Scribd
Upload
144 views2 pages

12) Rabor Vs CSC

1) Petitioner Rabor was a utility worker for the Davao City government who was advised to retire at age 68 with 13 years of service since he had not yet completed the 15 years of service required to receive retirement benefits. 2) Rabor requested a two-year extension of his employment to reach the 15-year service requirement. 3) The Civil Service Commission ruled that while department heads have discretion to allow extensions past age 65, this discretion must conform with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 27, which sets age and service requirements for retirement. The Circular was declared valid and departments must follow its guidelines on extensions.

Uploaded by

John Ayson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
144 views2 pages

12) Rabor Vs CSC

1) Petitioner Rabor was a utility worker for the Davao City government who was advised to retire at age 68 with 13 years of service since he had not yet completed the 15 years of service required to receive retirement benefits. 2) Rabor requested a two-year extension of his employment to reach the 15-year service requirement. 3) The Civil Service Commission ruled that while department heads have discretion to allow extensions past age 65, this discretion must conform with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 27, which sets age and service requirements for retirement. The Circular was declared valid and departments must follow its guidelines on extensions.

Uploaded by

John Ayson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Held
  • Facts
  • Issues

RABOR v CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:
Petitioner is a Utility Worker in the Office of the Mayor, Davao [Link]
entered the government service as a Utility worker on 10 April 1978 at
theage of 55 [Link], D. Pagatpatan, an official in the Office of the
Mayor of Davao City,advised Dionisio M. Rabor to apply for retirement,
considering that he hadalready reached the age of sixty-eight (68) years
and seven (7) months,
withthirteen (13) years and one (1) month of government service. Raborre
sponded to this advice by exhibiting a "Certificate of Membership"
issuedby the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS") and dated 12
May1988. Thereupon, the Davao City Government, through Ms.
Pagatpatan, wrote tothe Regional Director of the Civil Service
Commission, Region XI, Davao City("CSRO-XI"), informing the latter of the
foregoing and requesting advice "asto what action [should] be taken on
this matter."Petitioner Rabor then sent to the Regional Director, CSRO-XI,
a letter dated14 August 1991, asking for extension of his services in the
City Governmentuntil he "shall have completed the fifteen (15) years
service [requirement] inthe Government so that [he] could also avail of
the benefits of the retirementlaws given to employees of the
Government." The extension he was askingfor was about two (2) years.
Asserting that he was "still in good health andvery
able to perform the duties and
functions of [his] position as UtilityWorker," Rabor sought "extension of [hi
s] service as an exception toMemorandum Circular No. 65 of the Office of
the President."

ISSUE/S:
Whether Rabor may be allowed to extend?

HELD:
No. Our conclusion is that the doctrine of
Cena

should be and ishereby modified to this extent: that Civil Service


Memorandum Circular
No.27, Series of 1990, more specifically paragraph (1) thereof, is herebyde
clared valid and effective. Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146 must,accordingly
, be read together with Memorandum Circular No. 27. Wereiterate,
however, the holding in
Cena
that the head of the governmentagency concerned is vested with
discretionary authority to allow or disallowextension of the service of an
official or employee who has reached sixtyfive(65) years of age without completing fifteen (15) years of governments
ervice; this discretion is, nevertheless, to be exercised conformably with
theprovisions of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1990.

You might also like