81 Rabor v.

CSC
G.R. No. 111812; May 31, 1995; FELICIANO, J.:kpm

SUBJECT MATTER: Retirement Pay

SUMMARY: Dionisio M. Rabor is a Utility Worker in the Office of the Mayor, Davao City. He entered the government service as a
Utility Worker at the age of 55 years. Rabor, upon the advice of an official to apply for retirement , responded by showing a GSIS
certificate with a notation to the effect that his service is extended for him to complete the 15-years requirement for
retirement. The Davao City Government wrote to the Regional Director of the CSC requesting advice as to what action should
be taken on Rabor’s case. Director Caward replied by saying that Rabor’s continued employment is 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. SC held that CSC and Office of Mayor
was correct in denying the petition for extension, based on the Admin Code and PD 1146. Petition denied

DOCTRINE:
Test of a valid subordinate legislation: All that may be reasonably; demanded is a showing that the delegated legislation
consisting of administrative regulations are germane to the general purposes projected by the governing or enabling statute.

SC concludes that the doctrine of Cena should be and is hereby modified to this extent: that Civil Service Memorandum Circular
No. 27, Series of 1990, more specifically paragraph (1) thereof, is hereby declared valid and effective (and shall be granted for a
period of not exceeding one (1) year)

Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146 must, accordingly, be read together with Memorandum Circular No. 27. ((b) … Provided, that if
he has less than fifteen (15) years of service, he shall he allowed to continue in the service to completed the fifteen (15) years)

We reiterate, however, the holding in Cena that the head of the government agency concerned is vested with discretionary
authority to allow or disallow extension of the service of an official or employee who has reached sixty-five (65) years of age
without completing fifteen (15) years of government service

FACTS:
Petitioner DIONISIO M. RABOR
Respondent CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Petitioner 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, Alma, D. Pagatpatan, an official in the Office of the, advised Rabor to apply for retirement, considering
that he had already reached the age of 68 years and 7 months, with 13 years and 1 month of government service. Rabor
responded to this advice by exhibiting a "Certificate of Membership" issued by the Government Service Insurance System
("GSIS") and dated 12 May 1988. At the bottom of this "Certificate of Membership" is a typewritten statement of the following
tenor: "Service extended to comply 15 years service requirements."

Davao City Government, through Ms. Pagatpatan, wrote to the Regional Director of the Civil Service Commission, Region XI,
Davao City ("CSRO-XI"), informing the latter of the foregoing and requesting advice "as to what action [should] be taken on this
matter."

Director Filemon B. Cawad of CSRO-XI advised Davao City Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte as follows:

Please be informed that the extension of services of Mr. Rabor is contrary to M.C. No. 65 of the Office of the
President, the relevant portion of which is hereunder quoted:
 Officials and employees who have reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years shall
not be retained the service, except for extremely meritorious reasons in which case the
retention shall not exceed six (6) months.

IN VIEW WHEREFORE, please be advised that the services of Mr. Dominador [M.] Rabor as Utility Worker in
that office, is already non-extend[i]ble.

Mayor Duterte furnished a copy of the 26 July 1991 letter of Director Cawad to Rabor and advised him " to stop reporting for
work effective August 16, 1991."

Letters sent by Rabor

1. Petitioner Rabor then sent to the Regional Director, CSRO-XI, a letter asking for extension of his services in the City
Government until he "shall have completed the fifteen (15) years service [requirement] in the Government so that [he] could
also avail of the benefits of the retirement laws given to employees of the Government." The extension was about two (2) years.
Asserting that he was "still in good health and very able to perform the duties and functions of [his] position as Utility Worker.-
REQUEST DENIED

2. Rabor next wrote to the Office of the President seeking reconsideration of the decision of Director Cawad. OP referred to
Chairman of CSC- REQUEST DENIED based on CSC Memo 27 (see table in ratio). MR denied

3. Rabor sent another letter to the Office of the Mayor- REQUEST DENIED

In this letter, Mayor Duterte pointed out that, under Cena grant of the extension of service was discretionary on the part of
the City Mayor, but that he could not grant the extension requested. Mayor Duterte's letter, in relevant part, read:

Much as we desire to extend you an appointment but circumstances are that we can no longer do so. As you
are already nearing your 70th birthday may no longer be able to perform the duties attached to your position.
Moreover, the position you had vacated was already filled up.

