RODELA D. TORREGOZA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Torregoza versus Civil Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, filed by Rodela D. Torregoza against the Civil Service Commission. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's decision denying her the privilege granted under Republic Act Number 6850, and to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to grant her the appropriate civil service eligibility. The case matters because it draws the line between a right enforceable by mandamus and a mere privilege committed to administrative discretion, and because it fixes the classification of the secretarial and office staff of the Office of the President as belonging to the non-competitive service.

Procedural History

The petitioner applied with the Civil Service Commission for eligibility under Republic Act Number 6850. Her request was returned unacted upon by the Commission's field office in Malacanang, Manila, on the ground that her position had allegedly been declared confidential. The Commission then denied her request in its decision dated January 28, 1991. She moved for reconsideration, but the Commission stood firm in its resolution dated July 4, 1991, affirming its earlier opinion. From that resolution, she went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 65, praying likewise for a writ of mandamus.

Facts

On January 18, 1978, the petitioner was appointed to one of six Staff Aide positions in the Legal Office, Office of the President, Malacanang, Manila, specifically Item Number 198-6, for a period of six months. On June 5, 1978, less than five months after the first appointment, she was given another appointment to the same position effective as of June 18, 1978, with the notation that the appointment was declared confidential. From 1978 until February 8, 1990, when Republic Act Number 6850 became law, she never left the same position.

On March 5, 1990, the Commission issued the rules implementing Republic Act Number 6850, and the petitioner filed her application for the appropriate eligibility, having occupied the position for thirteen years and having rendered efficient service. Her request was returned unacted upon because her position had allegedly been declared confidential. In July 1989, after the Salary Standardization Law, Republic Act Number 6758, was passed, the same position was reclassified as Clerk II.

On November 7, 1990, Deputy Executive Secretary Mariano Sarmiento wrote the Commission, requesting that, based on the petitioner's certified functions and actual duties, the position be restored to the career service and that she be granted eligibility under Republic Act Number 6850. The Commission denied the request on January 28, 1991. It found that her appointments had been declared confidential by the Office of the President and attested as such by the Commission, yet it also observed that an analysis of the duties of the position showed they were the same as those of other positions in the career service. It granted the restoration of the position of Clerk II to the career service effective January 1, 1991, but ruled that the incumbent shall continue to occupy the position in a confidential status. On reconsideration, the Commission affirmed, adding that the petitioner was estopped from impugning the validity of her previous appointments, having enjoyed the benefits of their primarily confidential nature.

Issues

• Whether or not the writ of mandamus may issue to compel the Civil Service Commission to grant the petitioner the privilege of securing civil service eligibility under Republic Act Number 6850.
• Whether or not the position held by the petitioner in the Legal Office of the Office of the President belongs to the non-competitive service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 6850 provides:

Section 1. All government employees as of the approval of this Act who are holding career civil service positions appointed under provisional or temporary status who have rendered at least a total of seven (7) years of efficient service may be granted the civil service eligibility that will qualify them for permanent appointment to their present positions. The Civil Service Commission shall formulate performance evaluation standards in order to determine those temporary employees who are qualified to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this Act. The civil service eligibility herein granted may apply to such other positions as the Civil Service Commission may deem appropriate.

This provision shows that what the law confers is a privilege, not a right, and that the Commission is given wide latitude of discretion in determining who are qualified to avail themselves of it.

Section 2 of the same law provides:

Section 2. The Civil Service Commission shall promulgate the rules and regulations to implement this Act consistent with the merit and fitness principle within ninety (90) days after its effectivity.

This provision confirms that the Commission's task is the promulgation of implementing rules using standards of its own formulation, not the performance of a ministerial act.

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 6040 provides:

Section 5. The Non-Competitive Service. The non-competitive service shall be composed of positions expressly declared by law to be in the non-competitive service and those which are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. The following specific officers and employees shall be embraced in the non-competitive service: (b) The secretarial and office staff of the President, of the Vice-President, of the President of the Senate, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and of each Member of the Congress of the Philippines including the personnel of all offices of the Chairmen of committees of both Houses of the Congress.

This provision, never repealed, controls the classification of the secretarial and office staff of the Office of the President as belonging to the non-competitive service.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 6758 provides:

Section 2. Statement of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. In determining rates of pay, due regard shall be given to, among others, prevailing rates in the private sector for comparable work. For this purpose, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is hereby directed to establish and administer a unified Compensation Position Classification System, hereinafter referred to as the System, as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended, that shall be applied for all government entities, as mandated by the Constitution.

This provision shows that the Salary Standardization Law is a compensation and position classification measure, and it did not amend the specific classification fixed by Republic Act Number 6040.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the answer is no. Mandamus will not lie because the responsibility of the Commission in implementing the law is not ministerial, and because what the law granted is a mere privilege and not a right to those who are qualified according to the standards to be set by the Commission. The Court quoted its own doctrine:

Remedy of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, but not where the reinstatement involves the exercise of sound judgment and discretion by the appointing power, absent a showing of a clear and certain right by petitioner.

On the second issue, the Court held that the categorization attaches to the entire Office of the President under Republic Act Number 6040, which has never been repealed and remains controlling. Any subsequent classification of the same positions has to be made with the specific sanction of the legislative branch. The mere fact that the functions of the position are parallel or the same as those in career civil service positions does not make it eligible for the conferment of the eligibility specially given to other government employees in the competitive service. The Court also held that the classification under the Salary Standardization Law did not in effect amend the specific provision of Republic Act Number 6040. Finally, the Court noted with alarm the attempt of the Commission to subject the position to the coverage of career service policies after the incumbent shall have ceased to occupy it in a confidential status, without the necessary enabling act, as that would be a glaring violation of Republic Act Number 6040.

Doctrine

First, mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control the exercise of sound judgment and discretion, and it requires a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner. Second, the eligibility granted by Republic Act Number 6850 is a mere privilege, not a right, and the Civil Service Commission is given wide latitude of discretion to determine who are qualified to avail themselves of it. Third, the secretarial and office staff of the Office of the President belong to the non-competitive service under Section 5 of Republic Act Number 6040, and that classification may be changed only by the legislative branch. Fourth, the Salary Standardization Law, Republic Act Number 6758, is a compensation and position classification measure and did not amend the specific classification fixed by Republic Act Number 6040.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the denial by the Civil Service Commission was sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the line that mandamus lies only to compel a ministerial duty and never to control discretion, absent a clear and certain right. Examiners use this case to test the privilege-versus-right distinction under Republic Act Number 6850 and the non-competitive classification of the office staff of the President under Republic Act Number 6040.