G.R. No.

210013

DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA BELEN ANGELITA V. MATIBAG,

DECISION

TOPIC: RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

Respondent Matibag used to be the Chief of Policy Studies, Research and Statistics
Division, DDB until she was appointed by then PGMA as Deputy Executive Director for Operations
(DEDO) with a rank of Assistant Secretary on January 5, 2007 and stayed as such until Office of the
President Memorandum Circular (OPMC) No. 1 was issued.

Covered by the foregoing memorandum are those Non-Career Executive Service Officers
(Non-CESOs) occupying a Career Executive Service (CES) position in all government agencies who
remain in office and continue to perform their duties and responsibilities until July 31, 2010 or until
resignations have been accepted.

On July 16, 2010, the OP issued the Guidelines Implementing Memorandum Circular No.
1,5 which states that "all non-CESOs occupying CES positions in all agencies of the Executive
Branch shall remain in office and continue to perform their duties and discharge their
responsibilities until July 31, 2010 or until their resignations have been accepted, and/or until
their respective replacements have been appointed or designated, whichever comes first,
unless they are reappointed in the meantime."

On November 2, 2010, Matibag sent a letter requesting clarification on the coverage of OP-
MC No. 1 where she sought the opinion of the Commission [(CSC)] regarding her employment
status.

In response, the CSC in its letter states that she enjoys security of tenure for being a
holder of an appropriate Civil Service Eligibility. Thus, she cannot be removed or suspended
except for cause provided for by law and after due process. The foregoing statement was also
stated in the letter of Chairman Duque III, [CSC] to Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., OP.

In a letter dated January 7, 2011, Executive Secretary Ochoa state[d] that:

"Section 8, Chapter 2, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that
entrance to CES third-level positions shall be prescribed by the Career Executive Service Board
(CESB). Pursuant thereto, the requisite eligibility for a CES third-level position is not the Career
Service Executive Eligibility neither the Career Executive Officer rank administered/conferred
by the Civil Service Commission but the appropriate CESO rank conferred by the CESB.
Applied to your case, you are covered by MC for being a non-CESO occupying a CES
position."
 It appears that following the January 7, 2011 letter, Undersecretary Edgar C. Galvante, the
Acting Executive Director of the DDB, issued a Memorandum addressed to Matibag, which states
that "considering that you are a Non-CESO holder and covered by Memorandum Circular No.
2, you are hereby notified that your designation as DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
OPERATIONS is terminated effective this date.

Matibag thus filed a complaint before the CSC for illegal dismissal where the latter ruled that
she was illegally dismissed ruling that Matibag enjoyed security of tenure over the position of Deputy
Executive Director and she cannot be removed except for just cause since she possessed a Career
Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE) conferred by the CSC. 

The CA affirmed the CSC decision and ruled that the CSC is the central personnel agency of
the government mandated to establish a career service. The CA further ruled that Civil Service
laws expressly empowered the CSC to issue and enforce rules and regulations to carry out
its mandate and in the exercise of this authority, it may conduct examinations to determine
the appropriate eligibilities in the Career Service including the Third Level positions.

Since Matibag's position was considered as part of the Career Executive Service
(CES), the conferment by the CSC of the CSEE to Matibag entitled her to be eligible and
permanently possess the position until she is removed for a just cause. 

DDB filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied. Hence, this Petition.

Issues

DDB raised the following issues:

A PERSON WITH A CSEE STILL NEEDS TO HURDLE THE TWO OTHER STAGES OF CES
ELIGIBILITY EXAMINATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE CESB TO OBTAIN THE STATUS OF A CES
ELIGIBLE.

II

[MATIBAG) DOES NOT POSSESS THE CES RANK APPROPRIATE FOR THE POSITION TO
WHICH SHE WAS APPOINTED, THUS MAKING HER APPOINTMENT MERELY TEMPORARY.

III

THE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE THE CESB TO PRESCRIBE

It appears that during the pendency of this Petition, Matibag took her oath of office as an
Executive Director of the DDB on April 7, 2017. She therefore moved for the dismissal of the case as
it has been rendered moot and academic. 

The DDB filed a Comment arguing that there remains a justiciable controversy as the case is
capable of repetition yet evading judicial review. The DDB also argued that a novel issue remains:
whether the CSEE conferred by the CSC is equivalent to the CES Eligibility conferred by the Career
Executive Service Board (CESB).18

The Court shall discuss the issue of mootness together with the other issues raised in the Petition.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

The Petition is not moot and academic

This Petition arose out of an illegal dismissal complaint before the CSC when Matibag's
designation as Deputy Executive Director was terminated on March 2, 2011 for being a non-CESO
holder. Both the CSC and CA ruled that Matibag was illegally dismissed and directed her
reinstatement and the payment of backwages. The DDB is questioning these decisions arguing that
Matibag did not have security of tenure over her position because she did not possess CES
Eligibility. Matibag, however, argues that the issue has been overtaken by her appointment as
Executive Director of the DDB for which she took her oath of office on April 7, 2017.

The Petition has not been rendered moot and academic.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon will be of no practical use or value.19 The Court's
ruling on whether Matibag was illegally dismissed has a practical value as it will affect her
entitlement to reinstatement and backwages. If the Court decides that she was illegally dismissed,
she stands to receive backwages and considered as having served as Deputy Executive Director
from March 2, 2011 until April 7, 2017. However, if the Court holds otherwise, she is not entitled to
reinstatement and backwages and her dismissal from her position shall be considered as valid.

