TIDCORP v. CSC

TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, (G)
G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 2013

FACTS:

• August 30, 2001, Arsemio de Guzman was appointed on a permanent status as Financial Management Specialist IV of TIDCORP, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1080. His appointment was included in TIDCORP’s Report on Personnel Actions (ROPA) for August 2001, which was submitted to the CSC – Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Field Office.
• September 28, 2001, Director Leticia M. Bugtong disallowed De Guzman’s appointment because the position of Financial Management Specialist IV was not included in the DBM’s Index of Occupational Service.
• TIDCORP’s Executive Vice President Jane U. Tambanillo appealed the invalidation of De Guzman’s appointment to Director IV Agnes Padilla of the CSC- NCR. According to Tambanillo, Republic Act No. 8494, which amended TIDCORP’s charter, empowers its Board of Directors to create its own organizational structure and staffing pattern, and to approve its own compensation and position classification system and qualification standards.
• CSC-NCR Director Padilla denied Tambanillo’s appeal because De Guzman’s appointment failed to comply with Section 1, Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, which requires that the position title of an appointment submitted to the CSC must conform with the approved Position Allocation List and must be found in the Index of Occupational Service. Since the position of Financial Management Specialist IV is not included in the Index of Occupational Service, de Guzman’s appointment to this position must be invalid.
• TIDCORP’s President and CEO Joel C. Valdes sent CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David a Letter appealing Director Padilla’s decision to the CSC-Central Office (CO). Valdes reiterated TIDCORP’s argument that RA 8494 authorized its Board of Directors to determine its own organizational structure and staffing pattern, and exempted TIDCORP from all existing laws on compensation, position classification and qualification standards.
• In its Resolution No. 30144, the CSC-CO affirmed the CSC-NCR’s decision that de Guzman’s appointment should have complied with CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15. Rule III, Section 1(c) is explicit in requiring that the position title indicated in the appointment should conform with the Position Allocation List and found in the Index of Occupational Service. Otherwise, the appointment shall be disapproved. In disallowing De Guzman’s appointment, the CSC-CO held that Director Bugtong was simply following the letter of the law.
• TIDCORP moved to reconsider the CSC-CO’s decision, but this motion was denied, prompting TIDCORP to file a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA. The petition asserted that the CSC-CO committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 030144 and Resolution No. 031037.
• CA denied TIDCORP’s petition and upheld the ruling of the CSC-CO in Resolution No. 30144 and Resolution No. 31037. The CA noted that filing a petition for certiorari was an improper recourse; TIDCORP should have instead filed a petition for review under Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA, however, brushed aside the procedural defect, ruling that the assailed resolutions should still stand as they are consistent with law and jurisprudence.
• In its present petition for review on certiorari, TIDCORP argued that the CSC’s interpretation of RA 8494 is misplaced

ISSUE:

• Whether or not RA 8494 command TIDCORP to follow issued requirements pursuant to the Position Classification Act despite its exemption from laws involving position classification.

HELD:

• No, under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain-meaning rule or verba legis is derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) and rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent and preclude the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.
• The phrase "to endeavour" means to "to devote serious and sustained effort" and "to make an effort to do." It is synonymous with the words to strive, to struggle and to seek. The use of "to endeavour" in the context of RA 8494 means that despite TIDCORP’s exemption from laws involving compensation, position classification and qualification standards, it should still strive to conform as closely as possible with the principles and modes provided in RA 6758. The phrase "as closely as possible," which qualifies TIDCORP’s duty "to endeavour to conform," recognizes that the law allows TIDCORP to deviate from the Position Classification Act, but it should still try to hew closely with its principles and modes. Had the intent of Congress been to require TIDCORP to fully, exactly and strictly comply with the Position Classification Act, it would have so stated in unequivocal terms. Instead, the mandate it gave TIDCORP was to endeavour to conform to the principles and modes of RA 6758, and not to the entirety of this law.