Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

EUGENIO vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995
FACTS:
- On August 2, 1993, Petitioner Aida Eugenio (Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear
Research Institute) applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO
rank. She was then given a CES eligibility.
- On September 15, 1993, she was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the
Career Executive Service Board.
- However, on October 1, 1993, respondent Civil ServiceCommission passed Resolution

No. 93-4359, which became an impediment to petitioner’s appointment as Civil Service
Officer, Rank IV.
- On June 7, 1994, Hon. Antonio T. Carpio (Chief Presidential Legal Counsel) sent a letter
to the petitioner stating that as CSC resolution No. 93-4359 as issued on Oct. 1, 1993
abolished Career Executive Service Board, it resulted to several legal issues including
whether CSC has authority to abolish the CESB. and due to this unresolved issue, the
Office of the President has refrained from considering appointments of career service
eligibles to career executive ranks. He further said that the petitioner may bring a case
before the appropriate court to settle legal issues arising from the CSC resolution.
- Thus, petitioner filed this petition
Petitioner’s Argument:
- The CSC resolution no. 93-4359 is in violation of the Constitution. The CSC usurped the
legislative functions of Congress when it abolished the CESB which is an office created
by law, through their issuance of CSC resolution no. 93-4359
- Also, CSC usurped the legislative functions of the Congress when it illegally authorized
the transfer of public money, through the issuance of the CSC no. 93-4359
Respondent’s Argument:
- Petitioner’s contention states no cause of action against CSC

- The recommendation submitted to the President for appointment to a CESO Rank of
petitioner Eugenio was a valid act of the CESB of the CSC and it does not have any
defect.
- The Office of the President is estopped from questioning the validity of the
recommendation of the CESB in favor of Petitioner Eugenio since the President has
previously appointed to CESO Rank 4 officials similarly situated as said petitioner.
Furthermore, lack of members to constitute a quorum. Assuming there was no quorum, is
not the fault of respondednt CSC but the President who has the power to appoint the
other members of the CESB.
- The integration of the CESB into the Commission is authorized by law in (Sec. 12 (1),
Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of the 1987). This particular issue
had already been settled when the honorable court dismissed the petition filed by the
honorable members of the House of Representatives, as they also questioned the
integration of the CESB with the commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Cviil Service Commission has authority to abolish the Career
Executive Service Board (CESB).
RULING:
No. Resolution No. 93-4359 of the respondent Civil Service Commission should be
annulled and set aside. The controlling fact is that the Career Executive Service Board (CESB)
was created in the Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 1974 which adopted the
Integrated Plan. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the CESB was created by law, it can
only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an unbroken stream of rulings that the creation
and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function. As aptly summed up in AM JUR
2d on Public Officers and Employees viz:
“Except for such offices as are created by the Constitution, the creation of public offices is
primarily a legislative function. In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not
restricted by constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the legislature may decide for
itself what offices are suitable, necessary, or convenient. When in the exigencies of
government it is necessary to create and define duties, the legislative department has the
discretion to determine whether additional offices shall be created, or whether these
duties shall be attached to and become ex-officio duties of existing offices. An office
created by the legislature is wholly within the power of that body, and it may prescribe the
mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent, and if it sees fit,
abolish the office.”
In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition
of the CESB. On the contrary, in all the General Appropriations Acts from 1975 to 1993, the
legislature has set aside funds for the operation of CESB. Respondent Commission, however,
invokes Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 as
the source of its power to abolish the CESB.
As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission's power to

reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16, supra. From its
inception, the CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to
the respondent Commission. As conceptualized by the Reorganization Committee "the CESB
shall be autonomous. It is expected to view the problem of building up executive manpower in
the government with a broad and positive outlook." The essential autonomous character of the
CESB is not negated by its attachment to the respondent Commission. By said attachment,
CESB was not made to fall within the control of the respondent Commission. Under the
Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching one functionally interrelated government
agency to another is to attain "policy and program coordination." This is clearly etched out in
Section 38(3), Chapter 7, Book IV of the aforecited Code, to wit:
(3) Attachment. — (a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its
equivalent and attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program
coordination. The coordination may be accomplished by having the department
represented in the governing board of the attached agency or corporation, either as
chairman or as a member, with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter;
having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic reporting
which shall reflect the progress of programs and projects; and having the department or
its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in the board, which shall
serve as the framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or agency.

Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eugenio vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUGENIO vs.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995

- However, on October 1, 1993, respondent Civil ServiceCommission passed Resolution

- Petitioner’s contention states no cause of action against CSC

As read together, the inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission's power to

You might also like