Further, despite her appointment as Executive Director, there is no showing that she has been paid
her backwages from March 2, 2011 until her appointment on April 7, 2017. It also cannot be said that
she has been reinstated to her former position as it does not appear that the position to which she
was appointed to in 2017, Executive Director, is the same as what she held in 2011, Deputy
Executive Director. Thus, the mere fact that she was appointed as Executive Director of the DDB did
not render the issue of whether she was illegally dismissed moot and academic.

Matibag was validly dismissed

With the Petition still ripe for resolution, the Court shall now discuss the issue of whether Matibag
was illegally dismissed. This issue centers on whether Matibag's CSEE from the CSC was sufficient
to consider her to be eligible for the position of Deputy Executive Director and to permanently
possess it.

The CSC and CA are both of the view that the CSC was not divested of its power to confer eligibility
through the CSEE, as it is the central personnel agency of the government.20 Both the CSC and CA
found that the CSEE was sufficient to entitle Matibag to be eligible and permanently possess the
position of Deputy Executive Director until she is removed for just cause.21

The CSC and CA are incorrect.

Roberto Emmanuel T. Feliciano (Feliciano) and Horacio S. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) served as Assistant
Secretary and Chief of the Administrative Service Office of the Department of National Defense
(DND), respectively. Both possessed the CSEE and thus were deemed not compliant with OP-MC
Nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly relieved of their positions. Both filed complaints for illegal dismissal
before the CSC.

In different decisions, the CSC held that they were illegally dismissed and directed their
reinstatement. Also in different decisions, the CA reversed the CSC and ruled that Feliciano and
Gonzalez did not enjoy security of tenure.

For the CA, it was not sufficient that Feliciano and Gonzalez both had a CSEE from the CSC as they
failed to show proof that they accomplished and completed the last two stages (assessment center
and performance validation stage) to be recommended by the CESB for appointment to a CESO
position.

On appeal before the Court and in a consolidated Resolution, the Court upheld the CA. The Court
therein held that "the CESB is expressly empowered to promulgate rules, standards and procedures
on the selection, classification, compensation and career development of the members of the
CES."23

In fact, the CESB, as the Court ruled in Career Executive Service Board v. Civil Service
Commission,24 which was cited in Feliciano, has the authority to "(a) identify other officers belonging
to the CES in keeping with the conditions imposed by law; and (b) prescribe requirements for
entrance to the third-level."25

It is therefore clear from the foregoing that it is the CESB that has the authority to prescribe the
requirements for entry to the CES. Following this clear authority of the CESB, the Court held that
Feliciano and Gonzalez, even though holders of the CSEE, still needed to comply with CESB
Resolution No. 81126 dated August 17, 2009, which states that holders of the CSC's CSEE still
needed to comply with the last two stages to get CES Eligibility, which are the assessment center
and the performance validation.27 CESB Resolution No. 811 specifically states:

RESOLVED FURTHERMORE, that item no. 1.3.2 of Section 1, Rule VIII (Transitory Provisions) of
the aforementioned Revised Integrated Rules on the Grant of CES eligibility (CESB Resolution No.
791 s. 2009) shall be amended herein, as follows:

1.3.2The Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE) conferred by the Civil Service Commission
(CSC), which consist of two (2) phases, namely: Written Examination and Panel Interview, of one
who is appointed to a CES position, regardless of the appointing authority or one who is occupying a
Division Chief position in a permanent capacity or one designated to a CES position in an acting or
OIC capacity for at least one (1) year, shall be considered equivalent to the two (2) of the four-stage
CES eligibility examination process, namely: Written Examination and Board Interview. Hence, for
purposes of conferment of CES eligibility and appointment to appropriate rank in the CES, as the
case may be, the applicant concerned has to complete the two (2) remaining stages of the
examination process, namely: Assessment Center and Performance Validation stages and comply
with such other requirements as may be prescribed by the Board. (Emphasis and underscoring in
the original)
Here, similar to Feliciano and Gonzalez, Matibag only possessed the CSC's CSEE. She failed to
prove that she has completed the last two stages of the examination process under CESB
Resolution No. 811. Given this, she was not CES Eligible at the time she held the position of Deputy
Executive Director for Operations, and did not enjoy security of tenure. Her appointment was
temporary. As similarly held in Feliciano:

x x x The effect is that their appointments remained temporary, a status that denied them security of
tenure. According to Amores v. Civil Service Commission:

x x x An appointment is permanent where the appointee meets all the requirements for the position
to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed, and it is temporary
where the appointee meets all the requirements for the position except only the appropriate civil
service eligibility.

xxxx

x x x [V]erily, it is clear that the possession of the required CES eligibility is that which will make an
appointment in the career executive service a permanent one. x x x

Indeed, the law permits, on many occasions, the appointment of non-CES eligibles to CES positions
in the government in the absence of appropriate eligibles and when there is necessity in the interest
of public service to fill vacancies in the government. But in all such cases, the appointment is at best
merely temporary as it is said to be conditioned on the subsequent obtention of the required CES
eligibility x x x

Clearly, the petitioners' termination from their respective positions at the DND was effective and
valid.28 (Citation removed; emphasis in the original)

Similar to Feliciano and Gonzalez, Matibag's termination from her position as Deputy Executive
Director for Operations of DDB was therefore effective and valid.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 18, 2013 and Resolution dated
November 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 126310 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and the Court hereby declares respondent Maria Belen Angelita V. Matibag's termination
from her position on March 2, 2011 as VALID.

SO ORDERED.