G.R. No. 111812 May 31, 1995
DIONISIO M. RABOR, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Dionisio M. Rabor, a Utility Worker in the Office of the Mayor of Davao City, entered government service in 1978 at the age of 55. In 1991, at age 68 with over 13 years of service, he was advised to retire. Rabor resisted, presenting a GSIS Certificate of Membership bearing a note that his service was extended to comply with the 15-year service requirement for retirement benefits. The Davao City Government sought guidance from the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSRO-XI), which advised that any extension was contrary to Memorandum Circular No. 65 from the Office of the President, which prohibits retaining employees beyond the compulsory retirement age of 65 except for extremely meritorious reasons not exceeding six months. Consequently, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte directed Rabor to stop working.
Rabor repeatedly requested an extension of approximately two years to complete the 15-year requirement under P.D. No. 1146, asserting he was in good health. These requests were denied by CSRO-XI and, upon appeal, by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in Resolution No. 92-594. The CSC cited its Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1990, which allows extension for this purpose only for permanent career service members and for a maximum of one year. The Commission noted Rabor was already due for retirement in 1988, making further extension impermissible. Rabor then invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cena v. Civil Service Commission, but his motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Rabor’s request for an extension of service to complete the 15-year service requirement for retirement benefits.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the CSC’s denial, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the right to an extension of service to complete the 15-year requirement under P.D. No. 1146 is not absolute but discretionary upon the appointing authority. This discretion must be exercised within the bounds of existing laws and regulations. The CSC’s Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1990, which limits such extensions to a maximum of one year for qualified permanent appointees, is a valid exercise of its rule-making power to provide a uniform and reasonable guideline. The Court distinguished the case from Cena, where the employee was initially allowed to continue working by the appointing authority, a factor absent here. Since Rabor had already exceeded the compulsory retirement age by several years and his request far exceeded the one-year limit, the CSC acted within its authority in affirming the denial. The appointing authority, Mayor Duterte, validly exercised his discretion in refusing the extension, citing the petitioner’s advanced age and the fact that his position had already been filled.