PEZA Vs Mercado
PEZA Vs Mercado
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
684
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Being assailed is the Court of Appeals 1) Decision1 of
December 14, 2005 which reversed2 that of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108, 2) Amended
Decision3 dated March 31, 2006 by awarding back salaries
to Gloria J. Mercado (respondent) computed from the time
of her alleged dismissal until her reinstatement as
Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) Deputy
Director General for Policy and Planning, and 3)
Resolution4 of March 31, 2006 which denied petitioners’
motion for reconsideration of the December 14, 2005
Decision.
_______________
665
The antecedent facts of the present controversy are as
follows:
Respondent was appointed as Group Manager for Policy
and Planning of PEZA on September 16, 1998. Her
appointment was temporary in nature.
On May 16, 1999, respondent was promoted to the
position of Deputy Director General for Policy and
Planning. Her appointment indicated the same as on
permanent basis, but with the following annotation: NO
SECURITY OF TENURE UNLESS HE/SHE OBTAINS
CESO OR CSEE ELIGIBILITY. CESO is the acronym for
Career Executive Service Officer, while CSEE is the
acronym for Career Service Executive Eligibility.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
686
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
687
688
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the appellate
court’s decision. Respondent too moved for a partial motion
for reconsideration of the decision.
The appellate court, by the Amended Decision of March
31, 2006, acting on respondent’s motion for reconsideration,
denied her claim for damages and attorney’s fees but
granted her claim for back salaries, computed from the
time of her
_______________
5 Id., at p. 122.
689
In the CES under which the position of PEZA Deputy
Director General for Policy and Planning is classified, the
acquisition of security of tenure which presupposes a
permanent appointment is governed by the Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the CES Board. As the recent
case of Amores vs. Civil Service Commission explains:6
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
_______________
690
Clearly, for an examinee or an incumbent to be a
member of the CES and be entitled to security of tenure,
she/he must pass the CES examinations, be conferred CES
eligibility, comply with the other requirements prescribed
by the CES Board, and be appointed to a CES rank by the
President.
Admittedly, before and up to the time of the termination
of her appointment, respondent did not go through the four
stages of CES eligibility examinations.
The appellate court’s ruling that respondent became
CES eligible upon earning the MNSA degree, purportedly
in accordance with Executive Order No. 696, as amended
by Executive Order No. 771, does not lie.
The pertinent portions of Executive Order No. 696
issued on May 27, 1981 which granted CESO rank to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
“x x x x
WHEREAS, Article IV, Chapter I, Part III of the Integrated
Reorganization Plan provides for a Career Executive Service to
constitute a continuing pool of well-selected and development-
oriented career administrators of the government;
WHEREAS, the pre-qualification requirements for
admission at NDCP as well as the training obtained there
fully satisfy the training and pre-qualification
requirements for appointment to the Career Executive
Service; and
xxxx
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do
hereby order that:
691
Upon the other hand, the pertinent portions of
Executive Order No. 771 issued more than eight months
later or on February 4, 1982, which amended Executive
Order No. 696, read:
692
“x x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
693
By respondent’s attainment of an MNSA degree, she
was not conferred automatic CES eligibility. It was, as
above-quoted portions of CESB Resolution No. 204 state,
merely accredited as “equivalent to passing the
Management Aptitude Test Battery.” For respondent to
acquire CES eligibility and CES rank, she could “proceed to
the second stage of the eligibility examination process . . .
and the other stages of the examination . . . in accordance
with existing policies and regulations”; and that if
respondent as MNSA degree holder passed the three other
stages of the CES eligibility examinations and is conferred
CES eligibility, she could “qualify for appointment to CES
ranks,” PROVIDED that she meets and complies “with
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
Respecting the contention that the promulgation of R.A.
8748 on June 1, 1999 removed the CES eligibility
qualification for the position of Deputy Director General,
hence, respondent, albeit not a CES-eligible, could only be
terminated for cause, the same is untenable. The relevant
portion of said law reads:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
2/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 614
As correctly held by the trial court, removing the CES
eligibility requirement for the Deputy Director General
position could not have been the intention of the framers of
the law. It bears noting that the position is a high-ranking
one which requires specialized knowledge and experience
in certain areas including law, economics, public
administration and similar fields, hence, to remove it from
the CES would be absurd.
695
The Civil Service Commission CESB in fact has certified
that the position requires the appropriate CES eligibility.
It is settled that the construction given to a statute by an
administrative agency charged with the interpretation and
application of that statute is entitled to great respect and
should be accorded great weight by the courts.7
Respondent’s subsequent passing in late 2000 of the CES
examinations did not retroact to consider her a CESO at
the time her appointment was terminated on June 1, 2000.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Decision of December 14, 2005, Amended Decision
of March 31, 2006 and Resolution of March 31, 2006 are
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The December 4, 2001
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
108 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177aef79a861b37fac0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13