Basilan v. Hechanova
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City Council of Basilan City enacted Ordinance No. 161 in 1954, creating the position of Assistant City Auditor, to which respondent Miguel E. Antonio was appointed. On July 1, 1964, the City of Basilan enacted Ordinance No. 406, abolishing the office of Assistant City Auditor by deleting the post from the plantilla and failing to provide compensation. Respondent Antonio continued to hold his position, asserting the ordinance's invalidity. Procedural History: The respondents, Secretary of Finance Rufino Hechanova and City Treasurer Vicente Fabian, sustained respondent Antonio's position, declaring the ordinance null and void. This led to the filing of a petition for prohibition by the City of Basilan, represented by its Mayor, seeking to prohibit the respondent officials from acting contrary to the ordinance. The Petition: The City of Basilan filed a petition for prohibition, praying that respondent officials be prohibited from acting contrary to the terms of the ordinance abolishing the position of Assistant City Auditor.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of Basilan has the authority to abolish the position of Assistant City Auditor through an ordinance. Whether the abolition of the Assistant City Auditor position was vitiated by bad faith.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The ordinance abolishing the position of Assistant City Auditor is void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to abolish the position of Assistant City Auditor: The Court held that the City of Basilan cannot unilaterally abolish the position of Assistant City Auditor through an ordinance. The office of the Assistant City Auditor is not merely a municipal creation but is part of a national undertaking of auditing, as recognized by the 1935 Constitution and subsequent laws. The position's national character is further evidenced by its inclusion in a Republic Act amending the Administrative Code. Citing Francia v. Pecson, the Court reiterated that a City Auditor is an officer of the General Auditing Office, under the direct supervision and control of the Auditor General, not a city government official. Therefore, a city government cannot intrude into matters of national and constitutional significance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the well-settled principle that when an ordinance conflicts with a statute, the ordinance must yield. The Secretary of Finance was justified in disregarding the ordinance. On whether the abolition was vitiated by bad faith: Even if the barrier of national scope were not insurmountable, the Court found that the abolition was tainted by bad faith. The reply memorandum of respondent Hechanova indicated partisan motives behind the abolition. The Court stressed that an ordinance of this character must be lawful and not tainted by bad faith, citing Gacho v. Osmeña and Bendanillo, Sr. v. Provincial Governor. In Cruz v. Primicias, Jr., the Court enunciated that an abolition made in bad faith, for political or personal reasons, or to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure, is null and void. The alleged abolition suffered from this congenital infirmity.
Main Doctrine
An ordinance abolishing the position of Assistant City Auditor is void if the position is part of a national undertaking like auditing, as evidenced by its inclusion in a Republic Act, and if the abolition is tainted with bad faith or partisan maneuvering.