Scribd
Upload
420 views3 pages

Tidcorp Vs CSC Digest

- TIDCORP appointed De Guzman to the position of Financial Management Specialist IV on a permanent basis. However, the CSC disallowed the appointment as the position was not included in the DBM's Index of Occupational Service. - TIDCORP argued that based on its charter, it has the authority to create its own organizational structure and staffing pattern without needing to comply with the CSC. However, the CSC ruled that TIDCORP still needs to comply with civil service rules. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of TIDCORP, finding that its charter exempts it from existing laws on compensation and position classification, including the requirement that positions be included in

Uploaded by

R.A. Gregorio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
420 views3 pages

Tidcorp Vs CSC Digest

- TIDCORP appointed De Guzman to the position of Financial Management Specialist IV on a permanent basis. However, the CSC disallowed the appointment as the position was not included in the DBM's Index of Occupational Service. - TIDCORP argued that based on its charter, it has the authority to create its own organizational structure and staffing pattern without needing to comply with the CSC. However, the CSC ruled that TIDCORP still needs to comply with civil service rules. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of TIDCORP, finding that its charter exempts it from existing laws on compensation and position classification, including the requirement that positions be included in

Uploaded by

R.A. Gregorio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

TIDCORP vs. CSC G.R. No.

182249
Facts:
On August 30, 2001, De Guzman was appointed on a permanent
status as Financial Management Specialist IV of TIDCORP, a governmentowned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 1080. His appointment was included in TIDCORPs Report on
Personnel Actions (ROPA) for August 2001, which was submitted to the
CSC Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Field Office.
In a letter6 dated September 28, 2001, Director Leticia M. Bugtong
disallowed De Guzmans appointment because the position of Financial
Management Specialist IV was not included in the DBMs Index of
Occupational Service.
TIDCORPs Executive Vice President Jane U. Tambanillo appealed 7
the invalidation of De Guzmans appointment to Director IV Agnes Padilla
of the CSC-National Capital Region (NCR). According to Tambanillo,
Republic Act No. (RA) 8494, which amended TIDCORPs charter,
empowers its Board of Directors to create its own organizational structure
and staffing pattern, and to approve its own compensation and position
classification system and qualification standards.
On the basis of Section 7 of RA 8494, Tambanillo argued that
TIDCORP is authorized to adopt an organizational structure different from
that set and prescribed by the CSC. Section 7 exempts TIDCORP from
existing laws on compensation, position classification and qualification
standards, and is thus not bound by the DBMs Index of Occupational
Service. Pursuant to this authority, TIDCORPs Board of Directors issued
Resolution No. 1185, s. 1998 approving the corporations re-organizational
plan, under which De Guzman was appointed Financial Management
Specialist IV. De Guzmans appointment was valid because the plan
providing for his position followed the letter of the law.
Tambanillo also noted that prior to De Guzmans appointment as
Financial Management Specialist IV, the position had earlier been occupied
by Ma. Loreto H. Mayor whose appointment was duly approved by Director
Bugtong.Thus, Director Bugtongs invalidation of De Guzmans
appointment is inconsistent with her earlier approval of Mayors
appointment to the same position.
The CSC-NCR denied Tambanillos appeal because De Guzmans
appointment failed to comply with Section 1, Rule III of CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 40, s. 1998, which requires that the position title of an
appointment submitted to the CSC must conform with the approved Position
Allocation List and must be found in the Index of Occupational Service.
Since the position of Financial Management Specialist IV is not included in
the Index of Occupational Service, then De Guzmans appointment to this
position must be invalid.
TIDCORP then appealed to the CSC-CO, but nonetheless, the central office
reiterated that TIDCORP misconstrued the provisions of
Section 7 of RA 8494 in its attempt to bypass the requirements of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998. While RA 8494 gave TIDCORP
staffing prerogatives, it would still have to comply with civil service rules
because Section 7 did not expressly exempt TIDCORP from civil service
laws.

The CA denied18 TIDCORPs petition and upheld the ruling of the


CSC-CO in Resolution No. 030144 and Resolution No. 031037. The CA
noted that filing a petition for certiorari was an improper recourse;
TIDCORP should have instead filed a petition for review under Section 1,
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Citing Central Bank of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, 19
the CA stood by the CSC-COs ruling that it has authority to approve and
review De Guzmans appointment. The CSC has the power to ascertain
whether the appointing authority complied with the requirements of the law;
otherwise, it may revoke the appointment. As TIDCORP is a governmentowned corporation, it is covered by civil service laws and is therefore bound
by the CSCs jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to personnel, including
appointments.
Hence this petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether De Guzmans Appointment is valid.?
Ruling: The petition is meritorious.
The Supreme Court ruled that TIDCORP is indeed exempted
from the circular issued by the CSC.
The phrase to endeavor means to to devote serious and sustained
effort and to make an effort to do. It is synonymous with the words to
strive, to struggle and to seek.41 The use of to endeavor in the context of
Section 7 of RA 8494 means that despite TIDCORPs exemption from laws
involving compensation, position classification and qualification standards,
it should still strive to conform as closely as possible with the principles and
modes provided in RA 6758. The phrase as closely as possible, which
qualifies TIDCORPs duty to endeavor to conform, recognizes that the
law allows TIDCORP to deviate from RA 6758, but it should still try to hew
closely with its principles and modes. Had the intent of Congress been to
require TIDCORP to fully, exactly and strictly comply with RA 6758, it
would have so stated in unequivocal terms. Instead, the mandate it gave
TIDCORP was to endeavor to conform to the principles and modes of RA
6758, and not to the entirety of this law.
These inter-relationships render it clear, as a plain reading of Section
7 of RA 8494 itself would confirm, that TIDCORP is exempt from existing
laws on compensation, position classification and qualification standards,
including compliance with Section 1(c), Rule III of CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 40, s. 1998.

You might also like