This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On this point, respondents DBM and CSC through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opine that DBM acted within the scope of its authority when it approved the OSSP of the CAAP on July 20, 2009 as the same was done in the performance of DBM's official functions as provided under E.O. No. 165, series of 1987.[63] With its bare and unsubstantiated allegations, petitioner failed to prove that DBM acted with grave abuse of discretion in the approval thereof. Moreover, invoking that ATO was effectively abolished by R.A. No. 9497, the OSG defends the validity of Section 60(a) of the IRR which states that the incumbent personnel of the ATO shall continue to hold office in a "hold[-]over capacity until such time [that a] new [s]taffing [p]attern and [m]anning [is] approved by the Board." The OSG posits that while it is true that an incumbent employee of the defunct ATO is given preference in the filling up of a plantilla position, said employee does not automatically qualify to the position he is presently holding. Thus, said employee still has to qualify under the new and approved staffing pattern and the new QS set by the CSC. Such approved QS shall be used as the standard minimum qualification requirements for purposes of appointments per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 03, series of 1991. However, if the incumbent fails to qualify, the affected employee may choose from the retirement packages provided under R.A. No. 9497 itself.[64] The OSG asserts that in this case the employees' right to security of tenure as embodied under Section 2(3),[65] Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution is not undermined. The OSG avers that the CSC has not yet received any appointments from the CAAP for attestation; hence, to restrain the CSC is premature.[66] | |||||