Rabor V. Csc

Rabor v. CSC Facts: Dionisio M. Rabor is a Utility Worker in the Office of the Mayor, Davao City. He entered the government service as a Utility Worker on 10 April 1978 at the age of 55 years. Sometime in May 1991, an official in the Office of the Mayor of Davao City, advised Dionisio M. Rabor to apply for retirement, considering that he had already more than 68 years old. Rabor responded by showing a GSIS certificate with a notation to the effect that his service is extended for him to complete the 15years requirement for retirement. The Davao City Government wrote to the Regional Director of the Civil Service Commission, Region XI, Davao City informing the latter of the foregoing and requesting advice as to what action should be taken on Rabor’s case. Director Caward replied by saying that Rabor’s continued employment is contrary to OP M.C. No. 65 hence, it is non-extendible. Mayor Duterte furnished Rabor a copy of Cawad’s letter and order him not to work anymore. Rabor asked Director Cawad for extension of his job until he completed the 15-year requirement but was denied. Rabor then asked OP for an extension. His request was referred by OP to CSC and thereafter CSC denied Rabor’s request. Rabor asked for reconsidered of CSC ruling citing Cena case but was denied. Rabor reiterated his request to Mayor Duterte but was rebuffed. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON Rabor request for extension should be granted in view of Cena case Held: No. Cena doctrine overturned. In Cena v. CSC, the Court reached its conclusion primarily on the basis of the "plain and ordinary meaning" of Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146. While Section 11 (b) appeared cast in verbally unqualified terms, there were (and still are) two (2) administrative issuances which prescribe limitations on the extension of service that may be granted to an employee who has reached sixty-five (65) years of age. These are CSC Circular No. 27, s. 1990 and OP M.C. No. 65. The Court resolved the challenges posed by the above two (2) administrative regulations by, firstly, considering as invalid Civil Service Memorandum No. 27 and, secondly, by interpreting the Office of the President's Memorandum Circular No. 65 as inapplicable to the case of Gaudencio T. Cena. Nevertheless, the Court now ruled that the SC in Cena made a narrow interpretation. It is incorrect to decide the issue on the basis only of PD 1146. Reading the pertinent provisions the Admin Code particularly the provisions governing the CSC, it is clear that both the Admin Code and PD 1146 are the governing laws relating to retirement of government officials and employees. It was on the basis of the above quoted provisions of the 1987 Administrative Code that the Civil Service Commission promulgated its Memorandum Circular No. 27. In doing so, the Commission was acting as "the central personnel agency of the government empowered to promulgate policies, standards and guidelines for efficient, responsive and effective personnel administration in the government." It was also discharging its function of "administering the retirement program for government officials and employees" and of "evaluat[ing] qualifications for retirement." It is also incorrect to say that limitation of permissible extensions of service after an employee has reached sixty-five (65) years of age has no reasonable relationship or

is not germane to the foregoing provisions of the present Civil Service Law. The physiological and psychological processes associated with ageing in human beings are in fact related to the efficiency and quality of the service that may be expected from individual persons. CSC Memo No. 27 is not invalid for having gone beyond the parameters set by PD 1146. In fact what the legislature intends is that the CSC should “fill in the details” in the implementation of PD 1146.