This means that even if a government employee passes the CES examination and is deemed eligible, they are not guaranteed security of tenure unless they are formally appointed to a specific rank within the CES structure. The Court emphasized that security of tenure in the CES primarily pertains to rank, not the specific position held, allowing for reassignments without loss of rank.

Navigating the Ladder: Does CES Eligibility Guarantee a Secure Climb?

The central question in General v. Roco revolved around determining what constitutes security of tenure for members of the Career Executive Service. Ramon S. Roco was appointed as Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Region V. Though he wasn’t initially CES eligible, he later obtained this eligibility during his term. Subsequently, Luis Mario General was appointed to the same position, leading to a dispute over who was entitled to occupy the office. The Court of Appeals sided with Roco, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. This ruling underscored the importance of both CES eligibility and appointment to a CES rank in securing one’s position within the service. This leads to the question: what specific qualifications are needed to guarantee that security?

The Supreme Court grounded its decision on Section 27(1) of the Civil Service Law, which stipulates that a permanent appointment requires meeting all qualifications for the position, including appropriate eligibility. However, the Court emphasized that in the CES, security of tenure is further governed by the rules and regulations of the CES Board. The CES Board explicitly states that passing the CES examination confers eligibility and adds the individual’s name to the roster of CES eligibles. Appointment to a CES rank, made by the President upon the Board’s recommendation, “completes the official’s membership in the CES and most importantly, confers on him security of tenure in the CES.” This clarifies that eligibility is just the first step.

The Integrated Reorganization Plan also reinforces this view. The Plan dictates appointments to the Career Executive Service shall be made by the President from a list of career executive eligibles recommended by the Board. This plan further specifies that these appointments are rank-based and those for Undersecretaries and heads of bureaus and offices require Commission on Appointments confirmation. These appointments are made “on the basis of the members’ functional expertise”. The Plan also allows for the President to appoint non-CES eligibles in exceptional circumstances, contingent on their subsequent acquisition of CES eligibility. The Integrated Reorganization Plan emphasizes mobility and flexibility of assignments to utilize talent wherever the services of such employees may be needed.

Therefore, the Court concluded that both CES eligibility and appointment to the appropriate CES rank are necessary for attaining security of tenure in the career executive service. Because Roco lacked the proper CES rank (level V for the Regional Director position), he could not claim a violation of his security of tenure. The Court also highlighted that security of tenure pertains to rank, not the office itself. This ensures employees are subject to reassignment without losing their rank or compensation. The fact that General, the other party to the suit, wasn’t a CES eligible candidate at the time of appointment was rendered a moot point by the Court by citing the provision that the president may “in exceptional circumstances” appoint such a person.

The General v. Roco decision clarifies the roles and authority involved. It emphasized that merely holding CES eligibility does not guarantee permanent status. Employees must also secure appointments to the ranks which equate their managerial positions. This framework grants executive flexibility and helps clarify a vital principle in civil service law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether CES eligibility alone is sufficient to guarantee security of tenure in the Career Executive Service, or if appointment to the appropriate CES rank is also required.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that both CES eligibility and appointment to the appropriate CES rank are necessary for an employee to attain security of tenure within the Career Executive Service.
What is CES eligibility?	CES eligibility is conferred by the Career Executive Service Board after an individual passes the CES examination, making them eligible for positions within the Career Executive Service.
What is CES rank?	CES rank refers to the specific level or position within the Career Executive Service hierarchy to which an eligible employee is appointed, such as CESO I, CESO II, etc.
Does security of tenure in the CES guarantee a specific position?	No, security of tenure in the CES pertains to rank, not the specific office or position held, allowing for reassignments without loss of rank or salary.
Can a non-CES eligible be appointed to a CES position?	Yes, the President may, in exceptional cases, appoint a non-CES eligible to a CES position, provided that the appointee subsequently obtains CES eligibility.
What is the Integrated Reorganization Plan?	The Integrated Reorganization Plan outlines the structure and rules governing the Career Executive Service, including appointment, assignment, reassignment, and transfer of CES personnel.
What happens if a CESO is reassigned to a position with a lower salary grade?	A Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) continues to be paid the salary attached to their CES rank, even if assigned to a position with a lower salary grade.

In conclusion, General v. Roco serves as an important reminder that achieving security of tenure in the Career Executive Service is a two-step process, requiring both CES eligibility and a formal appointment to the appropriate rank. This distinction has significant implications for government employees aspiring to leadership roles and highlights the critical role of the Career Executive Service Board in shaping the careers of the country’s top civil servants.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

January 29, 2001