G.R. No. 115863 March 31, 1995AIDA D.

EUGENIO,
petitioner,vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. TEOFISTO T.GUINGONA, JR. & HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR.,
respondents.
FACTS:
-
The power of the Civil Service Commission to abolish theCareer Executive Service Board is challenged in
thispetition for
certiorari
and prohibition.
-
Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine NuclearResearch Institute. She applied for a Career
ExecutiveService (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 CESOrank by the Career Executive
Service Board.
-
All was not to turn well for petitioner. On October 1, 1993,respondent Civil Service Commission

passed ResolutionNo. 93-4359.
-
The above resolution became an impediment to theappointment of petitioner as Civil Service Officer,
Rank IV.
-
Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief asthe Career Executive Service Board which
recommendedher CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed thepetition at bench to annul,
among others, resolution No.93-4359.
-
The petition is anchored on the following arguments: (1)ESPONDENT COMMISSION USURPED THE
LEGISLATIVEFUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS WHEN IT ABOLISHED THECESB, AN OFFICE CREATED BY LAW
also, (2)RESPONDENT CSC USURPED THE LEGISLATIVEFUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS WHEN IT
ILLEGALLYAUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC MONEY
- The Solicitor General agreed with the contentions of petitioner. Respondent Commission, however,
chose todefend its ground.
ISSUE:
WON respondent commission has the power to abolishthe Career Executive Service Board.
HELD:
We find merit in the petition.
- The controlling fact is that the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was created in the Presidential
Decree(P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 1974 which adopted the Integrated Plan.
-It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the CESB wascreated by law, it can only be abolished by
thelegislature. This follows an unbroken stream of rulingsthat the creation and abolition of public offices
isprimarily a legislative function.
-In the petition at bench, the legislature has not enactedany law authorizing the abolition of the CESB.
On thecontrary, in all the General Appropriations Acts from 1975to 1993, the legislature has set aside
funds for theoperation of CESB.-Respondent Commission, however, invokes Section 17,Chapter 3,
Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the AdministrativeCode of 1987 as the source of its power to abolish
theCESB. Section 17 provides:Sec. 17.
Organizational Structure.
Each office of the Commission shall be headed by a Director with atleast one Assistant Director, and
may have suchdivisions as are necessary independent constitutionalbody,
the Commission may effect changes inthe organization as the need arises.
-But as well pointed out by petitioner and the SolicitorGeneral, Section 17 must be read together with
Section16 of the said Code which enumerates the offices underthe respondent Commission.
-As read together, the inescapable conclusion is thatrespondent Commission's power to reorganize is
limitedto offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16
-From its inception, the CESB was intended to be anautonomous entity, albeit administratively attached
torespondent Commission. As conceptualized by theReorganization Committee "the CESB shall
beautonomous.
-The essential autonomous character of the CESB is notnegated by its attachment to respondent
Commission. Bysaid attachment, CESB was not made to fall within thecontrol of respondent
Commission.
-Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related
governmentagency to another is to attain "policy and program coordination."
-Petition granted