G.R. No.

155336             November 25, 2004

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (CHREA) Represented by its

President, MARCIAL A. SANCHEZ, JR., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, respondent.

Facts:
On 04 September, the Commission on Human Rights, through its Chairperson and Commissioners
promulgated a resolution adopting an upgrading and reclassification scheme among selected
positions in the Commission. To support this, the CHR, authorized the augmentation of
commensurate amount generated from savings under Personnel Services. The CHR forwarded the
modification and upgrading scheme to the DBM for its approval, but was denied. It was also
recommended to the Civil Service Commission Central Office that the appointments be rejected
owing to the DBM’s disapproval thereof. The officers of petitioner CHREA request the CSC-CO to
affirm said recommendation and reiterated that DBM is the only agency with appropriate authority
mandated by law to evaluate and approve matters of reclassification and upgrading. However, the
CSC-CO denied CHREA’s request and reversed the recommendation to affirm the decision of DBM.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the pronouncement of the CSC CO and upheld the validity of the
upgrading and reclassification scheme in the CHR on the grounds that it is within the ambit of
CHR’s fiscal autonomy.

Issue:
Whether or not the CHR can validly implement an upgrading, reclassification, creation, and
collapsing of plantilla positions therein without prior approval of the DBM

Held:
No. Germane to our discussion is Rep. Act No. 6758 or the Salary Standardization Law, which
provides that it is the DBM that shall establish and administer a unified Compensation and Position
Classification System. The disputation of the Court of Appeals that the CHR is exempt from the long
arm of the Salary Standardization Law is flawed considering that the coverage thereof, as defined
above, encompasses the entire gamut of government offices, sans qualification. It is within the turf
of the DBM Secretary to disallow the upgrading, reclassification, and creation of additional plantilla
positions in the CHR based on its finding that such scheme lacks legal justification.
CHR itself recognizes the authority of the DBM to deny or approve the proposed reclassification of
positions as evidenced by its three letters to the DBM requesting approval thereof. As such, it is
now estopped from now claiming that the nod of approval it has previously sought from the DBM is
a superfluity.