Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Augusto Toledo vs. Civil Service Commission and Comelec

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    131 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed as Manager of the Education and Information Department of Comelec at age 57 without obtaining an exemption from the Civil Service rule prohibiting the appointment of those over 57. 2) Comelec later declared the appointment void due to the lack of exemption. However, the Civil Service Commission ruled the appointment was merely voidable, not void from the beginning, making Toledo a de facto officer. 3) The Supreme Court agreed the appointment was valid, finding the Civil Service rule prohibiting those over 57 was unauthorized and an act of legislation by the Commission without basis in law. As the Civil Service Act contained no such age restriction, the Commission exceeded its powers in creating the

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    40 Toledo v. CSC.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Petitioner Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed as Manager of the Education and Information Department of Comelec at age 57 without obtaining an exemption from the Civil Service rule prohibiting the appointment of those over 57. 2) Comelec later declared the appointment void due to the lack of exemption. However, the Civil Service Commission ruled the appointment was merely voidable, not void from the beginning, making Toledo a de facto officer. 3) The Supreme Court agreed the appointment was valid, finding the Civil Service rule prohibiting those over 57 was unauthorized and an act of legislation by the Commission without basis in law. As the Civil Service Act contained no such age restriction, the Commission exceeded its powers in creating the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    131 views2 pages

    Augusto Toledo vs. Civil Service Commission and Comelec

    Uploaded by

    CJ Millena
    1) Petitioner Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed as Manager of the Education and Information Department of Comelec at age 57 without obtaining an exemption from the Civil Service rule prohibiting the appointment of those over 57. 2) Comelec later declared the appointment void due to the lack of exemption. However, the Civil Service Commission ruled the appointment was merely voidable, not void from the beginning, making Toledo a de facto officer. 3) The Supreme Court agreed the appointment was valid, finding the Civil Service rule prohibiting those over 57 was unauthorized and an act of legislation by the Commission without basis in law. As the Civil Service Act contained no such age restriction, the Commission exceeded its powers in creating the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AUGUSTO TOLEDO vs.

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COMELEC

    FACTS:
    Petitioner Atty. Augusto Toledo was appointed as Manager of the Education and Information
    Department of the Comelec, on May 21, 1986. At the time of his appointment, petitioner, having
    been born on July 8, 1927 was already more than fifty-seven (57) years old. It was the first time
    petitioner joined the government service as he was then engaged in active private practice prior to
    said appointment.
    No prior request for exemption from the provisions of Section 22, Rule III of the Civil Service Rules
    on Personnel Action and Policies (CSRPAP) was secured. Said provision prohibits the appointment
    of persons 57 years old or above into the government service without prior approval by the Civil
    Service Commission. Petitioner officially reported for work and assumed the functions of his office on
    June 16, 1986.
    On January 29, 1989, Comelec, upon discovery of the lack of authority required under Section 22,
    Rule III of the CSRPAP, and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1983 issued Resolution
    stating that the appointment then of Atty. Toledo was made in violation of law and pursuant to
    Section 7, Rule III of the Civil Service Rules on Personnel Action, the appointment was void from the
    beginning. Toledo appealed to CSC which modified the Comelec’s ruling. It held that the
    appointment of Toledo as Manager, there being no basis in law, is merely voidable and not void ab
    initio. Hence, Atty. Toledo is considered a de facto officer from the time he assumed office on June
    16, 1986, until and up to the promulgation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2066 on January 29, 1989.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Toledo is void from the beginning
    HELD: No. Toledo’s appointment is valid.
    RATIO:
    1. Section 22, Rule III of the CSRPAP reads as follows:
    SEC. 22. No person shall be appointed, reinstated, or re-employed in the service if he is
    already 57 years old, unless the President, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the
    case of employees in the judiciary, determines that he possesses special qualifications
    urgently needed by the hiring agency.
    2. The statute itself, Civil Service Act of 1959, (RA 2260) contained no provision prohibiting
    appointment or reinstatement in the Government service of any person who was already 57
    years old, or otherwise requiring that some limitation as regards to age be placed on
    employment in the Government service. This prohibition was purely a creation of the Civil
    Service Commission.
    3. Presidential Decree No. 807 was issued by President Marcos, establishing "an independent Civil
    Service Commission. Like RA 2260 which it superseded, PD 807 empowered the Commission to
    "prescribe, amend, and enforce suitable rules and regulations for carrying into effect the
    provisions of the Decree.
    4. Noteworthy, too, is that there is no provision at all in PD 807 dealing in any manner with the
    appointment, reinstatement or re-employment in the Government service of any person already
    57 years or any particular age, for that matter. Again, the provision regarding persons 57 years
    of age was purely a creation of the Commission, having no reference to any provision in the
    decree intended to be implemented.
    5. The provision on 57-year old persons in the Revised Civil Service Rules (under said RA 2260)
    cannot be accorded validity. As already pointed out, it is entirely a creation of the Civil Service
    Commission, having no basis in the law itself which it was meant to implement. It cannot be
    related to or connected with any specific provision of the law which it is meant to carry into effect,
    such as a requirement, for instance, that age should be reckoned as a factor in the employment
    or reinstatement of an individual, or a direction that there be a determination of some point in a
    person's life at which he becomes unemployable, or employable only under specific conditions.
    6. It was therefore an unauthorized act of legislation on the part of the Civil Service Commission. It
    cannot be justified as a valid exercise of its function of promulgating rules and regulations for
    that function, to repeat, may legitimately be exercised only for the purpose of carrying the
    provisions of the law into effect; and since there is no prohibition or restriction on the
    employment of 57-year old persons in the statute—or any provision respecting age as a factor in
    employment—there was nothing to carry into effect through an implementing rule on the matter.
    7. The power vested in the Civil Service Commission was to implement the law or put it into effect,
    not to add to it; to carry the law into effect or execution, not to supply perceived omissions in it.
    "By its administrative regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended; said regulations
    'cannot amend an act of Congress.'
    8. The considerations just expounded also conduce to the conclusion of the invalidity of Section 22,
    Rule III of the CSRPAP. The enactment of said section, relative to 57-year old persons, was also
    an act of supererogation on the part of the Civil Service Commission since the rule has no
    relation to or connection with any provision of the law supposed to be carried into effect. The
    section was an addition to or extension of the law, not merely a mode of carrying it into effect.

    You might also like