Misclassification

In reclassifying positions in the civil service like public secondary school teachers, the standard should be the official designations of the incumbents instead of their actual functions. This is the rule applied in this case of Carina, Guidance and Counseling Coordinator III at a Municipal High School with the rank of secondary head teacher and an annual basic salary of P26,388 paid by the local government.

On July 1, 1989, Executive Order (EO) 189 took effect placing all secondary school teachers under the supervision and payroll of the Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS). Following the criteria of the National Compensation Classification Plan, Carina’s position was reclassified as Guidance Counselor, R-56 and her annual salary was reduced to P19,244.80.

 When Carina appealed her demotion to the Civil Service Commission Merit System Protection Board (CSC-MSPB), the latter referred her case to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for comments. The DBM said that since prior to the nationalization of her position Carina had an annual salary of P26,388, she should be allowed to receive said amount with the local government shouldering the difference.

Meantime, Republic Act 6758 was passed standardizing the salaries of national teachers. Based on this law the CSC-MSPB reclassified Carina’s position to Guidance Services Specialist II salary grade 16 and should therefore received the salary corresponding to that grade.

But when the Division Superintendent requested DBM for the issuance of a Position Allocation List to reflect Carina’s reclassified position, the latter denied it on the ground that the CSC-MSPB had no jurisdiction to reclassify Carina’s position. This ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court which declared that the DBM has the sole power and discretion to administer the compensation and position classification system of the national government.

So Carina asked the DBM through the Compensation Classification Board for a reclassification of her position from Guidance Counselor II SG-12 to Guidance Coordinator III SG-15 since she was supervising 11 high school teachers actually doing guidance counseling although they are not incumbent guidance counselors. But the DBM also denied this request because her position title and designation and titles and designations of the teachers under her do not warrant such reclassification. Carina questioned this ruling again before the CA arguing that the DBM should have considered her actual duties and functions and the actual functions of the teachers under her.

But the CA also denied her petition. The CA ruled that to reclassify Carina’s position based on actual functions regardless of the qualifications requirement of the position would deviate from the standards prescribed by law which require the establishment of the following criteria (a) the duties and responsibilities of the position and (b) the qualification requirement of the position. Was the CA correct?

Yes. The standard for reclassification should be the official designations of the incumbents instead of their actual functions. The DECS-DBM circular defines Public Secondary School Teachers as “classroom teachers, principal, head teachers and other personnel occupying teaching related positions specified in the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA 4670) holding duly approved and attested appointments in the public secondary schools under different local government units. In this case, the teachers under Carina’s supervision, while designated as Guidance Counselors had no official appointments as Guidance Counselors. The staffing pattern of the school did not provide for other guidance counselor positions except the position held by Carina. The internal arrangement among the school, Carina and the teachers she supervised could not be considered by the DBM as the basis for reclassifying Carina’s position (Cruz vs. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. 154242,  October 10, 2007).

*  *  *

E-mail at: [email protected]