We therefore regret to inform you that we cannot act favorably on your request.

Petition for Certiorari to the SC

ISSUE: WON the CSC and the Office of the Mayor erred in denying Rabor’s request for extension of service? No

HELD: No

Petitioner- petitioner Rabor contends that his claim falls squarely within the ruling of this Court in Cena v. Civil Service
Commission

Gaudencio Cena was appointed Registrar of the Register of Deeds of Malabon. Before reaching his 65th birthday, Cena
requested the Secretary of Justice that he be allowed to extend his service to complete the fifteen-year service
requirement to enable him to retire with the full. If Cena's request were granted, he would complete fifteen (15) years
of government service at the age of sixty-eight (68) years.

SC granted Cena' s petition. Speaking through Mr. Justice Medialdea, the Court held that a government employee who
has reached the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65) years, but at the same time has not yet completed fifteen
(15) years of government service required under Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146 to qualify for the Old-Age Pension
Benefit, may be granted an extension of his government service for such period of time as may be necessary to "fill up"
or comply with the fifteen (15)-year service requirement. The Court also held that the authority to grant the extension
was a discretionary one vested in the head of the agency concerned.
The Court reached the above conclusion primarily on the basis of the "plain and ordinary meaning" of Section 11 (b) of P.D. No.
1146.

In Cena Case, Issuances in contention

CSC Circular No. 27 PD 1146 Sec 11(b)

1. Any request for the extension of service of
compulsory retirees to complete the fifteen (15) years
service requirement for retirement shall be allowed
only to permanent appointees in the career service
who are regular members of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), and shall be granted for a
period not exceeding one (1) year.
2. Any request for the extension of service of
compulsory retiree to complete the fifteen (15) years
service requirement for retirement who entered the
government service at 57 years of age or over upon
prior grant of authority to appoint him or her, shall
no longer be granted.
Sec. 11 Conditions for Old-Age Pension. — (a) Old-Age Pension shall
be paid to a member who
(1) has at least fifteen (15) years of service;
(2) is at least sixty (60) years of age; and
(3) is separated from the service.
(b) unless the service is extended by appropriate authorities,
retirement shall be compulsory for an employee at sixty-five-(65)
years of age with at least fifteen (15) years of service; Provided,
that if he has less than fifteen (15) years of service, he shall he
allowed to continue in the service to completed the fifteen (15)
years.

The Court in Cena considered invalid CSC Circular 27. SC held that administrative regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of
carrying into effect its general provisions. Circular cannot likewise be accorded validity because it has no relationship or
connection with any provision of P.D. 1146 supposed to be carried into effect

It will be seen that Cena, in striking down CSC Memo No. 27, took a very narrow view on the question of what subordinate rule-
making by an administrative agency is permissible and valid.

Test of a valid subordinate legislation: All that may be reasonably; demanded is a showing that the delegated legislation
consisting of administrative regulations are germane to the general purposes projected by the governing or enabling statute

IN THIS CASE

SC: We consider that the enabling statute that should appropriately be examined is the present Civil Service law — found in
Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, of the Administrative Code of 1987 — and not alone P.D. No. 1146. For the matter of extension of
service of retirees who have reached sixty-five (65) years of age is an area that is covered by both statutes and not alone by
Section 11 (b) of P.D. 1146.

Our conclusion is that the doctrine of Cena should be and is hereby modified to this extent: that CSC Memo 27, Series of 1990,
more specifically paragraph (1) thereof, is hereby declared valid and effective (and shall be granted for a period of not
exceeding one (1) year)

Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146 must, accordingly, be read together with Memorandum Circular No. 27. ((b) … Provided, that if
he has less than fifteen (15) years of service, he shall he allowed to continue in the service to completed the fifteen (15) years)

SC reiterates the holding in Cena that the head of the government agency concerned is vested with discretionary
authority to allow or disallow extension of the service of an official or employee who has reached sixty-five (65) years of
age without completing fifteen (15) years of government service; this discretion is, nevertheless, to be exercised conformably
with the provisions of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 27 (because the Mayor chose to deny the request, it is a valid
exercise of his discretion
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed