FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 225895. September 28, 2022 ]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. ROSELLE C.

ANNANG, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the October 6, 2015 Decision[2] and the
July 19, 2016 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135765,
which reversed and set aside petitioner Civil Service Commission (CSC)'s Decision No.
140384 dated May 20, 2014,[4] and denied its Motion for
[5]
Reconsideration, respectively.

Antecedents

Sometime in 2005, the Cagayan State University (CSU) engaged the services of Dr.
Roselle C. Annang (Dr. Annang) as a part-time faculty member through a six-month
service contract.[6] The parties stipulated that there would be no employer-employee
relationship between them; that Dr. Annang's service will not be credited as government
service; that she will not be entitled to the benefits enjoyed by the regular personnel of
CSU; and that the contract is not subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations. [7]

The contract was renewed five times, lasting for a total of two years and six
months.[8] Thereafter, Dr. Annang was appointed as Assistant Professor III, a permanent
position she held until her retirement in 2012.[9]

Sometime in 2013, when she was already retired, Dr. Annang filed a request for the
accreditation of her two years and six months of service as parttime faculty member of
CSU, in order to reach the 15 years of government service required to avail the benefits
under Section 13 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8291,[10] otherwise known as the Revised
Government Insurance Act of 1997.[11] Without the said accreditation, Dr. Annang
would only have 14 years and four months of government service.[12]

The CSC Regional Office No. II in Tuguegarao City referred the request to the CSC
Central Office, which it rejected.[13] The CSC Central Office cited a memorandum
circular providing that services rendered under contracts of service are not considered
government service.[14]

Aggrieved, Dr. Annang moved for a reconsideration, which was treated by the CSC as
a Petition for Review.[15]

Ruling of the Civil Service Commission

The CSC dismissed Dr. Annang's Petition for Review, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on the denial of her request for accreditation
of service filed by Roselle C. Annang, retired faculty member, Cagayan State University
(CSU) is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the services rendered by Annang from
June 14, 2005 to December 16, 2007 as part-time faculty member under the status of
contract of service/job order cannot be credited as government service.[16]
In denying the petition, the CSC held that an employee who has already retired may no
longer request for accreditation;[17] that Dr. Annang was not issued an
appointment;[18] that the pertinent CSC rule provides that "in contracts of services, there
exists no employer-employee relationship between the hiring agency and the persons
hired and it should be made clear in their contracts that services rendered thereunder
can never be accredited as government service;"[19] that there is lack of power and
control on the part of CSU with respect to the means and methods by which Dr.
Annang's work was to be accomplished;[20] and that Dr. Annang was not required to
render services during the university's prescribed office hours. [21]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the CSC Decision, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, CSC Decision No. 140384 dated 20 May 2014
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The services rendered by petitioner for the
period of 14 June 2005 to 16 December 2005 under contracts of service are hereby
credited as government service.

SO ORDERED.[22]
The CA held that under the four-fold test, there was an employer-employee relationship
between the parties;[23] that Dr. Annang's work was integral to the main purpose and
business of CSU;[24] that under CSC rules, contracts of service involving work
performed by regular faculty member may only be entered into by the CSU when there
is exigency of service, and here there was none;[25] that Dr. Annang was not treated
differently from her tenured counterparts;[26] that there was no need for Dr. Annang to
be appointed first before her services can be considered as government service; [27] and
that the issue of whether Dr. Annang can avail of the retirement benefits under RA 8291
is beyond the jurisdiction of the CSC.[28]

The CSC filed a Motion for Reconsideration [29] but this was denied by the CA in the
assailed Resolution.[30] Hence, the Petition.[31]

Issue

Did the appellate court err in reversing the CSC?

Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.

Dr. Annang, having

already retired, may no
longer request for
accreditation of service

The records show that the present controversy stemmed from the CSC's denial of Dr.
Annang's request for accreditation of service. Requests for accreditation are governed
by Section 100, Rule 21 of CSC Resolution No. 1101502, or the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).[32] Section 100 reads:
SECTION 100. Request for Accreditation of Service. — Officials and employees who
rendered actual services pursuant to defective appointments or without any
appointment except those who have already retired, may request the inclusion of said
services in their official service record in the Commission. (Emphasis supplied)
As expressly provided, those who have already retired may no longer request for
accreditation. Aside from being clear on the wording, this is also the ruling of the Court
in Cubillo v. Social Security System,[33] where it held that "[e]mployees and officials
who have already retired can no longer request for accreditation."[34]

Here, petitioner retired from service on October 20, 2012.[35] However, she only filed
the request on March 11, 2013.[36] Clearly, under Section 100 of Rule 21, she may no
longer request for accreditation. Hence, on this ground alone, the appellate court should
have upheld the CSC's denial of Dr. Annang's request.

