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.