Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    42 - Abella JR V CSC PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    1) Francisco Abella Jr. was hired as a Department Manager III in the SBMA despite a recent CSC Memorandum Circular requiring third level managerial positions to possess specific qualifications. 2) The CSC disapproved Abella's appointment because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the position. Abella argued this violated his property and due process rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC Circular did not violate Abella's rights, as it applied a new set of qualifications to the SBMA position rather than taking away his eligibility from his previous job, and he was not deprived of notice and a hearing as the Circular was quasi-legislative rather than quasi-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    42 - Abella JR V CSC PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    38 views2 pages
    1) Francisco Abella Jr. was hired as a Department Manager III in the SBMA despite a recent CSC Memorandum Circular requiring third level managerial positions to possess specific qualifications. 2) The CSC disapproved Abella's appointment because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the position. Abella argued this violated his property and due process rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC Circular did not violate Abella's rights, as it applied a new set of qualifications to the SBMA position rather than taking away his eligibility from his previous job, and he was not deprived of notice and a hearing as the Circular was quasi-legislative rather than quasi-

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    42 - Abella Jr v CSC.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Francisco Abella Jr. was hired as a Department Manager III in the SBMA despite a recent CSC Memorandum Circular requiring third level managerial positions to possess specific qualifications. 2) The CSC disapproved Abella's appointment because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the position. Abella argued this violated his property and due process rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC Circular did not violate Abella's rights, as it applied a new set of qualifications to the SBMA position rather than taking away his eligibility from his previous job, and he was not deprived of notice and a hearing as the Circular was quasi-legislative rather than quasi-

    Copyright:

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

    42 - Abella JR V CSC PDF

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    1) Francisco Abella Jr. was hired as a Department Manager III in the SBMA despite a recent CSC Memorandum Circular requiring third level managerial positions to possess specific qualifications. 2) The CSC disapproved Abella's appointment because he did not meet the eligibility requirements for the position. Abella argued this violated his property and due process rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC Circular did not violate Abella's rights, as it applied a new set of qualifications to the SBMA position rather than taking away his eligibility from his previous job, and he was not deprived of notice and a hearing as the Circular was quasi-legislative rather than quasi-

    Copyright:

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

    ABELLA, JR.

    v CSC
    GR No. 152574
    17 November 2004

    FACTS:

    Francisco Abella, Jr. had already retired from his position as the Department Manager of the
    Legal Services Department of Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) when he was hired
    as Department Manager III of the Labor and Employment Center of the Subic Bay Metropolitan
    Authority (SBMA). Prior to his hiring by the SBMA, however, a Memorandum Circular was
    issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) requiring all persons that would occupy third
    level positions, including managerial functions, in all branches and instrumentalities of the
    government to possess all the qualifications needed for each respective position. The said
    Circular would not affect those who were already holding permanent appointments. However,
    should an incumbent be promoted or transferred to another position, they shall be under
    temporary status until they qualify.

    Pursuant to the said Circular, the CSC disapproved Abella, Jr.'s appointment to the position in
    SBMA as his eligibility was not appropriate. The CSC denied his Motion for Reconsideration,
    so he brought the case to the CA, assailing the constitutionality of the Circular for being
    violative of his property rights (including his security of tenure) and his right to due process.
    The CA, however, did not decide on the constitutionality of the Circular as Abella, Jr. was
    deemed to not have the legal standing*, for only the appointing authority may question the
    disapproval of an appointment. Abella, Jr. then brought the case to the SC.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the CSC Memorandum Circular violated Abella, Jr.'s property and due process rights

    RULING:

    No.

    The Circular did not violate the petitioner's property rights, including his security of tenure.
    First, his eligibility from his previous job in PEZA that he had rightfully earned was not taken
    away from him. It was just that the new position requires a different set of qualifications.
    Furthermore, the position in SBMA was not his to begin with. He was still a new hire despite
    his years of experience in PEZA, and since the Circular took effect prior to his hiring, he
    must comply with every requirement for the position – in this case, the Career Service
    Executive Eligibility.

    He was also not deprived of his due process rights, specifically the notice and hearing
    requirements. The CSC exercised its quasi-legislative function in issuing the assailed Circular.
    Notice and hearing, as well as the other administrative due process requirements laid down in
    Ang Tibay v CIR, only apply when an administrative agency is exercising its quasi-judicial
    function. The Circular also did not need prior publication since it was an internal matter
    addressed to the heads of departments, bureaus, and agencies.
    *As regards the petitioner's legal standing, the SC ruled that not only did Abella, Jr. possess
    legal standing (constitutional matter) since he has personal stake in the matter, he also was a real
    party in interest (civil matter), for he would be benefited or injured by the judgment of the
    appointing authority. Despite the foregoing, the SC stood by the decision of the CSC to
    disapprove Abella Jr.'s appointment since the latter did not possess the necessary qualifications.

    You might also like