The respondent, a Civil Service Commissioner, directed the Mayor of Manila to replace three police station commanders because they lacked the qualification of "Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major)" which was a recommendation from the U.S. Agency for International Development. However, the Mayor argued there was no legal provision requiring this qualification and staff appointments were under the Mayor's authority. The court ruled the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion since there was no law giving the respondent the power to set eligibility requirements, which belongs to Congress, and the respondent was discharging a function not entrusted to the agency.
The respondent, a Civil Service Commissioner, directed the Mayor of Manila to replace three police station commanders because they lacked the qualification of "Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major)" which was a recommendation from the U.S. Agency for International Development. However, the Mayor argued there was no legal provision requiring this qualification and staff appointments were under the Mayor's authority. The court ruled the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion since there was no law giving the respondent the power to set eligibility requirements, which belongs to Congress, and the respondent was discharging a function not entrusted to the agency.
The respondent, a Civil Service Commissioner, directed the Mayor of Manila to replace three police station commanders because they lacked the qualification of "Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major)" which was a recommendation from the U.S. Agency for International Development. However, the Mayor argued there was no legal provision requiring this qualification and staff appointments were under the Mayor's authority. The court ruled the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion since there was no law giving the respondent the power to set eligibility requirements, which belongs to Congress, and the respondent was discharging a function not entrusted to the agency.
The respondent, a Civil Service Commissioner, directed the Mayor of Manila to replace three police station commanders because they lacked the qualification of "Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major)" which was a recommendation from the U.S. Agency for International Development. However, the Mayor argued there was no legal provision requiring this qualification and staff appointments were under the Mayor's authority. The court ruled the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion since there was no law giving the respondent the power to set eligibility requirements, which belongs to Congress, and the respondent was discharging a function not entrusted to the agency.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Villegas vs Subido
FACTS:
Subido, Commissioner of Civil Service Commission, respondent directed
the Mayor of the City of Manila, petitioner, to replace the other petitoners as station commanders of the police precints as their continued employment was illegal. Respondent Commissioner averred that the three designated station commanders lack “an Inspector First Class (Police Detective Major) as this is not in conformity with the recommendation of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and there were eligibles who are qualified who could be designated. Petitioner Mayor interposed that there is no provision in the law requiring such qualification and such designation or detail was exclusively within the power of him as Mayor under his specific power of direction, supervision and control.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent acted with grave abuse of dicretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he assert that designated station commanders lack eligibility?
RULING :
Yes, the respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion.
There is no provision in the law that confer the respondent with such power. Respondent’s inference that fixing of appropriate eligibilities is under the enforcement of the Civil Service Act and he has exclusive jurisdiction to do such is not correct. The power to fix appropriate elibilities belongs to the Congress.
There is no presumption of the government agencies to discharge
funcions and responbilities that were not entrusted to them. There must be a delegation of such authority, either express or implied. In the absence of valid grant, they are devoid of power.
