Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Augusto Toledo vs. Civil Service Commission and Comelec
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.