G.R. No. L-30865 August 31, 1971
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, in his capacity as Mayor of Pasay City, and SEGUNDO C. MASTRILI, petitioners, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovito O. Claudio, Mayor of Pasay City, appointed petitioner Segundo C. Mastrili as City Legal Officer pursuant to an ordinance enacted under the Decentralization Act of 1967. Mastrili, a law practitioner for over twenty-five years, was unquestionably qualified. He took his oath and assumed office on January 7, 1969. However, respondent Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido disapproved the appointment.
The Commissioner based his disapproval on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 (the Decentralization Act), which required that vacancies for heads of local offices be filled by appointment from a list of the five next ranking eligible and qualified persons certified by the Civil Service Commissioner. Since Mayor Claudio appointed Mastrili without such a prior certification from Commissioner Subido, the latter deemed the appointment invalid. This prompted the petitioners to file a suit for mandamus to compel approval of the appointment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service can validly disapprove the appointment of the City Legal Officer for non-compliance with the certification requirement under Section 4 of the Decentralization Act.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the Commissioner to approve Mastrili’s appointment. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court held that Section 4 of the Decentralization Act does not apply to the position of City Legal Officer. This position is one that requires the utmost confidence of the appointing mayor, analogous to the relationship between a lawyer and client. Citing Besa v. Philippine National Bank, the Court emphasized that the choice of a legal counsel rests solely on the trust and confidence of the client, here the city mayor. Therefore, the appointing prerogative is personal to the mayor and cannot be restricted by a requirement for a certified list of eligibles.
Second, the Court reinforced this interpretation by aligning it with the legislative objective of the Decentralization Act: to promote local autonomy. Applying the certification requirement to a confidential position like the City Legal Officer would frustrate this policy by unduly interfering with the local executive’s power to select officials of his confidence, provided they are qualified. The Court cited its precedent in Pineda v. Claudio, which rejected a similar attempt to impose the “next-in-rank” rule on the appointment of a Chief of Police, stressing the need for dynamic administration where the local executive can choose individuals based on integrity and judgment. Since Mastrili was admittedly qualified, the Commissioner had a ministerial duty to attest to the appointment. To rule otherwise would emasculate local autonomy.