The relationship between

the government and its
supposed employees is
primarily determined by
special and civil service
laws, rules, and
regulations

In reversing the CSC, the appellate court applied the four-fold test to determine whether
there was an employer-employee relationship between CSU and Dr. Annang.[37] The
CA heavily relied on the 2005 case of Lopez v. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS)[38] (Lopez), where the Court, after applying the same test, found and
declared the petitioner bill collectors to be employees of MWSS despite the contrary
stipulation in their service contracts.[39]

However, it should be noted that the Court has already abandoned Lopez in the 2016
case of National Transmission Corp. v. Commission on Audit,[40] where it held that
rather than the four-fold test and the other standards provided in the Labor Code, it is
the special and civil service laws, rules, and regulations which primarily determine the
relationship between the government and its alleged employees.[41] The Court aptly
discussed:
Lopez revisited

x x x x

In finding for therein petitioners that they were regular government employees, the
Court applied the four-fold test, and found that the functions they performed [were]
reasonably necessary to the business of the MWSS. For the said reasons, they were
considered regular government employees despite the absence of approval or attestation
by the CSC.

It must be remembered, however, that the rules of employment in private practice differs
from government service. As astutely explained by our colleague Justice Marvic
Leonen, that while a private employer should apply the four-fold test in determining
employer-employee relationship as it is strictly bound by the labor code, a government
employer or GOCC, must, apart from applying the four-fold test, comply with the rules
of the CSC in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship.

The difference between private and public employment is readily apparent in our legal
landscape. For one, the Labor Code recognizes that the terms and conditions of
employment of all government employees, including those of GOCCs, shall be
governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations. Particularly, in cases of GOCCs
created by special law, the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are
particularly governed by its charter.

Thus, it is high time that the pronouncements in Lopez be abandoned. The

authorities cited in the said case pertained to private employers. As such, it was
expected that the four-fold test, the reasonable necessity of the duties performed[,]
and other standards set forth in the Labor Code were used in determining
employer-employee relationship. None of the cases cited involved the government
as the employer, which poses a different employer-employee relationship from that
which is present in private employment.

Also, the Lopez case was never cited as an authority in determining employer-
employee relationship between the government and its employees. Consequently,
it is best that Lopez be abandoned because it sets a precarious precedent as it fixes
employer-employee relationship in the public sector in disregard of civil service
laws, rules and regulations.

To summarize, employer-employee relationship in the public sector is primarily

determined by special laws, civil service laws, rules and regulations. While the
four-fold test and other standards set forth in the labor code may aid in
ascertaining the relationship between the government and its purported
employees, they cannot be overriding factors over the conditions and requirements
for public employment as provided for by civil service laws, rules and
regulations.[42] (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the foregoing, the appellate court should have primarily relied on the pertinent
civil service laws, rules, and regulations to determine the relationship between CSU and
Dr. Annang, and to asce1iain whether the service rendered by the latter should be
counted as government service. For mainly relying on the four-fold test, the CA
committed a reversible error.

Civil service rules do not

recognize service rendered
pursuant to contracts of
service as government
service

Section 1, Rule XI of CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 40-98, or the Revised
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions,[43] expressly states that
services rendered under contracts of service are not considered government
service, viz.:
SECTION 1. Contracts of Services/Job Orders, as distinguished from those covered
under Sec. 2 (e) and (f), RULE III of these Rules, need not be submitted to the
Commission. Services rendered thereunder are not considered government
services. (Emphasis supplied)
The provision is reiterated in CSC Resolution No. 020790, or the Policy Guidelines for
Contracts of Services,[44] viz.:
Section 1. Definitions. The terms hereunder shall be construed, as follows:

a. Individual Contract of Services/ Job Order - refers to employment described as

follows:

1. The contract covers lump sum work or services such as janitorial, security, or
consultancy where no employer-employee relationship exists between the individual
and the government.

