MATHAY JR.

v CA

FACTS:

During his administration, Simon appointed the three private respondents for the Civil Service
Units pursuant to a Presidential Decree creating such units. It was later held in an opinion of the
Ministry of Justice that the PD wasn’t published in the Official Gazette and therefore, didn’t
become a proper law. Pursuant to this, the CSC issued an order for the revocation of same
appointments. The then mayor Simon remedied this by issuing an ordinance calling for the
automatic absorption of the appointees to the created Department of Public Order and Safety.
The said department didn’t quite reach fruition due to insufficiency of funds and lack of regular
and permanent positions to be filled. The mayor then issued contractual appointments, which was
carried over by the next mayor Mathay. But at the expiration of the said contractual appointments,
it was no longer approved, prompting the private respondents to file a complaint with the CSC.
The CSC ordered Mathay to reinstate the private respondents pursuant to the previous ordinance
issued.

HELD:

The CSC has no authority to direct the mayor to reinstate the private respondents.

Applying the old LGC, the CSC erred in applying the provisions of the ordinance in ordering the
mayor to reinstate the private respondents. The questioned ordinance ordered the absorption of
the personnel of the defunct CSU into the new DPOS. The ordinance refers to personnel and not
to positions. Hence, the city council is in effect through the ordinance dictating who shall occupy
the newly created DPOS positions. However, a review of the old Local Government Code shows
that the power to appoint rests exclusively with the local chief executive and thus cannot be
usurped by the city council through a simple expedient of enacting an ordinance that provides for
the absorption of specific persons to certain positions.
In upholding the provisions of the ordinance on the automatic absorption of the personnel without
allowance for the exercise of discretion on the part of the mayor, the CA in turn makes the
sweeping statement that the doctrine of separation of powers doesn’t apply to local governments,
which is wrong. The powers of the city council and the mayor are expressly enumerated
separately and delineated in the old LGC. The power to appoint belongs to the city mayor while
the power to create, consolidate, and reorganize city officers and positions supported by local
funds belongs to the city council.
By ordering the mayor to reinstate private respondents, the CSC substituted its own judgment to
the appointing power of the mayor. This cannot be done. The CSC’s power is limited to approving
or disapproving an appointment. It doesn’t have the authority to direct that an appointment of a
specific individual be made.