G.R. No. 87119 - Lopez, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission

Hon. Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr., in his capacity as City Mayor of Manila, filed a petition against the Civil Service Commission, Hon. Danilo R. Lacuna (Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the City Council of Manila), and the City Council of Manila.
The petition concerns the authority to appoint Council officers and employees in Manila.

On September 13, 1988, Vice-Mayor Danilo R. Lacuna submitted appointments of nineteen officers and employees in the Executive Staff of the Office of the Presiding Officer, City Council of Manila, based on Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409 (the Manila Charter), as amended.
Section 15 of RA No. 409 provides: "The Board shall appoint and the Vice Mayor shall sign all appointments of the other employees of the Board."
The City Budget Officer sought clarification from the Mayor's Personnel Bureau on whether the payroll for these appointees, based on Vice-Mayor's signed appointments, was proper.
The City Legal Officer opined on September 19, 1988, that the City Mayor—not the City Council—was the proper appointing authority. This opinion was transmitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

On February 1, 1989, the CSC promulgated Resolution No. 89-075, ruling that the appointing power for City Council officers and employees remains with the City Council and the Vice-Mayor as signatory of appointments.
The CSC held that Section 15, RA No. 409, as amended, remained in force and had not been repealed by subsequent laws.

The petitioner contended that Section 15 of RA No. 409 had been repealed or superseded by:

Republic Act No. 5185 (Decentralization Law), which vests appointment powers in the City Mayor for certain officers and employees paid entirely from city funds; and
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code), which grants the city mayor appointment powers for officers and employees unless otherwise provided by law.

Petitioner sought a declaration that the City Mayor is the proper appointing authority, and that appointments made by the City Council (Vice-Mayor) are invalid.

The petition was filed as a direct appeal from the CSC resolution under Article VIII, Section 5(2)(e) of the 1987 Constitution and Section 9(3) of Batas Blg. 129.
The Supreme Court ruled no direct appeals lie from CSC decisions; only certiorari petitions under Rule 65 are proper. The Court nevertheless accepted the petition as a certiorari petition filed within the 30-day period.

Whether the City Council of Manila retains the power to appoint its officers and employees under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409, as amended, despite subsequent general laws vesting appointment powers in the City Mayor.

Whether Section 15 of RA No. 409 has been repealed or modified by implication by:

Whether the Civil Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling the City Council retains appointing power over its employees.