2. The job order covers piece of work or intermittent job of short duration not exceeding
six months and pay is on a daily basis;

3. The contract of services and job order are not covered by Civil Service law, rules and
regulations, but covered by Commission on Audit (COA) rules;

4. The employees involved in the contract or job order do not enjoy the benefits enjoyed
by government employees, such as PERA, ACA and RATA.

5. Services rendered thereunder are not considered as government

service. (Emphasis supplied)
And in CSC Resolution No. 021480 or the Clarifications on Policy Guidelines for
Contracts of Services,[45] viz.:
Section 1. a. Contract of Service - refers to the engagement of the services of a person,
private firm, nongovernmental agency or international organization to undertake a
specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not available in the agency to
be accomplished within a specific period not exceeding one (1) year. The person
engaged performs or accomplishes the specific work or job under his own responsibility
and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency. For purposes of this issuance,
contract of services shall include the hiring of consultants and personnel engaged to
perform work for special projects whether funded by the agency itself or externally
funded.

b. Job Order - refers to the hiring of a worker for piece work or intermittent job of short
duration not exceeding six months and pay is on a daily or hourly basis. It is to be
understood that the piece work or job to be performed requires special or technical skills
not available in the agency and the same is to be accomplished under the worker's own
responsibility and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency.

A contract of service or job order which does not cover special or technical skills or
where the functions to be performed are clerical or administrative in nature or where
the work is also performed by the regular personnel of the agency may be entered only
when done in the exigency of the service and it is not feasible for the agency to hire said
services under a casual or contractual appointment.

In contracts of services and job orders, there exists no employer-employee relationship

between the hiring agency and the persons hired and it should be made clear in their
contracts that services rendered thereunder can never be accredited as government
service. Furthermore, the persons hired are not entitled to benefits enjoyed by
government employees such as PERA, ACA and RATA. (Emphasis supplied)
In her Comment,[46] Dr. Annang points out that under CSC rules, contracts of service
are described as covering "lump-sum work or services such as janitorial, security[,] or
consultancy services," and "specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not
available in the agency."[47] Since her work is far from being janitorial or security-
related in nature, and is actually integral and indispensable to the business of CSU as a
state university, Dr. Annang argues that her contract cannot be considered as a contract
of service.[48]

Indeed, CSC MC No. 40-98 and CSC Resolution No. 021480 generally describe
contracts of service as covering "lump-sum work or services such as janitorial,
security[,] or consultancy services"[49] and "specific work or job requiring special or
technical skills not available in the agency."[50] However, CSC Resolution No. 021480
(the latest CSC issuance concerning contracts of service at that time) also recognizes
that a contract of service may cover those not requiring special or technical skills, and
those performed by the regular personnel of the agency—such as Dr. Annang's work as
a teacher—"when done in the exigency of the service and it is not feasible for the
agency to hire said services under a casual or contractual appointment," viz.:
Section 1. a. Contract of Service - refers to the engagement of the services of a person,
private firm, nongovernmental agency or international organization to undertake a
specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not available in the agency to
be accomplished within a specific period not exceeding one (1) year. The person
engaged performs or accomplishes the specific work or job under his own responsibility
and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency. For purposes of this issuance,
contract of services shall include the hiring of consultants and personnel engaged to
perform work for special projects whether funded by the agency itself or externally
funded.

x x x x

A contract of service or job order which does not cover special or technical skills
or where the functions to be performed are clerical or administrative in nature or
where the work is also performed by the regular personnel of the agency may be
entered only when done in the exigency of the service and it is not feasible for the
agency to hire said services under a casual or contractual appointment. (Emphasis
supplied)
Here, the contract between Dr. Annang and CSU expressly provided 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."[51] Given such circumstance, CSU was allowed by CSC
Resolution No. 021480 to engage Dr. Annang as a part-time faculty member under a
contract of service. Hence, it is incorrect to argue that because Dr. Annang's services
were integral to the function of CSU as a university, she cannot be engaged through a
contract of service. That there was an urgent need for her service allowed CSU to engage
her through such contract.

