Eugenio v.

Civil Service Commission

G.R. No. 115863

The case involves the challenge to the power of the Civil

Service Commission to abolish the Career Executive Service
Board, an office created by law, without the authorization of
the legislature. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner,
stating that the CESB can only be abolished by the legislature
and that the Commission's power to reorganize is limited to
offices under its control.

Facts:
 Aida D. Eugenio, the petitioner, applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a
CESO rank.
 On August 2, 1993, she was given a CES eligibility.
 On September 15, 1993, she was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the Career
Executive Service Board (CESB).
 On October 1, 1993, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) passed Resolution No. 93-4359,
which abolished the CESB and created the Office for Career Executive Service of the Civil
Service Commission.
 This resolution became an impediment to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service Officer,
Rank IV.
 The petitioner filed a petition to annul Resolution No. 93-4359, arguing that the CSC usurped
the legislative functions of Congress and illegally authorized the transfer of public money.

Issue:
 Whether the CSC has the authority to abolish the CESB and transfer its functions to the
Office for Career Executive Service.

Ruling:
 The petition is granted, and Resolution No. 93-4359 is annulled and set aside.

Ratio:
 The CESB was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 1974, which
adopted the Integrated Reorganization Plan.
 As the CESB was created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature.
 The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function, except for offices
created by the Constitution.
 The legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB.
 The CSC's power to reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16
of the Administrative Code of 1987.
 The CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to the
CSC.
 The attachment of the CESB to the CSC does not make it fall within the control of the CSC.
 The purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is to attain
policy and program coordination.
 The reliance on the case of Datumanong, et al. vs. Civil Service Commission is misplaced, as it
was dismissed for lack of standing of the petitioner.

Creation and Abolition of Public Offices is a Legislative Function

The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on
September 1, 1974, which adopted the Integrated Reorganization Plan. As the CESB was created
by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. The creation and abolition of public offices is
primarily a legislative function, except for offices created by the Constitution. The legislature has
not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB. In fact, the legislature has set aside
funds for the operation of CESB in all the General Appropriation Acts from 1975 to 1993.

Respondent Commission's Power to Reorganize is Limited to Offices

Under its Control
Respondent Commission invokes Section 17, Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish the CESB. However, Section
17 must be read together with Section 16 of the same Code, which enumerates the offices under
the respondent Commission. The inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission's power
to reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16. The CESB was
intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to respondent Commission.
The attachment does not make CESB fall within the control of respondent Commission. The
purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is to attain
"policy and program coordination."

Petitioner's Arguments and Respondent Commission's Position

The petitioner argues that the respondent Commission usurped the legislative functions of
Congress when it abolished the CESB through the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 93-4359. The
petitioner also argues that the respondent CSC illegally authorized the transfer of public money
through the same resolution. The Solicitor General agrees with the petitioner's contentions. On
the other hand, the respondent Commission argues that the petition states no cause of action
against them, that the recommendation submitted to the President for the petitioner's appointment
was valid, that the Office of the President is estopped from questioning the validity of the
recommendation, and that the integration of the CESB into the Commission is authorized by law.

CESB was Created by Law and Can Only be Abolished by the

Legislature
The CESB was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 1974, which
adopted the Integrated Reorganization Plan. As the CESB was created by law, it can only be
abolished by the legislature. The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative
function. The legislature has not enacted any law authorizing the abolition of the CESB. In fact,
the legislature has set aside funds for the operation of CESB in all the General Appropriation
Acts from 1975 to 1993.

Respondent Commission's Power to Reorganize is Limited to Offices

Under its Control
Respondent Commission's power to reorganize is limited to offices under its control as
enumerated in Section 16, Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987. The CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to
respondent Commission. The attachment does not make CESB fall within the control of
respondent Commission. The purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government
agency to another is to attain "policy and program coordination."

Petitioner's Arguments and Respondent Commission's Position

The petitioner argues that the respondent Commission usurped the legislative functions of
Congress when it abolished the CESB through the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 93-4359. The
petitioner also argues that the respondent CSC illegally authorized the transfer of public money
through the same resolution. The Solicitor General agrees with the petitioner's contentions. On
the other hand, the respondent Commission argues that the petition states no cause of action
against them, that the recommendation submitted to the President for the petitioner's appointment
was valid, that the Office of the President is estopped from questioning the validity of the
recommendation, and that the integration of the CESB into the Commission is authorized by law.

Decision
The petition is granted and Resolution No. 93-4359 of the respondent Commission is annulled
and set aside. The CESB cannot be abolished by the respondent Commission as it was created by
law and can only be abolished by the legislature. The power of the respondent Commission to
reorganize is limited to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16 of the
Administrative Code of 1987. The attachment of CESB to the respondent Commission does not
make it fall within the control of the Commission.