Lopez, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the authority to appoint officers and employees within the City Council of Manila. Specifically, the case questions whether the City Council, under Republic Act No. 409 (the Charter of the City of Manila), retains the power to make such appointments, or if this power has been transferred to the City Mayor by virtue of Republic Act No. 5185 (the Decentralization Law) and Batas Blg. 337 (the Local Government Code). Procedural History: On September 13, 1988, the Vice-Mayor of Manila submitted appointments for nineteen officers and employees of the City Council to the Civil Service Commission, citing Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409. A subsequent query from the City Budget Officer led the City Legal Officer to opine that the City Mayor, not the City Council, was the proper appointing authority. The Civil Service Commission, in Resolution No. 89-075 dated February 1, 1989, ruled that the City Council, with the Vice-Mayor signing the appointments, was indeed the proper appointing authority. The Petition: The petitioner, the City Mayor of Manila, filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the Civil Service Commission's resolution. The petition argued that Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409 had been repealed by the later general laws, Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337, which purportedly vested the appointing power in the City Mayor. Despite the procedural defect of appealing directly rather than filing a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court accepted the case due to public interest and treated it as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Issue(s)
Whether the City Council of Manila still has the power to appoint Council officers and employees under Republic Act No. 409, or if such power is now vested with the City Mayor pursuant to Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337. Whether the petition, filed as a direct appeal from a Civil Service Commission resolution, is the proper mode of review.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court considered the petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appointing authority: The Court held that Republic Act No. 409, the Charter of the City of Manila, is a special law, while Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337 are general laws. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law. The Court reiterated that repeals by implication are not favored and require a clear repugnancy between statutes. The provisions of Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337, which grant mayors appointment powers, were intended to underscore the transfer of appointment power to local governments and highlight local autonomy, not to divest specific bodies like the City Council of Manila of their appointing power granted by existing statutes. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Civil Service Commission in ruling that the City Council is the proper appointing authority. On the propriety of the appeal: The Court noted that decisions of the Civil Service Commission are not appealable and are subject only to certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof, as provided by the Constitution. Despite the procedural defect of a direct appeal, the Court accepted the petition as a petition for certiorari due to the important public interest involved and the timely filing.
Main Doctrine
A special law prevails over a general law, and repeals by implication are not favored. Therefore, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) granting the City Council the power to appoint its employees was not repealed by the general provisions of Republic Act No. 5185 (Decentralization Law) or Batas Blg. 337 (Local Government Code).