# 2 Funa vs. Duque, G.R. No. 191672, Nov.

25, 2014
Facts: On January 11, 2010, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Duque as Chairman of the CSC. The
Commission on Appointments confirmed Duques appointment on February 3, 2010. Petitioner asserts that EO 864 and
Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 violate the independence of the CSC, which was constitutionally
created to be protected from outside influences and political pressures due to the significance of its government
functions.

ISSUE 1: Does the designation of Duque as member of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC
and HDMF, in an ex officio capacity, impair the independence of the CSC and violate the constitutional prohibition
against the holding of dual or multiple offices for the Members of the Constitutional Commissions?

RULING: Yes. The GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF are also tasked to perform other corporate powers and functions
that are not personnel-related. All of these powers and functions, whether personnel-related or not, are carried out and
exercised by the respective Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF. Hence, when the CSC Chairman sits as a
member of the governing Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF, he may exercise these powers and functions,
which are not anymore derived from his position as CSC Chairman, such as imposing interest on unpaid or unremitted
contributions, issuing guidelines for the accreditation of health care providers, or approving restructuring proposals in
the payment of unpaid loan amortizations. The Court also notes that Duques designation as member of the governing
Boards of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF entitles him to receive per diem, a form of additional compensation
that is disallowed by the concept of an ex officio position by virtue of its clear contravention of the proscription set by
Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. This situation goes against the principle behind an ex officio position,
and must, therefore, be held unconstitutional.

ISSUE 2: Is Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 valid and constitutional?

Ruling: Yes. Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 is clear that the CSC Chairmans membership in a governing
body is dependent on the condition that the functions of the government entity where he will sit as its Board member
must affect the career development, employment status, rights, privileges, and welfare of government officials and
employees. Based on this, the Court finds no irregularity in Section 14, Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 because
matters affecting the career development, rights and welfare of government employees are among the primary
functions of the CSC and are consequently exercised through its Chairman. The CSC Chairmans membership therein
must, therefore, be considered to be derived from his position as such. Accordingly, the constitutionality of Section 14,
Chapter 3, Title I-A, Book V of EO 292 is upheld.

3. Torres vs. De Leon

GR no. 199440
January 18,2016
FACTS:When Mary Lou Geturbos Torres,petitioner was the Chapter Administrator of the PNRC, General Santos City
Chapter, the PNRC Internal Auditing Office conducted an audit of the funds and accounts of the PNRC, based on the
audit report submitted to respondent Corazon Alma G. De Leon ,petitioner incurred a "technical shortage" in the
amount of P4,306,574.23.
Respondent De Leon in a Memorandum dated January 3, 2007, formally charged petitioner with Grave Misconduct for
violating PNRC Financial Policies on Oversubscription, Remittances and Disbursement of Funds.
The CSC, on April 21, 2008, promulgated a Resolution dismissing petitioner's appeal and imposing upon her the penalty
of dismissal from service.

ISSUE: Does the CSC have appellate jurisdiction over dismissal orders of PNRC employees by its Board since PRC is sui
generis?

RULING: The sui generis character of PNRC requires us to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case
basis.4CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC because the issue at hand is the enforcement of labor laws and penal statutes,
thus, in this particular matter, the PNRC can be treated as a GOCC, and as such, it is within the ambit of Rule I, Section 1
of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act 67135, stating that:
Section 1. These Rules shall cover all officials and employees in the government, elective and appointive, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not they
receive compensation, regardless of amount.
Thus, having jurisdiction over the PNRC, the CSC had authority to modify the penalty and order the dismissal of
petitioner from the service.

