Case No.

045
Montecillo vs Civil Service Commission
G.R. No. 131954, June 28, 2001
QUISUMBING, J.:

Doctrine:
To our mind, this signifies that the enumeration found in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil Service
Decree, which defines the non-career service, is not an exclusive list. Respondent could supplement the
enumeration, as it did when it issued Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. of 1991, by specifying positions in
the civil service, which are considered primarily confidential and therefore their occupants are co-
terminous with the official they serve.

Facts:

Accordingly, while the personnel structure of the MCWD was being modified, three of its employees --
petitioners Asela B. Montecillo, Marilou Joan V. Ortega and Charrishe Dosdos -- applied for promotional
appointment to the position of "Secretary to the Assistant General Manager" or "Private Secretary C", as
the position later came to be known. At the time of their application, petitioners had been occupying the
position of "Department Secretary" and were employed in the MCWD for six to seven years.
When their appointments were forwarded to the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSC FO) by
MCWD General Manager Dulce Abanilla, the CSC FO refused to approve petitioners’ appointments as
"permanent" on the ground that the position applied for was a "primarily confidential" and "co-terminous"
position. This ruling was upheld by the CSC Regional Office2 and affirmed on appeal by respondent.

In its Resolution No. 972512, respondent based its conclusions on CSC Memorandum Circular No. 22,
Series of 1991
“However, it is noted that there are also Private Secretary positions found in the Offices of officials not
mentioned in Section 9, Chapter 2, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 but, whose duties likewise
required utmost confidentiality.
For consistency and uniformity, it is hereby declared, pursuant to Resolution No. 91-676, that all Private
Secretary positions irrespective of their locations are primarily confidential in nature. The term of office
of the appointees to said positions shall be coterminous with the official they serve.’

Upon denial of their motion for reconsideration by the CSC, petitioners brought this special civil action
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Issue:

W/O CSC unduly amended and expanded the scope of the non-career service under Section 6, Article IV
of the Civil Service Decree?

Held:

We find no merit in the present petition.

In the present case, there is no clear and persuasive showing that respondent grossly abused its discretion
or exceeded its powers when it issued the assailed circular. On the contrary, respondent was expressly
empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as may properly be classified as primarily
confidential under Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987.10 To our mind, this
signifies that the enumeration found in Section 6, Article IV of the Civil Service Decree, which defines
the non-career service, is not an exclusive list. Respondent could supplement the enumeration, as it did
when it issued Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. of 1991, by specifying positions in the civil service,
which are considered primarily confidential and therefore their occupants are co-terminous with the
official they serve.

In our view, the assailed memorandum circular cannot be deemed as an unauthorized amendment of the
law.