Authority of the Acting Vice-Mayor to Appoint Officials and Employees of the Sangguniang Panlungsod

casual personnel, particularly those occupying positions provided for in the approved plantilla and filled through appointment, as opposed to individuals who are not occupying plantilla positions and are engaged through Job Order or Contract of Service arrangements. Thus, where the position is included in the plantilla of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and its compensation is specifically charged against the appropriation of the Sanggunian, the appointing authority belongs to the Vice-Mayor pursuant to Section 456(a)(2) of the LGC. This covers the appropriate regular, temporary, and casual personnel occupying authorized positions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, as well as co-terminous personnel whose appointments are properly made by the Vice-Mayor pursuant to law. By virtue of the designation of Hon. Diaz as Acting Vice-Mayor, she may exercise this authority during the period of her acting designation, subject to the applicable laws, civil service rules, and the limitations of her designation. On the other hand, where the position or personnel is funded from the general city funds, the City Mayor retains the authority to appoint the same pursuant to the powers vested in the local chief executive under the LGC. This remains true even if the employee is assigned to the Office of the Vice-Mayor or performs functions for the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The mere assignment of an employee to the legislative body does not transfer the appointing authority from the City Mayor to the Vice-Mayor where the employee's salary is properly charged against the general funds of the City. A further distinction must be made with respect to personnel engaged through Job Order or Contract of Service arrangements. Unlike an appointment to a plantilla position, a JO or COS engagement is contractual in nature and is accomplished through the execution of a contract for services. In Legal Opinion No. 89, s. 2022, the Department opined that, as a general rule, the authority to enter into such contracts belongs to the local chief executive pursuant to the provisions of the LGC governing the contracting authority of the Mayor. For a city, Section 455(b)(1)(vi) of the LGC authorizes the City Mayor to represent the City in all its business transactions and sign in its behalf all bonds, contracts, obligations, and such other documents upon authority of the Sanggunian or pursuant to law or ordinance. Accordingly, the engagement of a person specifically to perform services for the Sangguniang Panlungsod does not, by itself, vest the Acting Vice-Mayor with authority to execute the corresponding JO or COS. The fact that the services are intended for the Sanggunian, or that the expense is included in its appropriation, must be distinguished from the authority to bind the City through a contract. As a general rule, the City Mayor, as local chief executive, has the authority to enter into and sign such contracts on behalf of the City, subject to the requirements of law, applicable rules and regulations, and the availability of an appropriation. The Vice-Mayor may exercise such contracting authority only when there is a specific legal basis authorizing the same, such as an ordinance duly enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod authorizing the Vice-Mayor to enter into contracts on behalf of the City. This distinction between an appointment and a contractual engagement is likewise material in applying the ruling in Atienza v. Villarosa. While the Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Vice-Governor over officials and employees of the Sanggunian whose salaries are derived from appropriations specifically made for the legislative body, the terms “appointment” and “appointing authority” refer to the statutory authority to fill positions or employ personnel. A JO or COS, on the other hand, does not create an appointment to a plantilla position but constitutes a Page 3 of 5