The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) erred in disapproving Richard S. Rebong’s promotion to Intelligence Officer V (IO V). The Court emphasized that assignments involving management and supervision should be credited as relevant experience, even if those duties were performed while holding a lower-level position. This decision clarifies that the focus should be on the actual duties performed, rather than the formal title, in determining whether an employee meets the qualification standards for a higher post, impacting future promotion assessments in the civil service.

When Team Leadership Bridges the Qualification Gap: Can Experience Trump Formal Designation?

This case revolves around Richard S. Rebong, an employee of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), whose permanent appointment as Intelligence Officer V (IO V) was initially disapproved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC argued that Rebong did not meet the required experience and training qualifications for the position. The core legal question is whether Rebong’s prior experience as an Intelligence Agent 1 (IA 1), during which he served as a Team Leader and Field Officer, should be credited towards the managerial and supervisory experience required for the IO V position.

Rebong had served as IA 1 in the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) and later in the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) of the BOC for a combined period of approximately 13 years. During this time, he was assigned as Team Leader and Field Officer, managing teams and supervising operations related to customs intelligence and investigation. However, the CSC argued that as an IA 1, a first-level position, Rebong could not be designated to perform duties pertaining to second-level positions, and therefore his experience as Team Leader and Field Officer should not be considered.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the CSC’s decision, holding that the Qualification Standards for the IO V position do not require experience in positions that are managerial and supervisory per se, but only positions involving management and supervision. The CA also found that Rebong’s assignments as Team Leader and Field Officer were reflective of his duties as IA 1 and were merely an implementation of his duties as such. Therefore, the CA concluded that Rebong’s assignments should be credited towards his compliance with the Qualification Standards.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the CA’s decision, emphasized that the focus should be on the actual duties performed by the employee, rather than the formal designation of the position. The Court cited its previous rulings in Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation and Sevilla v. Court of Appeals to clarify the concept of designation. In these cases, the Court explained that designation connotes an imposition of additional duties upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment, and that it does not necessarily entail payment of additional benefits or grant the right to claim the salary attached to the position.

Building on this understanding, the Supreme Court underscored that Rebong’s assignments as Team Leader and Field Officer, while holding the position of IA 1, simply meant additional duties on his part. The Court also noted that in refusing to credit Rebong’s assignments as relevant experience, the CSC merely stated that Rebong performed duties pertaining to second-level positions without specifying what those duties were. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that even if the CSC was correct in saying that Rebong should not have performed the duties of a second-level position, the fact remains that he served as IA 1 for a significant period, and his experience therein should be counted in his favor for purposes of promotion.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the prohibition against designating a first-level position holder to a second-level position, but noted that CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06-05 does not provide for the consequences of such designation. In this instance, the Court highlighted that the circular does not explicitly state that such service would not be credited in the employee’s favor for purposes of promotion. By emphasizing this point, the Court implied that unless explicitly stated, practical experience gained while performing duties beyond one’s official designation should still be considered relevant for promotion purposes.

The CSC also argued that Rebong’s appointment violated the three-salary-grade rule, which provides that an employee may be promoted or transferred to a position which is not more than three salary grades higher than the employee’s present position. However, the Supreme Court held that this rule is subject to the exception of “very meritorious cases,” as provided in CSC Resolution No. 03-0106. The Court found that Rebong fell under this exception, considering his educational achievements, specialized trainings, relevant work experience, and the appointing authority’s belief that he was the most qualified candidate for the position.

The Supreme Court emphasized that appointment is an essentially discretionary power exercised by the head of an agency, who is most knowledgeable to decide who can best perform the functions of the office. As long as the appointee possesses the qualifications required by law, the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. The Court reiterated that it is not within the power of the Civil Service Commission to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Richard Rebong’s experience as a Team Leader and Field Officer, while holding a lower-level position, should be credited towards the managerial and supervisory experience required for the Intelligence Officer V position. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) disapproved his promotion based on this lack of experience, but the Supreme Court ultimately sided with Rebong.
What did the Civil Service Commission (CSC) argue?	The CSC contended that Rebong, as a first-level employee, could not perform second-level duties and, therefore, his Team Leader and Field Officer roles should not count towards the required experience for the IO V position. They maintained that his designation violated civil service rules.
How did the Court of Appeals (CA) rule?	The CA reversed the CSC’s decision, stating the tasks performed were reflective of his Intelligence Agent 1 duties, and he was tasked to manage operations and supervise team members. The appellate court emphasized that the positions involved management and supervision.
What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the focus should be on the actual duties performed by the employee, rather than the formal designation of the position. The Court cited its previous rulings in Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation and Sevilla v. Court of Appeals to clarify the concept of designation.
What is the three-salary-grade rule, and how does it apply here?	The three-salary-grade rule states that an employee may be promoted or transferred to a position that is not more than three salary grades higher than their current position. The Supreme Court found that Rebong fell under the exception of “very meritorious cases” due to his educational achievements, specialized trainings, relevant work experience, and the appointing authority’s belief that he was the most qualified candidate.
What are the implications of this decision for civil service appointments?	This decision emphasizes that the actual duties performed by an employee should be given significant weight when evaluating their qualifications for a higher position, even if those duties were performed while holding a lower-level position. It reinforces that the assessment of qualifications should be pragmatic and focused on real-world experience.
What is the significance of the appointing authority’s opinion in this case?	The Supreme Court underscored that appointment is a discretionary power exercised by the agency head, who knows best who can fulfill the office’s functions. Because he possessed the needed qualifications, the appointment should not be questioned on the basis of others being more qualified.
What is the main principle regarding designation versus appointment?	The court distinguishes between designation and appointment, clarifying that designation merely imposes additional duties without conferring tenure or additional compensation. It also emphasized that an employee’s actual performance of duties, even if assigned through designation, is relevant in assessing qualifications for promotion.

This case serves as a reminder that the Civil Service Commission should adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach when evaluating the qualifications of candidates for promotion, focusing on the actual duties performed and the skills acquired, rather than relying solely on formal titles and designations. This ruling ensures that qualified employees are not unfairly disadvantaged due to rigid interpretations of civil service rules, ultimately contributing to a more efficient and effective public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Civil Service Commission vs Rebong, G.R. No. 215932, June 03, 2019