CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. HERMOGENES P. POBRE, RESPONDENT.

Civil Service Commission versus Pobre

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Civil Service Commission against Hermogenes Pobre, a former government official who retired from the service three times. The dispute concerns who may adjudicate his claim for terminal leave benefits computed from the date of his first entry into government service in 1958 up to his retirement as chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission in 2001, even though he had already received the monetary value of his terminal leave on his two earlier retirements. The case matters because it draws the boundary between two independent constitutional commissions: the Civil Service Commission as the central personnel agency, and the Commission on Audit as the guardian of government funds and accounts.

Procedural History

The successor chairperson of the Professional Regulation Commission, doubtful of the legality of the claim, sought the opinion of both the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit. The Civil Service Commission issued a resolution on October 29, 2001, holding that Pobre was entitled only to terminal leave benefits based on leave credits accrued from his assumption of office as PRC chairman. On reconsideration, the Commission issued a second resolution on February 19, 2002, denying the motion but modifying the first, so that the computation would run from his appointment as PRC commissioner until the end of his term as chairman.

Pobre elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by petition for review. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated March 31, 2003, annulled and set aside the resolutions for having been issued without jurisdiction, declaring that it was the Commission on Audit, not the Civil Service Commission, that had jurisdiction over the claim, and ordering the parties to await the outcome of the query addressed to the Commission on Audit. The Civil Service Commission's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 24, 2003. Hence this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising the lone issue of whether the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over the claim.

Facts

Hermogenes Pobre retired from the government three times. He first retired as commissioner of the Commission on Audit on March 31, 1986. He reentered the government and retired as chairman of the Board of Accountancy on October 31, 1990. He was then appointed associate commissioner of the Professional Regulation Commission, where he eventually retired as chairman on February 17, 2001. On the first two retirements he received terminal leave pay of 310,522.60 pesos and 55,000 pesos, respectively.

On his third retirement, Pobre claimed terminal leave based on his highest monthly salary as PRC chairman, but reckoned from the date he first entered government service as a budget examiner in the defunct Budget Commission in 1958. He invoked Section 13 of Commonwealth Act 186, which computes the aggregate service forming the basis for retirement from the date of original employment.

Doubtful of the legality of the claim, the successor PRC chairperson sought the opinions of the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit. The Civil Service Commission ruled that Pobre was entitled only to benefits based on leave credits accrued from his assumption of office as PRC chairman, later modified to include his service as PRC associate commissioner. Pobre challenged these resolutions before the Court of Appeals, which held that the Commission on Audit had jurisdiction. The Civil Service Commission then came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of Pobre's claim for terminal leave benefits, the computation of which is reckoned from his first employment in 1958 up to his retirement as PRC chairman, although he had already twice received the monetary value of his terminal leave.
• Whether or not the Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction over leave matters is exclusive, to the exclusion of the Commission on Audit, where government expenditures or the use of funds is involved.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Commonwealth Act 186 provides:

Section 13. Computation of service. The aggregate period of service which forms the basis for retirement and calculating the amount of annuity described in section eleven hereof shall be computed from the date of original employment, whether as a classified or unclassified employee in the service of an employer, including periods of service at different times and under one or more employers.

This is the provision Pobre invoked to justify reckoning his terminal leave from his original employment in 1958.

Section 2, subsections (1) and (2), of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 2 (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by or pertaining to, the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis.

(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the technique and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.

These provisions define the audit and settlement powers of the Commission on Audit over expenditures of public funds, which the Court weighs against the personnel powers of the Civil Service Commission.

Section 26 of Presidential Decree 1445, the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, provides:

Section 26. General jurisdiction. The authority and powers of the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the examination and inspection of the books, records, and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of the accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or held by them in an accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities.

This provision extends the Commission on Audit's jurisdiction to the settlement of all claims owing to or from the Government, which includes Pobre's claim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Civil Service Commission does have jurisdiction over the determination of leave benefits, since it is the central personnel agency of the government. Its authority under the Administrative Code includes the power to administer the retirement program for government officials and employees, and under the Civil Service Decree it may promulgate policies and standards for personnel administration. The Court therefore set aside the Court of Appeals' ruling that the Commission acted without jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction is not exclusive. The duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to leave benefits properly pertains to the Commission on Audit. As the Court put it:

While the implementation and enforcement of leave benefits are matters within the functions of the CSC as the central personnel agency of the government, the duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to leave benefits properly pertains to the COA. Where government expenditures or use of funds is involved, the CSC cannot claim an exclusive domain simply because leave matters are also involved.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Borromeo versus Civil Service Commission, where it held that the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Elections are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres, that neither may claim dominance over the others, and that in case of conflicting rulings it is the Judiciary which interprets the law and ascertains which view shall prevail. Because the Commission on Audit had not yet rendered its opinion on the PRC query, the Court found it prudent to abstain from any pronouncement on the merits of Pobre's claim and to await the Commission on Audit's ruling.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency, has jurisdiction over the determination of leave benefits, including the computation of terminal leave. Second, that jurisdiction is not exclusive: where government expenditures or the use of funds is involved, the Commission on Audit shares authority, because its constitutional and statutory mandate covers the examination, audit, and settlement of all accounts and claims owing to or from the Government. Third, the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Elections are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres, and no one may claim dominance over the others. Fourth, in case of conflicting rulings among them, it is the Judiciary that interprets the law and ascertains which view shall prevail.

Disposition

The Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals: it set aside the ruling on the issue of jurisdiction, but affirmed the order to await the outcome of the Commission on Audit's decision on Pobre's claim.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction over leave benefits is not exclusive, because the duty to examine accounts and expenditures relating to those benefits pertains to the Commission on Audit. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between the powers of the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit, and the rule that independent constitutional commissions are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres.