G.R. No. A.M. No. 07-6-6-SC, February 26, 2010
RE: NON-OBSERVANCE BY ATTY. EDEN T. CANDELARIA, CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (OAS), OF EN BANC RESOLUTION A.M. NO. 05-9-29-SC DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 AND EN BANC RULING IN OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (G.R. NO. 159940 DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2005)

FACTS

This administrative matter concerns Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Chief of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Supreme Court. The case arose from the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) disapproval on June 1, 2007, of two coterminous appointments of Joseph Raymond Mendoza as Chief of the Management and Information Systems Office (MISO). The Court had previously classified the MISO Chief position as highly technical or policy-determining via an en banc resolution (A.M. 05-9-29-SC) on September 27, 2005. Justice Antonio T. Carpio recommended disciplinary action against Atty. Candelaria for: (1) submitting Mendoza’s appointments to the CSC for approval when it was allegedly unnecessary, thereby violating the Court’s resolution and a prior ruling (Office of the Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission) and undermining judicial independence; (2) failing to inform a CSC Assistant Commissioner during a meeting that the MISO Chief position was already classified as highly technical; and (3) indicating in Mendoza’s second appointment paper that it was “coterminous” with the Chief Justice, instead of specifying a “six-month” term as directed. Atty. Candelaria defended her actions, stating she submitted the appointments in compliance with the Civil Service Law and rules, had previously officially informed the CSC of the position’s classification, and based the “coterminous” designation on prior recommendations.

ISSUE

Whether there are sufficient grounds to discipline Atty. Eden T. Candelaria for gross neglect of duty, gross incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on the three charges.

RULING

The Court found no sufficient grounds for disciplinary action and resolved to merely admonish Atty. Candelaria.
1. On submitting appointments to the CSC: The Court ruled that Atty. Candelaria was legally obligated to submit all appointments to the CSC for approval under Section 9(h) of the Civil Service Law and implementing CSC rules. No law or Court decision had annulled these provisions. Her duty was ministerial, and failure to submit would have subjected her to administrative sanction for neglect of duty. The Court’s classification of a position as highly technical or policy-determining exempts it from Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility but does not automatically exempt it from CSC approval. The CSC retains the power to approve or disapprove appointments based on qualifications.
2. On failing to inform the CSC Assistant Commissioner: The Court found that while Atty. Candelaria had officially informed the CSC of the position’s classification in writing, her failure to verbally reiterate this crucial point during her meeting with the CSC Assistant Commissioner, which occurred just two days before the disapproval, was a lapse. This omission contributed to the CSC’s decision, as its letter of disapproval stated it had no record of such a declaration. For this, she was admonished.
3. On indicating a “coterminous” appointment: The Court found no gross incompetence. The “coterminous” designation was based on prior recommendations, including from Justice Carpio’s committee. Furthermore, a “temporary” appointment was not legally feasible because Mendoza did not meet the prescribed qualification standards for the position. A “coterminous” appointment was also problematic as the position was permanent, not primarily confidential.
The Court resolved to NOTE Atty. Candelaria’s Comment and ADMONISH her for failing to take up with the Court the results of her meeting with the CSC Assistant Commissioner.