The petitioner, Aida Eugenio, applied for a Civil Service Executive rank but was denied due to a Civil Service Commission resolution. She argued the resolution should be annulled because the Career Executive Service Board that recommended her had been improperly abolished by the Commission without legislative approval. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the Career Executive Service Board could only be abolished by the legislature as it was created by presidential decree, and the Commission's power was limited to reorganizing offices under its control, which did not include the autonomous Career Executive Service Board.
The petitioner, Aida Eugenio, applied for a Civil Service Executive rank but was denied due to a Civil Service Commission resolution. She argued the resolution should be annulled because the Career Executive Service Board that recommended her had been improperly abolished by the Commission without legislative approval. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the Career Executive Service Board could only be abolished by the legislature as it was created by presidential decree, and the Commission's power was limited to reorganizing offices under its control, which did not include the autonomous Career Executive Service Board.
The petitioner, Aida Eugenio, applied for a Civil Service Executive rank but was denied due to a Civil Service Commission resolution. She argued the resolution should be annulled because the Career Executive Service Board that recommended her had been improperly abolished by the Commission without legislative approval. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the Career Executive Service Board could only be abolished by the legislature as it was created by presidential decree, and the Commission's power was limited to reorganizing offices under its control, which did not include the autonomous Career Executive Service Board.
The petitioner, Aida Eugenio, applied for a Civil Service Executive rank but was denied due to a Civil Service Commission resolution. She argued the resolution should be annulled because the Career Executive Service Board that recommended her had been improperly abolished by the Commission without legislative approval. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the Career Executive Service Board could only be abolished by the legislature as it was created by presidential decree, and the Commission's power was limited to reorganizing offices under its control, which did not include the autonomous Career Executive Service Board.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
AIDA D. EUGENIO vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995
PUNO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Aida Eugenio, the Deputy Director of the Philippine
Nuclear Research Institute, applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank. On September 15, 1993, she was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the Career Executive Service Board. On October 1, 1993, respondent Civil Service Commission passed Resolution No. 93-4359 which became an impediment to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service Officer, Rank IV. Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career Executive Service Board which recommended her CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed the petition at bench to annul said resolution.
Issue:
Ruling:
The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was created in the
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 and can only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an unbroken stream of rulings that the creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function. An office created by the legislature is wholly within the power of that body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent, and if it sees fit, abolish the office. In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB. Respondent Commission's power to reorganize is limited to offices under its control. From its inception, the CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, and CESB was not made to fall within the control of respondent Commission. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is to attain "policy and program coordination.
