Case Summary (G.R. No. 87119)
Applicable Laws and Relevant Dates
The dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of Republic Act No. 409 (the Charter of the City of Manila, as amended by Republic Act No. 1571), Republic Act No. 5185 (the Decentralization Law), and Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (the Local Government Code). The key dates include the submission of appointments on September 13, 1988, the issuance of a Civil Service Commission resolution on February 1, 1989, and the Supreme Court decision dated April 16, 1991. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the applicable constitutional basis.
Factual Background
On September 13, 1988, Vice-Mayor Danilo R. Lacuna submitted to the Civil Service Commission nineteen appointments of officers and employees intended for the Executive Staff of the Office of the Presiding Officer of the City Council. These appointments were made under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409, which explicitly grants the City Council the power to appoint its employees, with appointments signed by the Vice-Mayor. The City Budget Officer sought a legal opinion on the validity of the appointments for payroll purposes, which the City Legal Officer interpreted as vesting appointing authority in the City Mayor.
Resolution of the Civil Service Commission
On February 1, 1989, the Civil Service Commission issued Resolution No. 89-075, ruling that the appointing power for officers and employees of the City Council of Manila remains with the City Council, with appointments signed by the Vice-Mayor, thereby affirming the provisions of the Charter of the City of Manila.
Jurisdiction and Procedural Posture
The petitioner challenged the Civil Service Commission resolution via a direct appeal under Article VIII, Section 5(2)(e) of the 1987 Constitution and Section 9(3) of Batas Blg. 129. The Supreme Court held that decisions of the Civil Service Commission are generally unappealable except by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and proceeded to treat the petition as such, given its timely filing and the significance of the public interest involved.
Legal Issue
The controlling question was whether Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409, which grants the City Council the power to appoint Council employees, has been repealed or superseded by later general laws—Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 337—which vest appointing powers in city mayors.
Statutory Interpretation and Application
Section 15 of RA 409 provides the City Council the power to appoint its employees, signed by the Vice-Mayor. RA 5185, Section 4, and Batas Blg. 337, Section 171(h), generally empower city mayors to appoint officers and employees paid out of city funds, subject to civil service laws. However, RA 409 is a special law specifically governing Manila, while RA 5185 and BL 337 are general laws applicable to local governments generally.
Doctrine on Special vs. General Law
The Court emphasized the canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law regardless of their dates of enactment. Therefore, the specific provisions of RA 409, which contemplate City Council appointing power, continue to operate as an exception to the general appointing powers conferred upon mayors by RA 5185 and BL 337. The Court also established that repeal by implication is disfavored and requires clear repugnancy which is absent in this case.
Purpose of the Decentralization Law and Local Government Code
The Court recognized that RA 5185 and BL 337 intend to promote local autonomy by transferring appointing powers from the President to local chief executives but are not designed to divest the City Council of Manila of appointing powers granted by its specific charter. This preserves the local autonomy envisioned by the special law while harmonizing it with th
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 87119)
Facts and Procedural History
- The case involves a direct appeal from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) concerning the appointing power over officers and employees of the City Council of Manila.
- On September 13, 1988, Vice-Mayor Danilo R. Lacuna, acting as Presiding Officer of the City Council of Manila, submitted to the CSC nineteen appointments for officers and employees in the Executive Staff of the Office of the Presiding Officer of the City Council.
- These appointments were made pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409, the Charter of the City of Manila, which vests appointing power in the Board and requires the Vice Mayor to sign the appointments.
- The City Budget Officer sought advice from the Personnel Bureau of the Mayor’s office regarding the legitimacy of these appointments.
- The City Legal Officer opined that the appointing power lies with the City Mayor, not the City Council.
- The CSC, however, resolved in Resolution No. 89-075 dated February 1, 1989, to affirm that the City Council has the appointing power and that the Vice Mayor is the proper signatory of the appointments.
- The petitioner, Mayor Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr., filed a direct appeal with the Supreme Court challenging this ruling.
Issue Presented
- Whether the City Council of Manila retains the power to appoint Council officers and employees under Republic Act No. 409, as amended, or whether such power has been transferred exclusively to the City Mayor by virtue of Republic Act No. 5185 (Decentralization Law) and Batas Blg. 337 (Local Government Code).
Legal Background and Statutory Provisions Considered
- Republic Act No. 409, as amended, specifically Section 15, provides that the City Council (Board) appoints the employees of the Board, with appointments signed by the Vice Mayor.
- Republic Act No. 5185, Section 4, vests the City Mayor with the power to appoint certain local officials "entirely paid out of city funds," with certain exceptions.
- Batas Blg. 337, Section 171(h), grants the City Mayor the power to appoint all officers and employees of the city except where otherwise provided by law.
- The Constitution, Article IX, Section 7, limits appeal from CSC decisions to petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court within thirty days.
- The case ref