#4 Estrellado vs CSC Chair David, GR No. 184288, Feb. 16, 2016 FACTS:
After screening the applicants on January 15, 2004, the LTO-CO-SPB recommended to the LTO the appointment of
Hipolito R. Garboni and Roberto S. Se to the vacant positions of TRO II and AO IV within the LTO Law Enforcement
Service. Thereafter, petitioners Eric N. Estrellado, TRO 1, and Jossie M. Borja, Records Officer III, who were also
applicants for the aforementioned positions and in their alleged capacities as next-in-rank employees, filed with the CSC-
NCR a petition to declare the LTO-CO-SPB selection procedure null and void. They alleged, among others, that Garboni
and Se did not meet the requirements for the positions of TRO II and AO IV. On April 21, 2004, the CSC-NCR referred the
petition to the LTO Grievance Committee, which did 'not find merit in complainants' grievances' and dismissed the
petition in a Resolution dated August 12, 2004. Petitioners consecutive appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Will the claimed next-in-rank status of petitioners guarantee them of promotion or appointment to the position aspired
for?

RULING:
NO. The next-in-rank status of a government employee is not a guarantee to one's fitness to the position aspired for,
and the applicant must go through the rigors of a screening and selection process as determined and conducted by a
department or agency, subject only to the standards and guidelines set by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). This is in
keeping with the ideal of promoting through merit rather than entitlement, and thus ensuring that government service
is rewarded with the best fit.

CASE #5:

Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. 168951, July 17, 20131

FACTS:
Dr. Posadas was Chancellor of UP Diliman starting Nov. 1, 1993 to Oct. 31, 1996. On June 1995, UP established the UP
Technology Management Center (UP TMC), which nominated Dr. Posadas as Project Director. He declined the nomination
resulting in the designation of Professor Jose Tabbada as acting UP TMC Director. Shortly after, Dr. Posadas worked on a
TMC Project, funded at Dr. Posadas initiative by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). On Oct. 5, 1995,
Dr. Posadas attended an event in China. Before he left, Dr. Posadas formally designated Dr. Dayco as OIC in his absence.
On his last day as OIC Chancellor, Dr. Dayco appointed Dr. Posadas as Project Director of the TMC Project from Sept. 18,
1995 to Sept. 17, 1996.

ISSUE:
By holding concurrent positions as University Chancellor and TMC Project Director, did Dr. Posadas violate the
constitutional provision against double employment and double compensation?

RULING:
Yes. The MOA between UP and the CIDA for the establishment of the TMC Project provided that the services of the
contractual personnel of the University for the Project shall be discontinued upon its completion or termination. His
multiple positions fall under the prohibition since there is no distinction in Sec. 7, Art. IX-B as to employment status,
whether permanent, temporary, or coterminous with the TMC Projects period. Said constitutional provision and Sec. 1 &
2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 provides that double compensation is only allowed if
so authorized by law. Petitioners failed to cite any law providing so.

13. Funa vs MECO

GR no. 194462
Feb 4,2014
FACTS: On 23 August 2010, petitioner sent a letter18 to the COA requesting for a "copy of the latest financial and audit
report" of the MECO invoking, for that purpose, his "constitutional right to information on matters of public concern."
The petitioner made the request on the belief that the MECO, being under the "operational supervision" of the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), is a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) and thus subject to
the audit jurisdiction of the COA.19
Petitioners letter was received by COA Assistant Commissioner Jaime P. Naranjo, the following day.
On 25 August 2010, Assistant Commissioner Naranjo issued a memorandum20 referring the petitioners request to COA
Assistant Commissioner Emma M. Espina for "further disposition." In this memorandum, however, Assistant
Commissioner Naranjo revealed that the MECO was "not among the agencies audited by any of the three Clusters of the
Corporate Government Sector."21

ISSUE: Is MECO a governmental entity?? If not, are its accounts subject to the COA audit?

RULING: No. MECO is a non-governmental entity. However, under existing laws, the accounts of the MECO pertaining to
the "verification fees" it collects on behalf of the DOLE as well as the fees it was authorized to collect under Section 2(6)
of EO No. 15, s. 2001, are subject to the audit jurisdiction of the COA. Such fees pertain to the government and should
be audited by the COA.