GR 127631; (December, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127631 December 17, 1999
Atty. Angel Aguirre Jr., et al., petitioners, vs. Evangeline C. De Castro, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Evangeline C. De Castro was the Chief of the Legal Affairs and Complaint Services of the Division of City Schools of Manila. In February 1996, she received from petitioner City Legal Officer Angel Aguirre Jr. a letter requiring her to explain alleged complaints for gross misconduct. She filed an answer and subsequently a motion to dismiss, arguing she was a subordinate of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Secretary and thus outside the city legal officer’s disciplinary jurisdiction.
The City Legal Officer denied the motion, citing the Local Government Code provisions on the mayor’s power to appoint officials paid from city funds and to ensure faithful discharge of duties. He asserted jurisdiction because her salary was sourced from city funds. The Court of Appeals granted De Castro’s petition for certiorari, directing the City Legal Office to cease proceedings, ruling that disciplinary authority remained with the DECS regional director.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the City Legal Officer of Manila has jurisdiction to investigate an administrative complaint against the Chief of the Legal Affairs and Complaint Services of the Division of City Schools of Manila.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The city legal officer possesses no disciplinary authority over the respondent. The legal logic rests on the principle that the power to discipline is inherent in the power to appoint. Respondent was appointed by the DECS Regional Director, making her a subordinate of the DECS Secretary and subject to the supervision and control of the DECS hierarchy.
The Court clarified that the source of salary (city funds) does not automatically confer disciplinary jurisdiction on the city legal officer absent a clear statutory basis. The Local Government Code provisions cited by petitioners pertain to the city mayor’s general supervision over city government programs and his appointing power over city employees. Respondent, however, is not an employee of the city government but of the national DECS, which maintains its own integrated personnel system. Therefore, jurisdiction to investigate and discipline her for administrative offenses resides exclusively with the DECS.