G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995
AIDA D. EUGENIO, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. & HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aida D. Eugenio, Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, applied for and was granted Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility on August 2, 1993. On September 15, 1993, the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) recommended her to the President for a CESO rank. On October 1, 1993, respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed Resolution No. 93-4359, which stated that the CESB “shall now be known as the Office for Career Executive Service of the Civil Service Commission” and that its existing personnel, budget, properties, and equipment shall form part of that Office. This resolution impeded petitioner’s appointment, as the Office of the President, through Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio T. Carpio, informed her that due to unresolved legal issues regarding the CSC’s authority to abolish the CESB, it had refrained from considering such appointments. Finding no further administrative relief, petitioner filed this petition to annul Resolution No. 93-4359, arguing that the CSC usurped legislative functions by abolishing an office created by law and illegally authorizing the transfer of public money.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission has the authority to abolish the Career Executive Service Board, which was created by law, through the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 93-4359.

RULING

No. The petition is granted and Resolution No. 93-4359 is annulled and set aside. The Career Executive Service Board was created by Presidential Decree No. 1 on September 1, 1974, which adopted the Integrated Reorganization Plan. As an office created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function. The legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB; on the contrary, it has appropriated funds for its operation from 1975 to 1993. The CSC’s reliance on Section 17, Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, which allows the Commission to effect changes in its organization, is misplaced. This provision must be read together with Section 16 of the same Code, which enumerates the offices under the CSC and does not include the CESB. The CESB, though attached to the CSC for policy and program coordination, retains its essential autonomous character and is not under the CSC’s control. The dismissal of a previous petition (Datumanong, et al. vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 114380) is not controlling, as it was dismissed for the petitioners’ lack of standing, not on the merits of the issue.