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 DBM CSC JC No. 2 s 2003 vs CSC MC No. 6 s 2005

Start
Prev
1
Next
End

Jessryl Gentuya
Topic Author
Offline

6 years 2 months ago #1019 by Jessryl Gentuya

Jessryl Gentuya created the topic: DBM CSC JC No. 2 s 2003 vs CSC MC No. 6 s 2005

Hi CSC,

I would like to be clarified for the benefit of public service on the conflicting provisions of the DBM CSC Joint Circular No. 2 s. 2003 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6 s. 2005, what rule should prevail? Designated VPs of an SUC are paid of salaries in the rate of permanent VP positions, though NO permanent appointments were issued thereto, only Office Order by the President designating them as VP. Is this proper? Your reply will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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

Action Officer 23
Offline

6 years 2 months ago #1027 by Action Officer 23

Action Officer 23 replied the topic: DBM CSC JC No. 2 s 2003 vs CSC MC No. 6 s 2005

The latest rule on designation, which is similar to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2005, is found in Section 13 (7), Rule IV, 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (2017 ORAOHRA), which provides that: “Designees cannot be granted the salaries of the position they are being designated to. However, allowances that go with the performance of the functions such as RATA or EME may granted as provided in the GAA or appropriation ordinance of the respective local sanggunian; provided, the grant of the same is specifically stated in the designation order.” Please check the provision in the CSC Website under issuances (Policy Resolution – CSC Resolution No. 1700653). If your representation is true that an SUC is not complying with said provision, then, you should report the violation to the COA so that the illegal payment of salaries to the designees can be disallowed.

Thanks.

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

Start
Prev
1
Next
End