Constitutional Law 1 Sec.

17 The President shall have control of all the executive departments, burea us, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Isidro C. Ang- Angco, petitioner, vs. Hon. Natalio P. Castillo, Et. Al., respond ents No. L-17169. November 30,1963 (9 SCRA 619) Facts : February 12, 1960- Collector of Customs Isidro Ang-Angco was resigned effective o n the date of notice, with prejudice to reinstatement in the Bureau of Customs, being found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by Executive Secretary Natalio P. Castillo, by authority of the President. Upon learning of the decision through the newpapers, Ang-Angco requested for rec onsideration : calling attention to the fact that the action taken by Secretary Castillo in removing him from office had the effect of depriving him of his stat utory right to have his case originally decided by the Commissioner of Civil Ser vice, as well as his right to appeal to the Civil service Board of Appeals, whos e decision under Republic Act No. 2260 is final, besides the fact that such dec isions is in violation of the guaranty vouchsafed by the Constitution to officer s or employees in the civil service against removal or suspension except for cau se in the manner provided by law. Secretary Castillo, on authority of President Garcia denied the appeal; he asse rted that the President by virtue of his power of control over all executive dep artments, bureaus and offices, can take direct action and dispose of the adminis trative case in question inasmuch as the provisions of law that would seem to ve st final authority in subordinate officers of the executive branch of the govern ment over administrative matters falling under their jurisdiction cannot divest the President of his power of control nor diminish the same. After exhausting all administrative remedies available for Ang-Angco to secure h is reinstatement to the office from which he was removed without valid cause or in violation of his right to due process of law, he filed before the Supreme Cou rt, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a petition for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction. Citing that Secretary Castillo violated : Sec. 16 (i) of the Civil Service Act o f 1959 which vests in the Commissioner of Civil Service the original and exclusi ve jurisdiction to decide administrative cases against officers and employees in the classified service; deprived him of his right to appeal under Section 18 (b ) of the same Act of the Civil Service Board of Appeals whose decision on the ma tter is final, and removed him from the service without due process in violation of Section 32 of the same Act, and of Section 4, Article XII of the Constitutio n, which provides No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed e xcept for cause as provided for by law. Petitioner is an officer who belongs to t he classified civil service and is not a presidential appointee, but one appoint ed by the Secretary of Finance under the Revised Administrative Code, he cannot be removed from the service in utter disregard of the provisions of the Civil Se rvice Act of 1959. Respondent contended that whether the officers or employees concerned are presid ential appointees or belong to the classified civil service, if they are officer s and employees in the executive department, they all come under the control of the President and therefore, his power of removal may be exercised over them dir ectly without distinction. They held, as in the case of Negado v. Castro, 55 OG. , 10534, the President may modify or set aside a decision of the Civil Service B oard of Appeals at the instance of the office concerned, or the employee, or may even do so motu proprio, there would be in the final analysis no logical differ ence between removing petitioner by direct action of the President and separatin g him from the service by ultimate action by the President should an appeal be t aken from the decision of the Civil Service Board of Appeals to him, or if in hi s discretion he may motu proprio consider it necessary to review the Boards decis ion. Issue :

Whether or not the President has the power to take direct action on the case of petitioner even if he belongs to the classified services, in spite of provisions now in force in the Civil Service Act of 1959. Held : No. Section 16 9i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of the C ivil Service who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to decide administ rative cases of all officers an employees in the classified service. The only li mitation to this power is that the decision of the Commissioner may be appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, in which case said Board shall have decid ed within a period of 90 days, whose decision in such case shall be final (Secti on 18, Republic Act 2260). The only law that can be cited for the President to be empowered to remove offic ers and employees in the classified civil service is Section 64 (b) of the revi sed Administrative Code; but the phrase conformably to law is significant. It show s that the president does not have blanket authority to remove any officer or em ployee of the government but that his power is still subject to the law that may be passed by the legislative body particularly with regard to the procedure, ca use and finality of the removal of the persons who may be subject to the discipl inary action. The power of the President merely applies to the exercise of contr ol over the acts of the subordinate and not over the actor or agent himself of t he act. It means that the President may set aside the judgment or action taken b y a subordinate in the performance of his duties. It is still the Department Head, pursuant to Section 79 (C ) who is given the di rect control of all bureaus and offices under his department by virtue of which he may repeal or modify decisions of the chiefs of said bureaus or offices, and un der section 74 of the same Code, the Presidents control over the executive depart ment refers to matters of general policy. The Civil Service system has the beneficient purpose of giving stability to the tenure of office of those who belong to the classified service. In conclusion, the direct action taken by Secretary Castillo with authority of t he President on the administrative case of the petitioner, without submitting th e same to the Commissioner of Civil Service is contrary to law and should be set aside. The petitioner was reinstated to service, without prejudice to submittin g his case to the Commissioner of Civil Service to be dealt according to law. Note : Section 32 of the Civil Service law of 1959 echoes the constitutionally protecte d security of tenure: no officer or employee in the civil service shall be remov ed or suspended except for cause as provided by law. Shall be entitled to a forma l investigation if he so desires. A civil service employee should be heard before he is condemned. Jurisprudence has clung to this rule with such unrelentless gr asp that by now it would appear trite to make citation thereof (Perez v. Subido, et al., L 26791, June 22, 1968, 28 CSRA 1074). Sheila A. Artillero LLB 1 CPC