×
ADVISORY!

The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004

More
2 years 6 months ago #9134 by Action Officer
Action Officer replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issue which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

As to your query, your attention is invited to CSC MC No. 7,s 2004

x x x

"7. The employee must have a permanent appointment. However, as the purpose of granting a study leave is to develop a critical mass of competent and efficient employees which will redound to the agency's delivery of public service, employees with coterminous employment may be allowed to avail of study leave, provided:
"a. meet the requirements under II.1 and II.6
"b. would be able to fulfill the required service obligation; and
"c. are not related to the head or agency or member of the collegial body or board xxx.

We hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 6 months ago #9135 by DGen
DGen replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Dear Sir/Ma'am,

Thank you for your reply. However, my inquiry is regarding the interpretation of the two-year government service rendered as specified in Paragraph II.3 of CSC MC 21 s. 2004. I am already permanent when I applied for the study leave but I just got my item this year, however, I have been in the agency for almost 5 years as a contractual employee, with all benefits and privileges with that of a regular employee, prior to my receiving my appointment as a permanent employee.

In this regard, I would like to clarify if my 5 years of service as a contractual employee will not count for purposes of availing the study leave under CSC MC 21 s. 2004 even if I'm already permanent when I applied for it?

Would appreciate your response to this matter.

Again, thank you very much!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 6 months ago #9153 by Action Officer
Action Officer replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Good day!

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the Commission refrains from rendering an opinion on matters that may be brought before it in the future by way of a complaint or an appeal.

As regards your query, your attention is invited to II.3 of MC No. 21, s. 2004, which states, thus:

"xxx

"3. The employee must have rendered at least two (2) years of service with at least very satisfactory performance for the last two rating periods immediately preceding the application;"

We hope to have enlightened you on this matter.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 6 months ago #9156 by DGen
DGen replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Dear Sir/Ma'am,

Thank you for your reply.

As previously mentioned, I have been in the government service for five (5) years and with very satisfactory performance for the last two rating periods immediately preceding the application.

I have been a contractual employee, with all the benefits similar to a permanent employee, for 5 years and I just got my permanent appointment this year prior to my application for my study leave under MC 21 s. 2004 for me to be able to prepare for the Bar examination.

Item II.3 of MC 21 s. 2004, the provision which you have quoted is the one I am requesting for further clarification as to its interepretation.

Please note that Item II.3 does not expressly provide that the two-year government service MUST be that while having a permanent position. Hence, when Item II.3 says government service, does it mean regardless of the employment status for as long as I am a permanent employee when I applied for my study leave?

Again, thank you very much!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 5 months ago #9181 by Action Officer 21
Action Officer 21 replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Hi DGen,

As a matter of policy, this Office refrains from rendering categorical opinion on matters and issues that may later on be the subject of an administrative proceeding before the Commission either via an appeal or a complaint. This is to preclude the possibility of prejudgment should an actual administrative case be commenced or instituted based on the said matters or issues.

Nevertheless, we take note that your inquiry calls for an interpretation of CS policies. As such, it is advised to refer your query to the Human Resource Policies and Standards Office of the CSC which is in the proper position to interpret policies and issuances of the Commission.

Said Office may be reached thru contact numbers: (02)89514629; and (02)89314144; or thru email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., addressed to Director IV Jennifer L. Timbol.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 5 months ago #9182 by Action Officer 21
Action Officer 21 replied the topic: Request for Clarification re CSC MC No. 21, s. 2004
Hi DGen,

As a matter of policy, this Office refrains from rendering categorical opinion on matters and issues that may later on be the subject of an administrative proceeding before the Commission either via an appeal or a complaint. This is to preclude the possibility of prejudgment should an actual administrative case be commenced or instituted based on the said matters or issues.

Nevertheless, we take note that your inquiry calls for an interpretation of CS policies. As such, it is advised to refer your query to the Human Resource Policies and Standards Office of the CSC which is in the proper position to interpret policies and issuances of the Commission.

Said Office may be reached thru contact numbers: (02)89514629; and (02)89314144; or thru email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., addressed to Director IV Jennifer L. Timbol.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum