Back

Career vs. Civil Service [CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION, BERSAMIN, J.]

CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MA. ANTHONETTE VELASCO-ALLONES, AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ARTURO M. LACHICA, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III AND PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA, DEPUTY CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEYS MACAPANGCAT A. MAMA, SYLVESTRE A. MOSING, REGIONAL PUBLIC ATTORNEYS CYNTHIA M. VARGAS, FRISCO F. DOMALSIN, TOMAS B. PADILLA, RENATO T. CABRIDO, SALVADOR S. HIPOLITO, ELPIDIO C. BACUYAG, DIOSDADO S. SAVELLANO, RAMON N. GOMEZ, MARIE G-REE R. CALINAWAN, FLORENCIO M. DILOY, EDGARDO D. GONZALEZ, NUNILA P. GARCIA, FRANCIS A. CALATRAVA, DATUMANONG A. DUMAMBA, EDGAR Q. BALANSAG, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV MARVIN R. OSIAS, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV HOWARD B. AREZA, PUBLIC ATTORNEY IV IMELDA C. ALFORTE-GANANCIAL, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 197762 | 2017-03-07

CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION

BERSAMIN, J.:

CONCUR in the result, but I have to tender a different view concerning the procedural aspect of the case.

The case was commenced by petition for certiorari and prohibition in order to assail the decision of the Civil Service Commission (CSC):
 
(a) assuming jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of petitioner Career Executive Service Board (CESB); and
(b) ruling that certain positions within the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) do not require third-level eligibility.
 
The main opinion holds that the petitioner's choice of the special civil actions...