G.R. No. L-23841 August 30, 1974
CITY OF BASILAN, represented by HONORABLE LEROY S. BROWN, in his capacity as City Mayor, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RUFINO HECHANOVA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Finance, VICENTE FABIAN, in his official capacity as City Treasurer of Basilan City, and MIGUEL E. ANTONIO, respondents.

FACTS

The City Council of Basilan enacted Ordinance No. 161 in 1954, creating the position of Assistant City Auditor. Respondent Miguel E. Antonio was appointed to this position, performed its duties, and received the corresponding salary. A decade later, on July 1, 1964, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 406, which abolished the same position by deleting it from the city plantilla and omitting any appropriation for its compensation.
Respondent Antonio refused to vacate the office, contending the abolition was invalid. The then Secretary of Finance, Rufino Hechanova, and the City Treasurer, Vicente Fabian, sustained Antonio’s position and refused to recognize the ordinance. They argued the position was national in character, being under the control of the constitutional Auditor General, and that the abolition was tainted by bad faith and partisan motives. Consequently, the City of Basilan, represented by its Mayor, filed this petition for prohibition to compel the respondents to adhere to the abolishing ordinance.

ISSUE

Whether the City of Basilan validly abolished the position of Assistant City Auditor through a municipal ordinance.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the abolition was invalid. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Office of the Assistant City Auditor is not a purely municipal creation but an integral part of the national auditing system. The 1935 Constitution vested the Auditor General with the power to examine and settle all government accounts, a function of constitutional and national significance. Republic Act No. 3719 , which amended the Administrative Code, also provided for such positions. Following the doctrine in Francia v. Pecson, a City Auditor (and by extension, an Assistant) is an officer of the General Auditing Office under the direct supervision of the Auditor General, not a city employee. A city ordinance cannot abolish an office that exists by virtue of national statute and performs a constitutional function. Under the settled rule from United States v. Joson, a local ordinance that conflicts with a statute must yield.
Second, even assuming arguendo that the city had the authority, the abolition was void for being done in bad faith. The Court found the reply memorandum of respondent Hechanova indicative of a partisan motive behind the ordinance. The controlling principle, as established in Cruz v. Primicias, Jr., is that the abolition of an office must be made in good faith. An abolition executed for political or personal reasons, or to circumvent the security of tenure of civil service employees, is null and void. Since the ordinance failed both tests of legal authority and good faith, the respondents were correct in disregarding it.