GR 87119; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87119; April 16, 1991
HON. GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR., in his capacity as City Mayor of Manila, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. DANILO R. LACUNA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the City Council of Manila, and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Vice-Mayor Danilo R. Lacuna, as Presiding Officer of the Manila City Council, submitted appointments for nineteen council staff members to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursuant to Section 15 of the Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act No. 409), which vests the appointing power for such employees in the City Council, with the Vice-Mayor signing the appointments. The City Budget Officer sought guidance on the validity of these appointments. The City Legal Officer opined that the proper appointing authority was the City Mayor under the general provisions of the Decentralization Act (R.A. No. 5185) and the Local Government Code (Batas Blg. 337).
The CSC, in Resolution No. 89-075, upheld the authority of the City Council and the Vice-Mayor to make and sign the appointments. City Mayor Gemiliano C. Lopez, Jr. challenged this resolution, arguing that the specific charter provision had been repealed by the later, general laws which grant the city mayor the power to appoint all city officers and employees.
ISSUE
Whether the City Council of Manila retains the power to appoint its own officers and employees under its special charter, or if this power has been transferred to the City Mayor by subsequent general laws on local government.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the CSC’s resolution. The Court clarified that while the petition was improperly brought as a direct appeal, it was treated as a petition for certiorari due to its public importance and timeliness. On the substantive issue, the Court applied the canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law.
Republic Act No. 409, as the special charter of Manila, specifically provides for the City Council’s appointing power over its own staff. The subsequent general laws, R.A. No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337, which grant appointing powers to city mayors for local officials, were intended to decentralize authority from the national president to local executives generally. They were not meant to repeal by implication the specific administrative structure established for the City of Manila. Repeals by implication are not favored, and statutes must be reconciled whenever possible. The Court found that the existing arrangement under Manila’s charter sufficiently accomplishes the objectives of local autonomy. Consequently, the CSC committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the appointing authority remained with the City Council.