G.R. No. 196890 , January 11, 2018
CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD, et al., Petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Blesilda Lodevico was appointed by the President as Director III of the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) in 2008. She possessed Career Service Executive Eligibility. Following the change in administration, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 (MC 1), declaring non-Career Executive Service Officer (non-CESO) positions vacant and allowing incumbents to remain only until July 31, 2010. Acting on this, CESB Chairman Bernardo Abesamis issued a memorandum informing Lodevico her service was terminated effective July 31, 2010. Subsequently, MC 2 was issued, extending the tenure of non-CESOs until October 31, 2010.
Lodevico appealed the termination memorandum to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CESB contested the CSC’s jurisdiction over the appeal. The CSC granted Lodevico’s appeal, declaring the termination null and void, ordering her reinstatement with back wages. The CSC ruled that only the President could terminate a presidential appointee and noted that MC 2 had extended the allowable service period.

ISSUE

Was the dismissal of Lodevico as Director III from the CESB proper?

RULING

No, the dismissal was not proper. On procedural grounds, while the petitioners improperly availed of a Rule 65 petition instead of a Rule 43 petition for review, the Supreme Court relaxed the rules in the broader interest of justice to resolve the substantive jurisdictional issue.
On the merits, the CSC correctly exercised jurisdiction over Lodevico’s appeal. The CSC, as the central personnel agency, has appellate jurisdiction over personnel actions and disputes involving all government employees, including presidential appointees like Lodevico. This power is constitutional and statutory. The CESB’s governing authority over the Career Executive Service does not divest the CSC of its broader appellate jurisdiction over administrative personnel cases.
Substantively, the termination by the CESB Chairman was invalid. Lodevico, a presidential appointee to a CES position, could only be validly removed by the President. The Chairman’s memorandum, based on MC 1, was an ultra vires act. Furthermore, MC 2, issued before Lodevico’s appealed termination took effect, expressly extended the tenure of non-CESOs like her until October 31, 2010. Therefore, her separation on July 31, 2010, was without legal basis. The CSC’s decision reinstating her with back wages is affirmed.