Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. L-25835 – 17 SCRA 231 – 123 Phil. 1080 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – Vacancy of an Office
In 1966, Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas appointed 500 employees to the city government. However, Commissioner Abelardo Subido of the Civil Service Commission refused to confirm the said appointments because he avers that Villegas is no longer the mayor of Manila because in 1965, he accepted a presidential appointment as a director in the NAWASA (National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority).
Villegas insisted he is still the mayor because in the first place, he was merely designated as a director of NAWASA and that he later resigned as such. He further argued that Subido, as the Civil Service Commissioner has no power to determine whether or not Villegas vacated his public office. On that point, Subido averred that he must necessarily determine if Villegas was still the mayor in order to further determine if the appointments made were valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not Villegas vacated the mayoralty office as determined by the Civil Service Commissioner.
HELD: No. The Civil Service Commissioner has no such power. The court did not pass upon the issue of whether or not Villegas vacated his office, hence, the appointments he made should be confirmed by the Civil Service because Villegas is still considered the mayor of Manila.
What Subido should have done, since he was doubtful of Villegas’s authority, was to inform the Solicitor General and the latter may file a quo warranto proceeding to oust Villegas from the mayoralty of Manila if there are valid grounds. The Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not Villegas is still the mayor of Manila because the case before them is not a quo warranto case.
