G.R. No. L-26534 November 28, 1969
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila, CAPTS. JAMES BARBERS, ANTONIO PARALEJAS and FELICISIMO LAZARO, in their respective capacity as Precinct or Station Commanders of the Manila Police Department, petitioners-appellees, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas designated petitioners Captains James Barbers, Antonio Paralejas, and Felicisimo Lazaro as station commanders of three Manila police precincts. Respondent Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido directed the Mayor to replace them, asserting that the position required an “Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major)” eligibility, which the captains allegedly lacked. The Mayor refused, contending the directive was in excess of the Commissioner’s authority, as the designation was an organizational assignment within his executive control and not an appointment to a position requiring a specific eligibility under the Civil Service Act. The Commissioner reiterated his directive. The petitioners filed a prohibition proceeding in the Manila Court of First Instance, which ruled in their favor, declaring the Commissioner’s directive null and void for lack of legal basis. The Commissioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service has the power to direct the Mayor of Manila to replace the designated station commanders on the ground that they lack a specific civil service eligibility (Inspector First Class) for the position.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court, ruling that the respondent Commissioner acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court held:
1. The power to designate station commanders is vested by law in the City Mayor as part of his immediate control over the executive functions of the city departments. The Commissioner’s role is limited to attesting to the eligibility of an appointee when an appointment to a competitive or classified service position is made. Once the appointee is qualified, the Commissioner has no discretion to withhold attestation.
2. There is no law prescribing that precinct or station commanders must possess the eligibility of Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major). The Commissioner’s directive, based on his interpretation of the Civil Service Act, constituted an invalid expansion of his statutory powers. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner’s powers under the Civil Service Act (Republic Act No. 2260) are specific and do not include the authority to determine and impose eligibility requirements for positions where none are prescribed by law.
3. The designation of the petitioners, who were admitted civil service eligibles (police captains) with exceptional qualifications and training, was a valid exercise of the Mayor’s administrative authority for organizational efficiency. The Commissioner’s attempt to enforce a requirement based on a recommendation from the U.S. Agency for International Development had no legal force.
4. Public officials exercise power, not rights, and any authority must be based on a valid grant of power, either express or implied. In the absence of such a grant, their actions are void. The Commissioner’s directive suffered from this fatal infirmity.
The writ of prohibition was upheld, perpetually restraining the Commissioner from enforcing the replacement directive. No costs were awarded.