Case Digest: CIVIL SERVICE COMISSION v. NELI O. TAHANLANGIT 594 SCRA 124 (2009)

CIVIL SERVICE COMISSION v. NELI O. TAHANLANGIT 594 SCRA 124 (2009)

Courts have generally refrained from even expressing an opinion on cases where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value. As a consequence of the reorganization of the Bureau of Patents and Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT), pursuant to R.A. 8293, into what is now known as the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), 137 incumbents therein, including respondent Nelia Tahanlangit, were appointed to new positions in the approved staffing pattern of the IPO. Under the BPTTT plantilla, Tahanlangit occupied the position of Trademark Principal Exmaniner I, a position said to be comparable to the item of Intellectual Property Rights Specialist I (IPRS-I) under the new IPO plantilla to which said Tahanlangit was appointed. Petitioner Civil Service Commission‘s (CSC) NCR Office, however, disapproved Tahanlangit‘s permanent appointment on the ground that the latter, for lack of the requisite educational qualifications, did not qualify to the above-mentioned position to which she had been appointed. DTI Secretary Manuel Roxas II appealed the NCR Office decision before the Civil Service Commission which it, however, affirmed. Insofar as Tahanlangit is concerned, CSC ruled that her appointment as IPRS-I was correctly disapproved by the NCR Office. Tahanlangit thereafter filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Pending resolution, however, she opted to retire optionally under R.A. 8291, otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997. The CA thus held that the challenged resolutions had been rendered moot and academic by Tahanlangit‘s retirement from the government service pending resolution of her appeal. Further, the CA held that ―the ends of substantial justice will be better served if herein respondent be allowed to retire from the service upholding that her permanent appointment be considered valid and subsisting at the time of her retirement. To this ruling of the CA, CSC moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tahanlangit‘s optional retirement mooted the disapproval of her appointment as IPRS-I.

HELD:

When Tahanlangit retired from the service on August 31, 2003, CSC‘s Resolution No. 03-0237 of July 30, 2003 had not attained finality, as it was pending appeal before the appellate court. Section 80 of CSC‘s Resolution No. 99-1936, ―The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provide that a decision of the CSC or its Regional Office shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. Thus, when Tahanlangit was allowed to avail herself of optional retirement under R.A. 8291, CSC‘s assailed resolutions have thus become moot and academic, at least, with respect to the former‘s case. Courts have generally refrained from even expressing an opinion on cases where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value. In the present case, when Tahanlangit‘s appointment was disapproved by the CSC, Tahanlangit would still have been able to retire under the applicable law, R.A. 8291, as the said law only requires that the employee concerned must have rendered at least 15 years of service and must not have been receiving disability benefits at the time of retirement. Tahanlangit, having retired on August 31, 2003, the position of IPRS I is presumed to have been already filled up and to be now occupied by one bearing the requisite qualifications. Hence, passing on the disapproval of Tahanlangit‘s appointment no longer has any practical value.