ABELLA VS. CSC Facts: -Abella, a lawyer, retired from the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), as Department Manager of the Legal Services Dept. He held a civil service eligibility for the position of Department Manager. -Before he retired, the CSC issued Memo Circ No.21 providing for the requisites for positions in the government to be classified under the Career Executive Service (CES). This circular provides that incumbents in positions which are declared to be under CES who hold permanent appointments shall remain under permanent status. However, upon promotion or transfer to other CES position, they shall be under temporary status until they qualify. -After Abella’s retirement, he was issued by Subic Metropolitan Authority a permanent employment as Department Manager of the Labor and Employment Center. -However, petitioner’s appointment was not approved when submitted to the CSC Regional Office, on the ground that his eligibility was not appropriate. -Both the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals affirmed the disapproval by the CSC Regional Office -Abella went to the Supreme Court. One of the grounds he pointed out for questioning the disapproval of his appointment was that CSC failed to notify him of a hearing relating to the issuance of the challenged Circular. Issue: W/N a disapproval by the CSC of an appointment to a position under the CES requires notice of hearing Held: NO. The classification of positions in career service was a quasi-legislative, not a quasi-judicial issuance. In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in accordance with the standards laid down by the law. The determination of facts and the applicable law are essential for the performance of this function. Thus, due process requirements (as enumerated in Ang Tibay Case) must be observed: 1. There must be a right to a hearing, including the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof 2. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented 3. the decision must have something to support itself 4. the evidence must be substantial 5. the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 6. the tribunal must act on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinated in arriving at a decision, and 7. the tribunal should render its decision in such a manner that one can know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered. -On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulation within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain powers flowing from the separation of the great branches of the government. Prior notice to and hearing are not required since there is no determination of past events or facts that have to be established or

ascertained. As a general rule, prior notice and hearting are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct. -The challenged Circular was an internal matter addressed to heads of departments, bureaus and agencies. It needed no prior publication, since it had been issued as an incident of the administrative body’s power to issue guidelines for government officials to follow in performing their duties. -Also, the appointee need not have been previously heard, because the nature of the action did not involve the imposition of an administrative disciplinary measure. The CSC merely examined the conformity of the appointment with the law and appointee’s possession of all the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications