CIELITO A. MARTINEZ, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
DICDICAN, J.:
The material and relevant facts of the case, as culled from the record, are as follows:
Petitioner Cielito A. Martinez (“petitioner”) started his employment in the government on August 9, 1978 as Statistician III at the then Ministry of Education and Culture (now Department of Education, Culture and Sports). On August 24, 1984 and, after he rose from the ranks, the petitioner transferred to the CSC Central Office as Senior CS Attorney. His earned 15.069 days of vacation leave and 9.916 days of sick leave were likewise transferred from the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) to the CSC.
Subsequently, on July 18, 1986, the petitioner once again transferred from the CSC to the then Ministry of Justice (now Department of Justice-Bureau of Immigration) where he served as a Hearing Officer III on a co-terminous status of employment. His earned 31.120 days of vacation leave and 24.457 days of sick leave were also transferred from the CSC to the Ministry of Justice.
The employment of the petitioner at the Ministry of Justice ended on February 10, 1988. In the meantime, during the whole period of his employment in the government from August 9, 1978 until February 10, 1988, the petitioner earned a total of 97.493 leave credits which were not converted into its monetary value.
Thereafter, the petitioner engaged in the private practice of law for more than eighteen (18) years or until July 10, 2006 when the petitioner again joined the CSC-NCR as Attorney VI. At the CSC-NCR, the petitioner had earned a total of 156.029 leave credits as of April 1, 2013.
However, while the petitioner was then reviewing the papers for his retirement on April 29, 2014, he realized that he had failed to monetize his leave credits or claim his terminal leave when his employment in the Ministry of Justice ended on February 10, 1988. Thus, in a Letter[5] that was addressed to the CSC-NCR Regional Director Lydia Alba-Castillo dated September 23, 2013, the petitioner requested that he be allowed to transfer his leave credits of 97.493 days from the Ministry of Education to CSC-NCR in order to form part of his total leave credits when he retire in 2014.
In a Memorandum dated October 7, 2013, the CSC denied the aforesaid letter-request of the petitioner on the ground that the same would be violative of the pertinent Civil Service Law and rules. Quoting Section 47, in relation to Section 26, of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, the CSC explained the basis of the said denial as follows:
“Ideally, based from the foregoing provisions, a government official or employee should avail of the right to commute his/her accumulated leave credits upon his separation from the service, and as such, upon re-entry in the government, he/she shall start from zero balance insofar as the leave credits are concerned. However, in the event that he/she re-enters the government service without having previously availed of his right to terminal leave benefit, the same may, by analogy, be covered by the rule under Section 47, CSC MC No. 41, s. 1998, which allows the transfer of leave credits earned from the previous employment in the government, provided that the gap in the service should not be more than one (1) month and not due to his/her fault.
“Notably, under Section 47 of the same MC, whether the government official or employee transferred to another government agency or re-entered government service, it is an indispensable requirement that the gap in the service of the employee or official concerned should not have exceeded one (1) month, for purposes of considering his/her leave credits. Moreover, the exercise of this privilege must be availed within one (1) year from the employee’s transfer or re-employment to the new government agency.
“Applying the foregoing rules to this case, this Office notes that eighteen (18) years and five (5) months had elapsed before you re-entered government service. Likewise, seven (7) years and two (2) months lapsed before you sought to have your leave credits earned from 1978-1988 transferred to this Office. These periods clearly indicate a gap in your service, and a manifest deviation from the above-cited requirement on the allowable time to request the transfer of leave credits previously earned.”
Consequently, the petitioner filed an Appeal Memorandum[6] in the CSC Main Office pleading for the liberal application of the Civil Service Law and rules in his favor. In support of his appeal, the petitioner cited several cases that were decided by the CSC and the Supreme Court whereby the Civil Service Law was liberally applied in favor of some government officials and employees. The petitioner claimed that the same liberality should likewise be applied in his case considering that he had fully dedicated his life to his work at the CSC-NCR. He stressed that he introduced innovations and reforms in the aforesaid office which led to a more systematic handling and speedy disposition of the cases in the said office.
Thus, in the herein assailed decision dated April 10, 2014, the CSC partly granted the appeal that was filed by the petitioner. Citing humanitarian reasons, the CSC held, to wit:
“WHEREFORE, the Appeal/Petition for Review of Cielito A. Martinez, Attorney VI/Chief, Legal Services Division, Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR), is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision embodied in a Memorandum dated October 7, 2013 of the CSC-NCR, denying his request to transfer his leave credits, from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to the CSC-NCR, as an exemption to the provision of Section 47 of CSC Memorandum Circular (CSC-MC) No. 41, s. 1998, is hereby MODIFIED, such that the 30.592 leave credits which he earned in the Civil Service Commission, prior to his transfer to the Bureau of Immigration (BI), are allowed to be transferred to the CSC-NCR, and be paid to him as terminal leave.”
Nonetheless, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[7] of the April 10, 2014 decision of the CSC but the same was likewise denied for lack of merit by the CSC in the herein assailed resolution dated July 30, 2014.
Aggrieved by the foregoing disposition of the CSC, the petitioner filed the instant petition for review raising the following errors that were purportedly committed by the CSC, to wit:
I.
