Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. ANNANG, G.R. NO. 225895 (SEPTEMBER 28, 2022):
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER CONTRACT OF SERVICES CANNOT BE CREDITED AS GOVERNMENT SERVICE UNDER CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS
The present controversy stems from the request for accreditation of Dr. Roselle Annang (“Dr. Annang”) who taught under Contract of Services arrangement in Cagayan State University (“CSU”). The Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) denied Dr. Annang’s request for accreditation not only because it was filed out of time but it is also against Civil Service laws, rules and regulations. On Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the CSC.
In its Decision dated September 28, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals. First, the Supreme Court held that request for accreditation of government service is governed under Section 100, Rule 21 of the CSC Resolution No. 1101502, or the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (“RRACCS”). The said provision provides that officials and employees who rendered actual services in government pursuant to defective appointments or without appointment may seek for accreditation of the actual services. However, the same provision of the RRACCS provides an exception that those who have retired may no longer avail of the said request for accreditation. In this case, Dr. Annang retired on October 20, 2012 and filed the request only on March 11, 2013.
Second, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred when it relied and applied the so-called Four-Fold Test being applied to determine employer-employee relationship in the private sector. The Court held that the appellate court should have primarily relied on Civil Services laws, rules and regulations to determine the relationship of CSU and Dr. Annang.
Third, the Supreme Court held that Civil Services laws, rules and regulations do not recognize services rendered pursuant to Contract of Service as government service. This is specifically provided for under Section 1, Rule XI of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, or the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.
Fourth, the Supreme Court brushed aside respondent Annang’s vacillation that her services were considered integral to the function of CSU as a university that she cannot be engaged through contract of services. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Dr. Annang and CSU expressly provides that it was entered into because, “it is not possible to hire on casual or contractual basis, and that it is done in the exigency of service.” Given such circumstance, the Supreme Court observed that CSC Resolution No. 021480 allowed CSU to engage Dr. Annang as a part-time faculty member under a contract of service. From the foregoing, the Supreme Court held that Dr. Annang’s years as a part-time faculty of CSU cannot be credited as government service under Civil Services laws, rules and regulations.