EN BANC

[G.R. No. 127182. December 5, 2001.]

HON. ALMA G. DE LEON, Chairman, HON. THELMA P. GAMINDE,

Commissioner, and HON. RAMON P. ERENETA, JR., Commissioner,
Civil Service Commission, and SECRETARY RAFAEL M. ALUNAN, III,
Department of the Interior and Local Government , petitioners, vs .
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JACOB F. MONTESA , respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioners.

Camilo Miguel M. Montesa for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Applying the case of Achacoso v. Macaraig , this Court, in its decision dated
January 22, 2001, ruled that private respondent Jacob F. Montesa's appointment as
Ministry Legal Counsel — CESO IV of the Ministry of Local Government was temporary
for failure to possess the required Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility for the said
position. Hence, he can be transferred or reassigned without violating his right to
security of tenure. Thus, private respondent led the instant motion for reconsideration
by invoking res judicata. He contended that his appointment can no longer be passed
upon and controverted in the present case considering that the said issue had already
been settled in the Minute Resolution of this Court dated March 17, 1992 in Jacob
Montesa v. Santos, et al., when his appointment was rst contested. In that case, the
Court ruled that the Achacoso case was not applicable to him since he was appointed
by virtue of Article III of the Freedom Constitution, and during that period there was no
Career Executive Service Board. The only eligibility required was that of the rst grader,
and private respondent was a rst grader. Therefore, having met all the requirements
for the position to which he was appointed, he cannot be removed in violation of the
constitutional guarantee on security of tenure and due process.
The Court was not precluded from re-examining its own ruling and rectifying
errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to res judicata would involve the
sacrifice of justice to technicality.
In this case, a reading of the Integrated Reorganization Plan which was adopted
and declared part of the law of the land by Presidential Decree No. 1 clearly showed
that a CES eligibility is indeed a requirement for a position embraced in the CES. The
foregoing law and circular were never amended nor repealed by the Freedom
Constitution. A CES eligibility is an existing and operative requirement at the time of
private respondent's appointment as Ministry Legal Counsel — CESO IV. In fact, the
Integrated Reorganization Plan allows the appointment of non-CES eligibles, like private
respondent, provided they subsequently acquire the needed eligibility. Moreover,
assuming ex gratia argumenti that a CES eligibility is not a requirement in the case of
private respondent, the mobility and exibility concepts in the assignment of personnel
in the CES, which allow transfer or reassignment of CES personnel to other positions of
the same rank or salary, justify his transfer to other CES position without violating his
right to security of tenure.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT;

EXCEPTION. — [T]he principle on conclusiveness of judgment set forth in Rule 39,
Section 47, paragraph (c) of the Rules of Court, would bar a re-litigation of the nature of
private respondent's appointment. Indeed, once an issue has been adjudicated in a valid
nal judgment of a competent court, it can no longer be controverted anew and should
be nally laid to rest. Yet, the Court is not precluded from re-examining its own ruling
and rectifying errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to res judicata would
involve the sacri ce of justice to technicality. It must be stressed that this is not the
rst time in Philippine and American jurisprudence that the principle of res judicata has
been set aside in favor of substantial justice, which is after all the avowed purpose of all
law and jurisprudence.
2. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE RULES; INTEGRATED
REORGANIZATION PLAN CLEARLY SHOWS CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE (CES)
ELIGIBILITY IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A POSITION EMBRACED IN THE CES. — A reading
. . . of the Integrated Reorganization Plan which was adopted and declared part of the
law of the land by Presidential Decree No. 1, dated September 24, 1972, clearly shows
that a CES eligibility is indeed a requirement for a position embraced in the CES.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AMENDED NOR REPEALED BY THE FREEDOM
CONSTITUTION. — [I]n March 1974, the CES Board issued CESB Circular No. 1 which
laid down the requirements for membership in the CES [.] . . . The foregoing law and
circular were never amended nor repealed by the Freedom Constitution. A CES eligibility
was an existing and operative requirement at the time of private respondent's
appointment as Ministry Legal Counsel — CESO IV. Neither were the said law and
circular inconsistent with the Freedom Constitution as to render them modi ed or
superseded. In fact, the Integrated Reorganization Plan allows the appointment of non-
CES eligibles, like private respondent, provided they subsequently acquire the needed
eligibility.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ACHACOSO v. MACARAIG; APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR. — It
bears stressing that in Achacoso v. Macaraig , the questioned appointment was made
on October 16, 1987, before the CES Board was reconstituted in 1988, and before the
rst CESO examination was given in 1990, as in the present case. Nevertheless, the
Court, in Achacoso, ruled that a CES eligibility is required for a CES position, such that
an appointment of one who does not possess such eligibility shall be temporary.
Evidently, a CES eligibility has always been one of the requirements for a position
embraced in the CES. The Court nds no reason to make an exception in the instant
controversy. IESDCH

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; MOBILITY AND FLEXIBILITY CONCEPTS IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF

PERSONNEL IN THE CES JUSTIFY THE. TRANSFER TO OTHER CES POSITION
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE. — [I]n the recent case of
Secretary of Justice v. Jose na Bacal , we ruled that security of tenure in the CES is
acquired with respect to rank and not to position. Hence, assuming ex gratia argumenti
that a CES eligibility is not a requirement in the case of private respondent, the mobility
and exibility concepts in the assignment of personnel in the CES, which allow transfer
or reassignment of CES personnel to other positions of the same rank or salary, justify
his transfer to other CES position without violating his right to security of tenure.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

For resolution is private respondent's motion for reconsideration of the January

22, 2001 Decision of the Court, which reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38664 and reinstated Resolution Nos. 953268 and
955201 of the Civil Service Commission.
In the Decision sought to be reconsidered, we ruled that private respondent's
appointment on August 28, 1986, as Ministry Legal Counsel - CESO IV of the Ministry of
Local Government, was temporary. Applying the case of Achacoso v. Macaraig , 1 we
held that since private respondent was not a Career Executive Service (CES) eligible, his
appointment did not attain permanency because he did not possess the required CES
eligibility for the CES position to which he was appointed. Hence, he can be transferred
or reassigned without violating his right to security of tenure.
It appears, however, that in Jacob Montesa v. Santos, et al. , decided on
September 26, 1990, 2 where the nature of private respondent's appointment as
Ministry Legal Counsel - CESO IV, of the Ministry of Local Government, was rst
contested, this Court issued a Minute Resolution dated March 17, 1992, holding that
Achacoso v. Macaraig is not applicable to the case of private respondent. The pertinent
portion thereof reads —
. . . The holding of this Court in the Achacoso case is not applicable to
petitioner Montesa. Petitioner was appointed on August 28, 1996 by virtue of
Article III of the Freedom Constitution. He was extended a permanent appointment
by then Minister Pimentel and subsequently con rmed as permanent by the Civil
Service Commission. He is a rst grade civil service eligible (RA 1080) the
appropriate eligibility for the position at that time and a member of the Philippine
bar.

There was no Career Executive Service Board during the Freedom

Constitution or at the time of appointment of petitioner. The CESO was only
reconstituted by the appointment of its Board of six (6) members sometime in
August 1988. There was no CESO eligibility examination during petitioner's
incumbency in the Department, as there was no CESO board. The rst CESO
examination was given on August 5 and 12, 1990. The CESO eligibility was not a
requirement at the time of the appointment of petitioner. The only eligibility
required is that of a rst grader and petitioner is a rst grade eligible. Therefore,
having met all the requirements for the position to which he was appointed, he
cannot be removed in violation of the constitutional guarantee on security of
tenure and due process.

Invoking res judicata, private respondent contends that the nature of his
appointment can no longer be passed upon and controverted in the present case
considering that said issue had already been settled in the foregoing Minute Resolution
of the Court.
Concededly, if we follow the conventional procedural path, i.e., the principle on
conclusiveness of judgment set forth in Rule 39, Section 47, paragraph (c) of the Rules
of Court, 3 would bar a re-litigation of the nature of private respondent's appointment.
Indeed, once an issue has been adjudicated in a valid nal judgment of a competent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court, it can no longer be controverted anew and should be finally laid to rest. 4
Yet, the Court is not precluded from re-examining its own ruling and rectifying
errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to res judicata would involve the
sacri ce of justice to technicality. It must be stressed that this is not the rst time in
Philippine and American jurisprudence that the principle of res judicata has been set
aside in favor of substantial justice, which is after all the avowed purpose of all law and
jurisprudence. 5
In the March 17, 1992 Minute Resolution, we held that private respondent who
was appointed in 1986 pursuant to the Freedom Constitution, though not a CES eligible,
possessed all the requirements for the position of Ministry Legal Counsel - CESO IV, of
the Ministry of Local Government, since a CES eligibility was not, at that time, a
requirement for the same position.
A reading, however, of the Integrated Reorganization Plan which was adopted
and declared part of the law of the land by Presidential Decree No. 1, dated September
24, 1972, clearly shows that a CES eligibility is indeed a requirement for a position
embraced in the CES. Thus:
c. Appointment. Appointment to appropriate classes in the Career
Executive Service shall be made by the President from a list of career executive
eligibles recommended by the Board. Such appointments shall be made on the
basis of rank; provided that appointments to the higher ranks which qualify the
incumbents to assignments as undersecretary and heads of bureaus and o ces
and equivalent positions shall be with the con rmation of the Commission on
Appointments. The President may, however, in exceptional cases, appoint any
person who is not a Career Executive Service eligible; provided that such
appointee shall subsequently take the required Career Executive Service
examination and that he shall not be promoted to a higher class until he quali es
in such examination.

In fact, in March 1974, the CES Board issued CESB Circular No. 1 which laid down
the requirements for membership in the CES, to wit:
a) Successful completion of CESDP shall constitute one of the
requirements for membership in the CES. Except as otherwise provided by law, no
person shall be admitted into the CES without having satisfactorily completed the
program;

b) Admission into CESDP shall be limited to incumbents of positions

falling within the CES duly nominated by their Department Heads;

c) Upon satisfactory completion of the program, the incumbent-participant

shall be enrolled in the roster of CES eligibles and shall be quali ed for
appointment by the President to the appropriate rank in the CES upon
recommendation of the Board. He may then be assigned to any position in the
CES by the President.

The foregoing law and circular were never amended nor repealed by the Freedom
Constitution. A CES eligibility was an existing and operative requirement at the time of
private respondent's appointment as Ministry Legal Counsel - CESO IV. Neither were
the said law and circular inconsistent with the Freedom Constitution as to render them
modi ed or superseded. In fact, the Integrated Reorganization Plan allows the
appointment of non-CES eligibles, like private respondent, provided they subsequently
acquire the needed eligibility.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 It bears stressing that in Achacoso v. Macaraig , the questioned appointment was
made on October 16, 1987, before the CES Board was reconstituted in 1988, and
before the rst CESO examination was given in 1990, as in the present case.
Nevertheless, the Court, in Achacoso, ruled that a CES eligibility is required for a CES
position, such that an appointment of one who does not possess such eligibility shall
be temporary. Evidently, a CES eligibility has always been one of the requirements for a
position embraced in the CES. The Court nds no reason to make an exception in the
instant controversy.
Moreover, in the recent case of Secretary of Justice v. Jose na Bacal , 6 we ruled
that security of tenure in the CES is acquired with respect to rank and not to position.
Hence, assuming ex gratia argumenti that a CES eligibility is not a requirement in the
case of private respondent, the mobility and exibility concepts in the assignment of
personnel in the CES, which allow transfer or reassignment of CES personnel to other
positions of the same rank or salary, 7 justify his transfer to other CES position without
violating his right to security of tenure. ETHaDC

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant motion for reconsideration
is DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez. JJ., concur.
Buena, J., is on official leave.
Footnotes

1. 195 SCRA 235 [1991].

2. 190 SCRA 50 [1990].

3. Ocho v. Calos, et al., G.R. No. 137908, November 22, 2000.

4. Rizal Surety Insurance Company v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 336 SCRA 12, 21-22 [2000]; citing
Smith Bell and Company (Phils.) v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 201 [1991].
5. Teodoro v. Carague , 206 SCRA 429, 434 [1992]; citing 46 Am. Jur., pp. 402-403; Republic v.
De los Angeles, 159 SCRA 264 [1988]; Suarez v. Court of Appeals , 193 SCRA 183 [1991];
Vergara v. Rugue, 78 SCRA 312 [1977]; Philippine Cool Miner's Union v. CEPOC , 10 SCRA
784 [1964]; Alvarez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals , 158 SCRA 407 [1988]; Ronquillo v.
Marasigan, 5 SCRA 304 [1962]; Santiago v. Ramirez, 8 SCRA 157 [1963]; Pulido v. Pulido ,
117 SCRA 16 [1982]; and Alvarez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 401 [1988].

6. G.R. No. 139382, December 6, 2000.

7. e. Assignments, Reassignments and Transferees . . .
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, members of the Career Executive
Service may be reassigned or transferred from one position to another and from one
department, bureau or o ce to another; provided that such reassignment or transfer is
mode in the interest of public service and involves no reduction in rank or salary;
provided, further, that no member shall be reassigned or transferred more often than
every two years; and provided, furthermore. that if the o cer concerned believes that
his reassignment or transfer is not justi ed, he may appeal his case to the President.
(Integrated Reorganization Plan, Part III, Chap. I, Art. IV, par. 5 [e]).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com