THE CSC ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INCLUSION OF THE 66.901 LEAVE CREDITS WHICH WERE EARNED BY THE PETITIONER DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO FORM PART OF HIS LEAVE CREDITS AT CSC-NCR FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING HIS TERMINAL LEAVE.II.
THE CSC DECISION AND RESOLUTION WHICH DISALLOWED THE INCLUSION OF THE 66.901 LEAVE CREDITS THAT THE PETITIONER EARNED DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO FORM PART OF HIS TERMINAL LEAVE WOULD RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF HIS LEAVE CREDITS WHICH IS NO LONGER ALLOWED UNDER THE PRESENT RULE, THEREBY PLACING THE PETITIONER IN A SITUATION WHICH IS WORSE THAN THE ONE WHO WAS DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE.
In sum, the sole issue to be resolved by us in this case is whether or not the CSC erred in disallowing the inclusion of the 66.901 leave credits which the petitioner earned during his employment at the Department of Education and Department of Justice to form part of his terminal leave in the CSC. Upon perusal of the record of the case, it is evident to this Court that no cogent reason exists to disturb the findings of the CSC.
At the crux of the controversy in the instant petition are the provisions of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, Section 47 thereof provides:
“SEC. 47. Transfer of leave credits. – When an official or employee transfers from one government agency or another, he can either have his accumulated vacation and/or sick leave credits commuted or transferred to his new agency.
“The second option can be exercised as a matter of right only by an employee who does not have gaps in his service. However, a gap of not more than one month may be allowed provided same is not due to his fault.
“The option to transfer accumulated leave credits can be exercised within one year (1) only from the employee’s transfer to the new agency.
“This provision is not applicable to transfer of leave credits of uniformed personnel from the military to the civilian service”
Corollary thereto, Section 38 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, as amended, states:
“Sec. 38. Period within which to claim terminal leave pay. – Request for payment of terminal leave benefits must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues upon an obligation created by law.”
In the case at bench, it is not disputed that the petitioner entered the government service in 1978 as Statistician III at the then Ministry of Education and Culture. After six (6) years or, in 1984, he transferred to the CSC Central Office as Senior CS Attorney where he stayed for two (2) years before joining the Ministry of Justice in 1986. The petitioner then worked at the Ministry of Justice until in the year 1988 when he finally decided to engage in the private practice of law. Thus, the petitioner initially worked at three (3) government offices from the years 1978 until 1988 or for a period of ten (10) years.
Subsequently, the petitioner, after eighteen (18) years in the private practice of law, re-entered the government service in the year 2006 and worked at the CSC-NCR as Attorney VI. After seven (7) years in the CSC-NCR, however, he is now belatedly claiming the monetization of the vacation and sick leaves which he earned from the years 1978 until 1988 or during his employment at the Ministry of Education, CSC and the Ministry of Justice.
To the mind of this Court, however, Section 47 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41 is clear in that, when an official or employee transfers from one government agency to another, he or she could either have his or her accumulated vacation and/or sick leave credits: (a) commuted or (b) transferred to his or her new agency. However, the second option could be exercised as a matter of right only: (a) by an employee who does not have gaps in his or her service and, (b) provided that the said option to transfer accumulated leave credits was exercised within one year (1) from the employee’s transfer to the new agency.
As applied in the instant case, none of the foregoing conditions was met by herein petitioner. There was a gap of eighteen (18) years in the government service of the petitioner counted from the time when he last worked at the Ministry of Justice in the year 1988 until the time when he was re-employed at the CSC-NCR in the year 2006. Thus, when the petitioner returned to government service after eighteen (18) years, it is clear that he could no longer avail of the privilege under the aforequoted provision.
It bears stressing that the petitioner himself was aware that Section 47 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41 was not applicable to him. In fact, in his September 23, 2013 letter-request to the CSC, the petitioner admitted that his case was not a case of transfer but re-employment. Be that as it may, the petitioner sought for a liberal application of the Civil Service Law in his favor and enumerated the reasons why the CSC should extend its compassion to him and grant his request.
At this point, the CSC, out of compassion, indeed granted his request in part. In the herein assailed decision, the CSC allowed the transfer of the leave credits which he earned in the CSC from 1984 until 1986 to his terminal leave in the CSC-NCR. In other words, the CSC had already been gracious enough when it allowed an exemption to the otherwise clear provision of the CSC rules so that it could at least accommodate the request of the petitioner. Thus, it now boggles the mind of this Court why the petitioner is even seeking for a review of the herein assailed CSC decision and resolution which had already bended the rules in his favor.
In this regard, we find that there is no basis to modify or alter the herein assailed decision and resolution of the CSC and that to do so would set a dangerous precedent to other government employees or officials who may have similar claims in the future and request for the same liberality in the application of the rules in their favor.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the petition for lack of merit. The Decision No. 140256 that was rendered by the Civil Service Commission on April 10, 2014, as well as its its subsequent Resolution therein dated July 30, 2014 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Ybañez, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-14.
[2] Ibid, Annex “A”, pages 15-26.
[3] Ibid, Annex “I”, pages 45-48.
[4] Ibid, Annex “B”, pages 27-31.
[5] Ibid, Annex “H”, pages 40-44.
[6] Ibid, Annex “J”, pages 49-58.
[7] Ibid, Annex “K”, pages 59-65.