More importantly, it is incorrect to disregard the stipulations in the contract, particularly

that there would be no employer-employee relationship between the parties; that Dr.
Annang's service will not be credited as government service; that she will not be entitled
to the benefits enjoyed by the regular personnel of CSU; and that the contract is not
subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations. While it is true that the employment
status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
should be, it is equally true that courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend their
agreement for to do so would alter their true intention. [52] This especially applies here
where the engagement of Dr. Annang was done pursuant to a specific arrangement fully
recognized by CSC rules.

Since CSC MC No. 40-98, CSC Resolution No. 020790, and CSC Resolution No.
021480 all provide that work pursuant to a contract of service may not be credited as
government service, it follows that Dr. Annang's work as a part-time faculty member
cannot be accredited as such. Unless these rules are invalidated in the proper
proceeding, they are presumed valid and thus control.

Finally, as to Dr. Annang's entitlement to retirement benefits under RA 8291—an issue

raised by the CSC in the Petition—the Court need not rule on such matter because as
correctly held by the appellate court, it is outside the jurisdiction of the CSC. [53]

In fine, the appellate court erred in reversing the CSC Decision which denied Dr.
Annang's request for accreditation. Not only was the request filed out of time, but the
accreditation would also run counter against the pertinent CSC rules. This ruling holds
even if there may have been an employer-employee relationship pursuant to the four-
fold test. While such test may aid in ascertaining the relationship between the
government and its supposed employees, it is the special and civil service laws, rules,
and regulations which primarily determine the relationship between them. [54]

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The October 6, 2015 Decision and July
19, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 135765
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Civil Service Commission's Decision No.
140384 dated May 20, 2014 is REINSTATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 16-44.

[2]
Id. at 45-62. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a retired
Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a
Member of this Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.

[3] Id. at 63-64.

[4] Id. at 62.

[5] Id. at 64.

[6] Id. at 45-46.

[7] Id. at 46.

[8] Id. at 46-47.

[9] Id. at 47.

[10]
Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1146, As
AMENDED, EXPANDING AND INCREASING THE COVERAGE AND
BENEFITS OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,
INSTITUTING REFORMS THEREIN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved:
May 30, 1997.
[11] Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 47.

[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 47-48.
[14] Id. at 48.

[15] Id.
[16] Id. at 97.

[17] Id. at 96.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.
[20] Id. at 97.

[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 62.

[23] Id. at 50-55.

[24] Id. at 58.

[25] Id. at 59-60.

[26] Id. at 57-58.

[27] Id. at 60-61.

[28] Id. at 61.

[29] Id. at 63.

[30] Id. at 63-64.

[31] Id. at 16-44.

[32] Dated November 8, 2011.

[33] G.R. No. 221067, January 14, 2019.

[34] Id.

[35] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 18 and 47.

[36] Id. at 218. See also rollo, Vol. 2, p. 752.
[37] Id. at 50-51.

[38] 501 Phil. 115 (2005).

[39] Id. at 130-143.

[40] 800 Phil. 618 (2016).

[41] Id. at 629.

[42] Id. at 627-629.

[43] Dated December 14, 1998.

[44] Dated June 5, 2002.

[45] Dated November 12, 2002.

[46] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 684-709.

[47] Id. at 696-698. Emphasis supplied.

[48] Id.
[49]Section 2. Contracts of Services/Job Orders refer to employment described as
follows:
a. The contract covers lump sum work or services such as janitorial, security, or
consultancy services where no employer-employee relationship exist;
[50]Section 1. a. Contract of Service - refers to the engagement of the services of a
person, private firm, nongovernmental agency or international organization to
undertake a specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not available in the
agency to be accomplished within a specific period not exceeding one (1) year. The
person engaged performs or accomplishes the specific work or job under his own
responsibility and with minimum supervision by the hiring agency. For purposes of this
issuance, contract of services shall include the hiring of consultants and personnel
engaged to perform work for special projects whether funded by the agency itself or
externally funded.

[51] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123.
[52]
Norton Resources and Development Corp. v. All Asia Bank Corp., 620 Phil.
381, 392 (2009), citing Heirs of San Andres v. Rodriguez, 388 Phil. 571, 586 (2000).
[53] Rollo, Vol. 1, p. 61.
[54] National Transmission Corp. v. Commission on Audit, supra note 40, at 629.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)