FACTS:

Francisco Abella, Jr., a retired lawyer, held a civil service eligibility for the position of Department Manager. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Memorandum Circular No. 21 in 1994, which classified certain positions in the Career Executive Service (CES) of the government. This circular stated that all third-level positions of equivalent category in all branches and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, are embraced within the CES. It also provided that incumbents of newly declared CES positions shall remain under permanent status, but upon promotion or transfer to other CES positions, they shall be under temporary status until they qualify.

After retiring, Abella was employed on a contractual basis by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). Eventually, he was given permanent employment as Department Manager III, Labor and Employment Center. However, the CSC disapproved his appointment because his eligibility was deemed inappropriate. Abella appealed the disapproval to the CSC, but his appeal was denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking the reversal of the CSC resolutions and alleging that the CSC circular was unconstitutional as it rendered his civil service eligibility ineffective for the position of Department Manager III.

The CA dismissed Abella's petition, ruling that he lacked legal standing to question the disapproval of his appointment and that he was not the real party in interest because his appointment was dependent on the CSC's approval. Abella appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the issues of whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that he lacked the personality to question the disapproval, whether he was the real party in interest to question the disapproval, and whether the CA erred in dismissing his appeal on the ground of constitutionality.

ISSUES:

1. Who may file a request for reconsideration or appeal of the disapproval of an appointment?

2. Does the appointee have the legal standing to challenge the CSC disapproval?

3. Whether the petitioner has legal standing and is a real party in interest to challenge the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) disapproval of his appointment.

4. Whether the petitioner, as the appointee, is allowed procedural relief, specifically the right to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the CSC's disapproval.

5. Whether the appointing authority had the power to recall an appointment initially approved.

6. Whether Section 4, CSC Memorandum Circular 21, Series of 1994, which provides for the classification and appointment of positions under the Career Executive Service (CES), is constitutional.

7. Whether the petitioner had security of tenure given that he had neither rank nor position prior to his reemployment.

8. Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated by the alleged failure of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to notify him of a hearing relating to the issuance of the challenged Circular.

9. Whether the CSC correctly disapproved the petitioner's appointment due to his lack of CES eligibility.

RULING:

1. The appointing authority has the right to file a request for reconsideration or appeal of the disapproval of an appointment. This is provided in Section 2 of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998. The appointing authority is directly affected by the CSC's disapproval and should have the opportunity to defend its appointment.

2. The appointee also has the legal standing to challenge the CSC disapproval. While it may be justified to allow the appointing authority to contest the disapproval, it does not preclude the appointee from doing the same. The appointee, as an aggrieved party, should also be given the right to challenge the decision of the CSC.

3. The petitioner has legal standing and is a real party in interest to challenge the CSC's disapproval of his appointment. While legal standing and real party in interest are different concepts, both principles ensure that only certain parties with a personal stake in the matter can maintain an action. The petitioner, as the appointee, is adversely affected by the CSC's disapproval as he is prevented from assuming the office in a permanent capacity. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, justifying his challenge to the CSC's act.

4. The petitioner, as the appointee, is allowed procedural relief, including the right to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the CSC's disapproval. Section 2 of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998, which restricts the right to request reconsideration or appeal to the appointing authority, should not be interpreted exclusively to the appointing authority. PD 807 and EO 292, from which the CSC derives its authority, are silent on whether appointees have the right to file motions for reconsideration or appeals. There is no legislative intent to bar appointees from challenging the CSC's disapproval. The appointee, being adversely affected and having a personal stake in the outcome, should be allowed the same right as the appointing authority.

5. The Court did not delve into the issue of whether the appointing authority had the power to recall an appointment initially approved, as it was not the main issue in the case.

6. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 4, CSC Memorandum Circular 21, Series of 1994. The Circular, issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), classified and identified positions covered by the CES and provided guidelines for their appointment. The Court held that the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government, is authorized to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote efficiency and integrity in the civil service. The CSC has the power to issue rules and regulations to carry out its mandate. The Circular did not revoke the petitioner's eligibility but required him to have the appropriate eligibility for the position of department manager III. The Circular protected the rights of incumbents to retain their positions in a permanent capacity as long as they remain in the positions to which they were previously appointed.

7. The petitioner, who had neither rank nor position prior to his reemployment, cannot claim security of tenure if he held no tenure prior to appointment.

8. The due process requirements, as enumerated in Ang Tibay v. Court of Appeals, must be observed when exercising quasi-judicial function, which involves the determination of rights based on facts and applicable law. However, when exercising quasi-legislative power, which involves the promulgation of rules and regulations, prior notice and hearing are not required. The challenged Circular was an internal matter and did not require prior publication.

9. The CSC correctly disapproved the petitioner's appointment due to his lack of CES eligibility. The disapproval did not involve the imposition of an administrative disciplinary measure and did not require a prior hearing. The CSC only examines the conformity of the appointment with the law and the possess

PRINCIPLES:

• Approval of a permanent appointment in the civil service is necessary for it to be fully effective. The appointment must comply with all legal requirements, including the submission to the CSC for evaluation of the appointee's qualifications.

• The appointing authority has the discretion to choose whom to appoint, but the appointee must possess the required qualifications.

• The CSC's disapproval of an appointment challenges the exercise of the appointing authority's discretion. Therefore, the appointing authority has the right to contest the disapproval.

• However, the appointee, as an aggrieved party, also has the legal standing to challenge the CSC's disapproval. The appointee should be given the opportunity to defend his/her appointment.

• Legal standing: Concerned citizens, taxpayers, or voters can maintain an action in the public interest, even if they lack personal injury, as long as they allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy that will illuminate difficult constitutional questions.

• Real party in interest: One who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or is entitled to the avails of the suit. The term "interest" refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy, future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.

• Appointee's right to challenge: The appointee, as a real party in interest, is allowed to challenge the CSC's disapproval of his appointment, as he is also injured by the disapproval and stands to benefit from a favorable judgment.

• Procedural relief for the appointee: The appointee is entitled to procedural relief, including the right to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the CSC's decision. Neither the law nor CSC rules explicitly bar appointees from challenging the CSC's disapproval. The appointee, being adversely affected and having a personal stake in the outcome, should have the same right as the appointing authority.

• The CSC, as the central personnel agency of the government, is empowered to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote efficiency and integrity in the civil service.

• The CSC has the authority to issue rules and regulations to carry out its mandate.

• Eligibility for a position must conform to the requirements of the position.

• The prospectivity of regulations is recognized, and there is no basis to argue that a regulation is an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder.

• Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service pertains to rank, not to the position to which an employee may be appointed.