Career Exec Board vs CSC

Facts:

 The dispute in this case concerns the classification of certain positions in the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO).
 The Court is asked to determine, in particular, whether these positions are properly included in
the Career Executive Service (CES); and whether the occupants of these positions must obtain
third-level eligibility to qualify for permanent appointment.
 To resolve these questions, the Court must also delineate the respective jurisdictions granted by
law to the competing authorities involved in this case - the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the
Career Executive Service Board (CESB)
 the PAO received a copy of the CESB Report on the CES Occupancy of the Department of Justice
(DOJ). This document stated, among others, that out of 35 filled positions in the PAO, 33 were
occupied by persons without the required CES eligibility.
o PAO contended that the positions in question are permanent hence security of tenure
applies
 the PAO received the reply sent to Deputy Chief Mosing by the CESB, through Deputy Executive
Director Arturo M. Lachica.
o The latter informed Deputy Chief Mosing that the CESB would conduct a position
classification study on the specified PAO positions to determine whether they may still be
considered CES positions in the DOJ.
 The DOJ also noted that the permanent nature of an appointment does not automatically
translate to an exemption from CES coverage, as it is only the CESB that has the authority to
exempt certain positions from CES requirements
 the CESB issued Resolution No. 91821 (CESB Resolution No, 918) denying the PAO's request to
declassify the subject positions. Citing the Position Classification Study submitted by its
secretariat, the CESB noted that the positions in question "require leadership and managerial
competence" and were thus part of the CES.
o Hence, the appointment of persons without third-level eligibility for these posts cannot
be considered permanent.
 On the merits, the CSC ruled in favor of the PAO officials. It declared that the CESB would be in
violation of R.A. 9406 if the latter would require an additional qualification - in this case, third-
level eligibility - for purposes of permanent appointments to certain PAO positions
 On the one hand, the CESB asserts its jurisdiction over members of the CES. Specifically, it refers
to the identification and classification of positions belonging to the third-level, as well as the
establishment of the qualifications for appointment to those posts.
o The CESB further emphasizes its autonomy from the CSC on the basis of this Court's ruling
that its status as an attached agency only pertains to policy and program coordination.
 The CSC, on the other hand, defends its authority to review actions and decisions of its attached
agencies, including the CESB.
o The CSC further claims original and appellate jurisdiction over administrative cases
involving contested appointments, pursuant to its constitutional mandate as the central
personnel agency of the government.
Issue: Whether the CSC acted in accordance with law when it reversed the CESB and declared that third-
level eligibility is not required for occupants of the subject PAO positions

Held: YES.

 The CSC acted within its jurisdiction when it resolved the PAO's appeal and reversed CESB
Resolution No. 918.
 the Court concludes that the CSC has the authority to review CESB Resolution No. 918. We have
arrived at this conclusion after a consideration of
o (a) the broad mandate of the CSC under the Constitution and the Administrative Code;
and
 As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has broad authority
to pass upon all civil service matters.
 the mandate of the CSC should therefore be read as the comprehensive authority
to perform all functions necessary to ensure the efficient administration of the
entire civil service, including the CES.
o (b) the specific and narrowly tailored powers granted to the CESB in the Integrated
Reorganization Plan and the Administrative Code.
 The specific powers of the CESB must be narrowly interpreted as exceptions to
the comprehensive authority granted to the CSC by the Constitution and relevant
statutes.
 The present case involves the classification of positions belonging to the CES and
the qualifications for these posts. These are matters clearly within the scope of
the powers granted to the CESB under the Administrative Code and the
Integrated Reorganization Plan. However, this fact alone does not push the
matter beyond the reach of the CSC.
 Here, the question of whether the subject PAO positions belong to the CES is clearly a civil service
matter falling within the comprehensive jurisdiction of the CSC.
o Further, considering the repercussions of the issue concerning the appointments of those
occupying the posts in question, the jurisdiction of the CSC over personnel actions is
implicated.
 It must likewise be emphasized that the CSC has been granted the authority to review the
decisions of agencies attached to it under Section 12(11), Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of
the Administrative Code:
 Since the CESB is an attached agency of the CSC, the former's decisions are expressly subject to
the CSC's review on appeal.
 this Court agrees with the conclusion of the CSC.
o To require the occupants of the subject PAO positions to possess third-level eligibility
would be to amend the law and defeat its spirit and intent.
 The CESB effectively amended the law when it required the occupants of the subject PAO
positions to obtain third-level eligibility.
 A reading of B.P. 129 reveals, in turn, that the Presiding Justice and the Associate Justices of the
Court of Appeals are required to have the same qualifications as the members of this Court.
o On the other hand, judges of the regional trial courts are governed by a separate provision
 Based on the foregoing, it is clear that occupants of the subject PAO positions are only mandated
to comply with requirements as to age, citizenship, education, and experience.
o Since third-level eligibility is not at all mentioned in the law, it would be improper for the
CESB to impose this additional qualification as a prerequisite to permanent appointments.
 It is also beyond the power of the CESB to question or overrule the specific qualifications imposed
by Congress for the subject positions.
 The legislature must be deemed to have considered the entirety of the functions attendant to
these posts when it enacted R.A. 9406 and prescribed the relevant qualifications for each position.
o The choice not to require third level eligibility in this instance must be respected - not
only by the CESB but also by this Court - as a matter that goes into the wisdom and the
policy of a statute.
 To fulfill the legislative intent to accord equal treatment to senior officials of the PAO and the NPS(
National prosecution service) , parity in their qualifications for appointment must be maintained.
 Accordingly, the revised qualifications of those in the NPS must also be considered applicable to
those in the PAO.
o The declassification of positions in the NPS should thus benefit their counterpart positions
in the PAO.
o There is no justification for treating the two offices differently, given the plain provisions
and the rationale of the law.
 Based on the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the CSC acted within its jurisdiction and
authority as the central personnel agency of the government when it passed upon the appeal filed
by the PAO from CESB Resolution No. 918.
o Further, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CSC when it reversed
the said resolution, which refused to declassify the subject PAO positions.
 As the CSC noted, the third-level eligibility required by the CESB as an additional
qualification for these posts contravened not only the express terms, but also the
clear intent of R.A. 9406.