G.R. No. L-25835 - City of Manila vs. Subido

In March 1966, approximately 500 appointment papers of the City Government of Manila were submitted for approval by the Civil Service Commissioner, Abelardo Subido.
Commissioner Subido, upon receiving the appointment papers, refused to act on them and returned the documents to City Mayor Antonio Villegas with an official letter.
In his letter, Commissioner Subido declared that Mayor Villegas was no longer the Mayor of Manila, basing his assertion on the fact that Villegas had vacated his office when he assumed the position of Director of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) in June 1965.

The contention arose over whether Mayor Villegas had abandoned his office by taking on the NAWASA assignment.
It was admitted that Villegas was duly elected as Mayor in November 1963, with his term set to expire in 1968, and that he had continued to perform the duties of Mayor despite his temporary involvement with NAWASA.
In July 1964, Villegas had begun performing the functions of NAWASA Director pursuant to a designation by then-President Diosdado Macapagal, which stated he was to serve as Acting Member of the NAWASA Board.

His designation as Acting Member of the NAWASA Board did not constitute an appointment to a public office that would trigger the rule on incompatibility or abandonment.
His membership in the NAWASA Board was not equivalent to holding a separate office that would require abandonment of the mayoralty.
He had no intention of renouncing his role as Mayor and had since resigned from the NAWASA Board.
It is within the judicial prerogative, not that of the Civil Service Commissioner, to determine the forfeiture of an elected office through proper legal remedies such as quo warranto proceedings.

As the officer with exclusive jurisdiction over approvals of appointments in the Civil Service, he must verify that the appointments were extended by the proper appointing authority—the Mayor of Manila.
There was an inherent incompatibility in holding two positions concurrently, even if one was merely a designation or acting capacity, thus justifying the voiding of the appointments.
Inoperativeness or vacancy of an office may occur by operation of law without the need for an overt resignation or clear abandonment.

The case recalled a similar occurrence in November 1923 where Geronimo Santiago, an incumbent councilor and President of the Municipal Board of Manila, was designated Acting Mayor.
In that situation, Santiago resumed his original position once his term as Acting Mayor ended, establishing that a temporary designation did not amount to an abandonment of the original office.

Whether the Civil Service Commissioner has the power or jurisdiction to indirectly declare the position of Mayor of Manila vacant by refusing to approve appointments made by the Mayor.
Whether Mayor Antonio Villegas had indeed abandoned his office by assuming the temporary position at NAWASA, thus triggering the rule against holding incompatible offices.
Whether the nature of the designation as Acting Member of the NAWASA Board renders it a public office incompatible with or a forfeiture of the mayoralty.