In a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry, particularly concerning an employee’s date of birth, the Supreme Court has clarified the necessity of impleading the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as an indispensable party. The ruling emphasizes that because the CSC maintains personnel records of government employees, it possesses a vested interest in the accuracy of these records. Therefore, any correction that affects an employee’s service record, such as a change in birth date impacting retirement age, requires the CSC’s participation to ensure due process and the integrity of public records.

The Case of the Missing Party: Whose Records Must Reflect the Truth?

This case revolves around Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, a Senior Executive Assistant at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), who sought to correct his birthdate from February 12, 1952, to February 12, 1956. Rasuman initially filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur, impleading the Local Civil Registrar and later amending it to include the BOC. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the correction in Rasuman’s records. However, Rasuman’s subsequent request to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for a similar correction was denied, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The central legal question is whether the CSC’s absence as a party in the original RTC case invalidated the order to correct Rasuman’s birthdate in his official records.

The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized the importance of including all interested parties in cases concerning the correction of entries in the civil registry, as mandated by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, Section 3 of Rule 108 states:

SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

This provision ensures that all individuals or entities with a stake in the outcome are given the opportunity to present their case. Building on this, Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 provide for notices to potential oppositors, ensuring that those not named in the petition are also informed and given a chance to contest the correction.

The Supreme Court underscored that jurisdiction over all parties is essential, regardless of whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. In the context of this case, even though a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry is often considered an action in rem (directed against the thing itself), due process still requires that all parties with a vested interest be notified and given an opportunity to participate.

The ruling in De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation clarifies this point:

Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action – whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.

However, to satisfy the requirements of due process, jurisdiction over the parties in in rem and quasi in rem actions is required.

This highlights that while actions in rem bind the whole world, procedural fairness demands that those with direct interests are properly notified. This principle is especially important when dealing with government agencies like the CSC.

The Supreme Court cited its previous decision in Police Senior Superintendent Macawadib v. The Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management, solidifying the view that the CSC must be impleaded in cases involving corrections to a government employee’s service records. The Court stated:

In the instant case, there is a necessity to implead the PNP, NAPOLCOM and CSC because they stand to be adversely affected by petitioner’s petition which involves substantial and controversial alterations in petitioner’s service records.

In this case, the CSC’s role in maintaining accurate personnel records makes it an indispensable party, as any correction to Rasuman’s birthdate directly impacts its records and the conditions of his civil service employment. It is a government’s central personnel agency and, as such, keeps and maintains the personal records of all officials and employees in the civil service.

The Court distinguished the present case from Civil Service Commission v. Magoyag, where the CSC was directed by the RTC to correct the respondent’s birth certificate in their records. In Magoyag, the CSC had knowledge of the RTC decision and could have raised its opposition, whereas in Rasuman’s case, the CSC was not impleaded or notified, thus lacking the opportunity to protect its interests. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply to the CSC in the Rasuman case. Thus, the High Court found no merit in the CA’s reliance on the Magoyag ruling.

The Court rejected the argument that publishing the notice of hearing cured the failure to implead the CSC. Publication serves to notify unnamed interested parties, but it does not substitute the requirement to personally notify and implead indispensable parties like the CSC. The Supreme Court emphasized that Rasuman failed to exert earnest efforts to bring the CSC before the court, despite knowing that the correction would affect his employment conditions.

Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the CSC’s denial of Rasuman’s request for correction. This ruling reaffirms the principle that government agencies like the CSC are indispensable parties in cases that directly affect their mandated functions and the integrity of public records. Consequently, the CSC was correct in denying Rasuman’s request for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the RTC decision granting the correction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was an indispensable party in a petition for correction of an employee’s birthdate, and if its absence in the original RTC case invalidated the order for correction.
Who was the petitioner in this case?	The petitioner was the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which sought to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision compelling it to recognize the corrected birthdate of the respondent.
Who was the respondent in this case?	The respondent was Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, a Senior Executive Assistant at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), who sought to correct his birthdate in his official records.
What is an indispensable party?	An indispensable party is someone with such an interest in the controversy that a final adjudication cannot be made without affecting that interest. Their absence warrants the dismissal of the action.
Why was the CSC considered an indispensable party?	The CSC was considered an indispensable party because it maintains the personnel records of government employees, and a change in an employee’s birthdate directly affects those records, particularly concerning retirement age.
What is the significance of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 108 governs petitions for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry and mandates that all persons with an interest affected by the petition must be made parties to the proceeding.
What was the Court’s ruling on the effect of publication in this case?	The Court ruled that publication of the notice of hearing did not cure the failure to implead the CSC, as publication is meant for unnamed interested parties, not indispensable parties who must be personally notified.
How did this ruling differ from the Magoyag case?	In Magoyag, the CSC was specifically directed by the RTC to correct the respondent’s birth certificate and thus had the opportunity to oppose. In this case, the CSC was not impleaded or notified.

This Supreme Court decision reinforces the necessity of complying with procedural rules in cases involving corrections of entries in the civil registry. Ensuring that all indispensable parties are properly impleaded and notified is crucial for upholding due process and maintaining the integrity of public records. This ruling serves as a reminder for government employees and agencies to carefully adhere to legal requirements when seeking corrections that may affect official records.

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: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PACOL DISUMIMBA RASUMAN, G.R. No. 239011, June 17, 2019