GR 129133; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129133 November 25, 1998
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
The Civil Service Commission (CSC), through Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, required the Secretary of Finance to submit all appointments in the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). Instead of complying, EIIB Commissioner Jose T. Almonte requested confirmation of EIIB’s exemption from CSC rules on appointments and personnel actions, invoking Presidential Decree No. 1458 and Letter of Instruction No. 71 as bases. The CSC denied the request via Resolution No. 89-400 and reiterated its order for EIIB to submit all appointments. After EIIB failed to comply, the CSC issued orders directing Almonte to implement the resolution and show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt. Almonte explained EIIB’s inability to comply, again invoking PD 1458 and LOI 71. The CSC found Almonte guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a daily fine. EIIB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld CSC Resolution No. 89-400 but declared the contempt orders null and void for lack of jurisdiction. EIIB’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) is embraced by the Civil Service.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the EIIB is a government agency under the Department of Finance as provided by the Administrative Code and is therefore within the ambit of the Civil Service Law. The constitutional provision (Article IX(B), Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution ) mandating that the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government is clear and categorical. The provisions of PD 1458 and LOI 71 cited by EIIB only exempt its personnel from Civil Service Rules and Regulations relative to appointments and other personnel actions, but not from the Civil Service Law or other civil service rules. The Court also rejected the argument that EIIB’s membership in the intelligence community or the confidential nature of its positions exempts it from civil service coverage, citing that even primarily confidential positions are within the civil service. The act of the CSC in requiring EIIB to submit appointments is part of its administrative function as the central personnel agency of the government.