Ang-angco v. Catillo

Ang-angco v. Catillo

G.R. No. L-17169 November 30, 1963

Bautista Angelo, J.

Issue:

                whether the President has the power to take direct action on the case of petitioner even if he belongs to the classified service in spite of the provisions now in force in the Civil Service Act of 1959

Held:

                No. Under Section 16 (i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959 it is the Commissioner of Civil Service who has original and exclusive jurisdiction to decide administrative cases of all officers and employees in the classified service for in said section the following is provided: “Except as otherwise provided by law, (the Commissioner shall) have final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all permanent officers and employees in the competitive or classified service and upon all matters relating to the employees.” The only limitation to this power is that the decision of the Commissioner may be appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, in which case said Board shall decide the appeal within a period of 90 days after the same has been submitted for decision, whose decision in such case shall be final (Section 18, Republic Act 2260). It should be noted that the law as it now stands does not provide for any appeal to the President, nor is he given the power to review the decision motu proprio, unlike the provision of the previous law, Commonwealth Act No. 598, which was expressly repealed by the Civil Service Act of 1959 (Rep. Act 2260), which provides that the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals may be reversed or modified motu proprio by the President. It is, therefore, clear that under the present provision of the Civil Service Act of 1959, the case of petitioner comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Civil Service, and having been deprived of the procedure laid down therein in connection with the investigation and disposition of his case, it may be said that he has been deprived of due process as guaranteed by said law.

Issue:

                Is the President empowered by any other law to remove officers and employees in the classified civil service?

Held:

                The only law that we can recall on the point is Section 64 (b) of the Revised Administrative Code, the pertinent portion of which we quote:

(b) To remove officials from office conformably to law and to declare vacant the offices held by such removed officials. For disloyalty to the (United States) Republic of the Philippines, the (Governor-General) President of the Philippines may at any time remove a person from any position of trust or authority under the Government of the (Philippine Islands) Philippines.

The phrase “conformably to law” is significant. It shows that the President does not have blanket authority move any officer or employee of the government but his power must still be subject to the law that passed by the legislative body particularly with regard the procedure, cause and finality of the removal of persons who may be the subject of disciplinary action. Here, as above stated we have such law which governs action to be taken against officers and employees in classified civil service. This law is binding upon President.

Another provision that may be mentioned is Section (D) of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides:

Power to appoint and remove. — The Department Head, the recommendation of the chief of the Bureau or office concerned, shall appoint all subordinate officers and employees appointment is not expressly vested by law in the (Governor-General) President of the Philippines, and may remove or punish them, except as especially provided otherwise, in accordance the Civil Service Law.

The phrase “in accordance with the Civil Service is also significant. So we may say that even granting for administrative purposes, the President of the Philippines is considered as the Department Head of the Civil Service Commission, his power to remove is still subject to the Civil Service Act of 1959, and we already know with regard to officers and employees who belong to classified service the finality of the action is given to the Commissioner of Civil Service or the Civil Board of Appeals.

The power of control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter as distinguished from the power of general supervision over municipal government, but the decision does not go to the extent of including the power to remove an officer or employee in the executive department. Apparently, the power merely applies to the exercise of control over the acts of the subordinate and not over the actor or agent himself of the act. It only means that the President may set aside the judgment or action taken by a subordinate in the performance of his duties.

          That meaning is also the meaning given to the word “control” as used in administrative law. Thus, the Department Head pursuant to Section 79(C) is given direct control of all bureaus and offices under his department by virtue of which he may “repeal or modify decisions of the chiefs of said bureaus or offices”, and under Section 74 of the same Code, the President’s control over the executive department only refers to matters of general policy. The term “policy” means a settled or definite course or method adopted and followed by a government, body, or individual, and it cannot be said that the removal of an inferior officer comes within the meaning of control over a specific policy of government.

There is some point in the argument that the Power of control of the President may extend to the Power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such can be justified under the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard to those officers or employees who belong to the classified service for as to them that inherent power cannot be exercised. This is in line with the provision of our Constitution which says that “the Congress may by law vest the appointment of the inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in heads of department” (Article VII, Section 10 [3], Constitution). With regard to these officers whose appointments are vested on heads of departments, Congress has provided by law for a procedure for their removal precisely in view of this constitutional authority. One such law is the Civil Service Act of 1959.