G.R. No. L-17169; November 30, 1963
ISIDRO C. ANG-ANGCO, petitioner, vs. HON. NATALIO P. CASTILLO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Isidro C. Ang-Angco, Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, authorized the release of Pepsi-Cola concentrates imported without a Central Bank release certificate. He acted based on a letter from the No-Dollar Import Office stating it had “no objection” but lacked jurisdiction, and after receiving telephonic approval from the Secretary of Finance. An administrative complaint for grave neglect of duty was filed against him. After investigation by a committee constituted by President Magsaysay, which recommended a 15-day suspension, Ang-Angco was reinstated but the case remained pending. Three years later, Executive Secretary Natalio P. Castillo, by authority of President Garcia, rendered a decision finding Ang-Angco guilty and considering him resigned, with prejudice to reinstatement.
Ang-Angco challenged this decision, arguing it deprived him of his statutory right to have his case originally decided by the Commissioner of Civil Service and appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, violating constitutional civil service protections. His requests for reconsideration, reiterated to President Garcia, were denied by Secretary Castillo, who asserted the President’s direct power of control over executive departments allowed such action.

ISSUE

Whether the President, through the Executive Secretary, could directly decide and impose the penalty of removal upon petitioner, a civil service officer in the classified service, bypassing the procedure established by the Civil Service Act of 1959 ( Republic Act No. 2260 ).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Executive Secretary and ordered Ang-Angco’s reinstatement. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct constitutional and statutory treatment of classified civil service employees. While the President possesses constitutional power of control over all executive departments, this control is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of law, particularly concerning the removal of members of the classified service.
The Court clarified that the President’s inherent power to remove is recognized for presidential appointees or those not in the classified service, as the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. However, for officers and employees in the classified civil service, their tenure is protected by the Constitution, which provides they shall not be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law. Congress, pursuant to its constitutional authority to vest the appointment of inferior officers in heads of departments, enacted the Civil Service Act of 1959. This law established a specific procedure for administrative discipline, vesting original jurisdiction in the Commissioner of Civil Service, with appeals to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. By providing this detailed procedure, Congress validly restricted the removal power. The President’s constitutional power of control cannot override this statutory scheme specifically designed to protect the security of tenure of civil service employees. To rule otherwise would undermine the merit system and revert to a spoils system. Therefore, the direct action taken by the Executive Secretary, even with presidential authority, was contrary to law for bypassing the mandated civil service procedure.