View full case

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

The case involved a petition for certiorari filed by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) against the resolution of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The petitioner, Salazar, was previously employed by GSIS and held various positions. On May 16, 1986, her services were terminated by the newly appointed President and General Manager of GSIS, citing that her position was co-terminous with the appointing authority. Salazar filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied by both GSIS Board of Trustees and the Review Committee. The Civil Service Commission then issued a resolution directing Salazar's reinstatement. GSIS filed motions for reconsideration, but they were all denied. GSIS appealed the decision to the Commission, but before it acted on the appeal, the Commission denied GSIS' motion for reconsideration. The Commission issued a resolution stating that its decision had become final and executory. GSIS then filed a petition for certiorari challenging the jurisdiction of the CSC and the validity of its resolutions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Merit Systems Board or the Civil Service Commission has appellate jurisdiction over the termination of services of the private respondent.

  2. Whether Resolutions Nos. 87-230 and 88-825 were issued without jurisdiction.

  3. Whether Resolutions Nos. 87-230 and 88-825 are void ab initio or legally inexistent.

  4. Whether the Order of the Merit Systems Board dated June 30, 1988 was void and legally inexistent.

  5. Whether the denial of petitioner's appeal by the Civil Service Commission based on the void resolutions was erroneous.

  6. Whether the position of private respondent as Technical Assistant III was highly confidential and belonged to the non-career service or co-terminous with the tenure of the previous appointing authority.

  7. Whether the termination of private respondent's services violated the constitutional prohibition against suspension or dismissal without cause of civil service officers or employees.

  8. Whether the Civil Service Commission erred in affirming the termination of services of private respondent.

  9. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) had jurisdiction over the case.

  10. Whether the termination of Salazar was legal.

  11. Whether the position of Technical Assistant 111 is primarily confidential or belongs to the career service.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the Merit Systems Board, not the Civil Service Commission, has appellate jurisdiction over the termination of services of the private respondent. Despite the Civil Service Commission being the single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil service, the jurisdiction of the Commission in relation to the Merit Systems Board needs to be clarified. The creation of the Merit Systems Board through Presidential Decree No. 1409 granted it the power and function to hear and decide cases brought before it by officers and employees who feel aggrieved by personnel actions of appointing authorities. Thus, the Commission cannot take original cognizance of cases specified under P.D. 1409, except for cases specified under Section 9(j) of the Civil Service Decree. It would render the Merit Systems Board meaningless and inutile if the Commission were to have original cognizance over all matters involving government personnel.

  2. The CSC did not have jurisdiction over the case because the Merit Systems Board did not render a decision, and the CSC cannot assume jurisdiction without a decision from the Board.

  3. The termination of Salazar was legal because her service record showed that she was occupying the position of Technical Assistant 111, which is not valid since she did not have the required civil service eligibility at the time of her appointment.

  4. The court could not determine the nature of the position of Technical Assistant 111 since there is no copy of the job description or evidence provided by the parties. The Board's conclusion that the position is primarily confidential is unsupported by evidence. The CSC did not make any finding on this matter. The GSIS contends that the position is confidential but also argues that Salazar did not have the required civil service eligibility.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Civil Service Commission is the single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil service.

  • When a law bestows jurisdiction on a government body to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it is proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.

  • The Merit Systems Board has appellate jurisdiction over cases involving personnel actions of appointing authorities, as granted by Presidential Decree No. 1409.

  • The CSC has the power to review decisions of the Board but only if there is a decision rendered by the Board.

  • Jurisdiction cannot be transferred to a body not vested by law with such jurisdiction.

  • The nature of a position determines whether it belongs to the career service or is primarily confidential.

  • The service record is considered in determining the legality of termination.

  • The classification and certification of a position by the CSC does not alter its nature if it is primarily confidential.

  • The court needs sufficient evidence to determine the nature of a position.