G.R. No. 83067 March 22, 1990
RAMON C. RUBIO, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, FILEMON B. CAWAD and ALFREDO B. DEZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon C. Rubio, Jr., a Chief Personnel Specialist at the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office in Davao City, received a letter dated December 28, 1987, from then CSC Chairman Celerina Gotladera notifying him that he was not reappointed in the CSC reorganization and was separated from service effective February 1, 1988. Allegedly acting on this advice, petitioner applied for optional retirement on January 29, 1988, effective March 7, 1988. However, on February 18, 1988, petitioner claims he discovered from official records that he had actually been reappointed as early as July 1, 1987. He immediately wrote a letter withdrawing his retirement application. Despite this withdrawal, respondent CSC Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas, by letter dated April 21, 1988, informed petitioner that his optional retirement had been approved.
Petitioner filed this special civil action, arguing that the approval of his retirement despite his valid withdrawal constituted grave abuse of discretion and amounted to unlawful dismissal without due process. He blamed respondents Filemon Cawad and Alfredo Deza for providing false information that induced his initial application. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported petitioner’s position, leading the CSC to represent itself while questioning the OSG’s representation of a private party against a government agency.

ISSUE

Whether respondent CSC Chairman committed grave abuse of discretion in approving petitioner’s optional retirement despite his prior withdrawal of the application.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that no grave abuse of discretion attended the CSC Chairman’s approval. The Court emphasized that the filing of an application for optional retirement and its subsequent withdrawal are not unilateral acts that automatically take effect. Both require approval by the proper authority—in this case, the CSC Chairman—in the interest of the service. The discretionary power to accept or reject a withdrawal is vested in the head of office, who must assess the employee’s competence and effectiveness. The Court found that the Chairman’s decision was based on valid grounds, as records indicated petitioner had been consistently rated as inefficient and lacking in leadership, and his initial non-reappointment was rooted in unfavorable reports from his superiors. The approval of retirement, therefore, was a valid exercise of managerial prerogative aimed at maintaining service efficiency, not a dismissal.
Regarding the OSG’s representation, the Court noted that while the OSG generally represents government agencies, it is also duty-bound to present the legal position it deems to be in the government’s best interest, even if contrary to its client’s stance. However, in such situations, the OSG should have formally informed the CSC of its position and refrained from actively representing the opposing private party. The final adjudication of the controversy, nevertheless, rests with the courts.