Just recently,
the Supreme Court en banc in CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs. PILILLA WATER DISTRICT, G.R. No. 190147, March 5, 2013 has clarified that the position of General Manager of the local water districts
remains to be one primarily confidential in nature. This ruling comes despite the
amendment of Section 23 of P.D. 198 or the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973 introduced by Republic Act No. 9286.
Section 23 of P.D. 198 expressly provides that the general
manager “shall serve at the pleasure of
the Board of Directors”. But Republic Act No. 9286 passed on 2004 amended
said provision and now provides that the general manager “shall not be removed from office, except for cause and after due
process”. The Civil Service Commission interpreted this amendment as
placing the position of the general manager of a water district from non-career
service to the category of career service. Accordingly, the Civil Service
Commission issued CSC MC No. 13, Series of 2006 where it prescribed the
guidelines for the implementation of the amending law and set the qualifications
for the position.
In rejecting the interpretation of
the CSC, the Supreme Court pointed out that the nature of the work of the
general manager and the character of his professional relation with the Board
of Directors show that said manager is still primarily confidential employee in
keeping with the “proximity rule”. Thus, he will hold office as such as long as
he enjoys the confidence of the Board. In its decision, the High Court underscores
the general manager falls under the non-career service category.
According to the Supreme Court, the
amendment made by RA 9286 merely tempered the wide discretion of the Board of
Directors in removing the general manager even without notice and hearing. The
only effect of the amendment is that the general manager, although he remains a
confidential employee whose term is co-terminous with the appointing authority unless
sooner removed on causes provided by law including loss of confidence on the
part of the appointing authority, can no longer be removed by the Board of
Directors without due process.
So that would excempt them from nepotism? Since there is this primarily confidential in nature?
ReplyDeletesince general managers can only be removed after due process and usually by the reason of 'loss of trust and confidence' of the board, is there such thing as loss of trust and confidence of the management with the board, since some board of directors are frankly, useless
ReplyDelete