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

contractual arrangement. Hence, the authority to execute such contract must be determined under the provisions of law governing contracts entered into on behalf of the local government unit. As regards the termination or discontinuance of services, the authority to take such personnel action generally follows the authority that made the appointment or entered into the engagement, unless otherwise provided by law. Thus, where personnel of the Sangguniang Panlungsod were validly appointed by the Vice-Mayor pursuant to Section 456(a)(2) of the LGC, the corresponding personnel actions over such appointments generally fall within the authority of the same appointing authority. Conversely, where personnel were appointed by the City Mayor from the general city funds, or were engaged through a JO or COS executed by the City Mayor, the authority over the corresponding appointment or contractual engagement remains with the City Mayor. In the case of co-terminous personnel, their tenure is necessarily dependent upon the term or tenure of the official to whom their appointment is made co-terminous, subject to the terms of their appointment and applicable laws and regulations. Their services may therefore be discontinued upon the occurrence of the event or expiration contemplated in their appointment, subject to applicable civil service rules and the requirement of due process where legally applicable. In all instances, the exercise of the power to remove, terminate, or discontinue services is not absolute. It remains subject to the constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure, the nature and terms of the appointment or engagement, applicable civil service laws and regulations, and the requirements of due process. Viewed in this light, the designation of Hon. Diaz as Acting Vice-Mayor does not, by itself, confer upon her authority over all personnel working for or assigned to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, nor does it divest the City Mayor of powers that the law otherwise vests in the local chief executive. Rather, during the period of her acting designation, Hon. Diaz may exercise the powers of the Vice-Mayor under Section 456(a)(2), including the authority to appoint personnel of the Sangguniang Panlungsod whose positions and compensation properly fall within the appropriation and personnel structure of the legislative body. The City Mayor, however, retains authority over personnel whose appointments or engagements properly fall within the Mayor's statutory sphere, including personnel paid from the general city funds and, as a general rule, individuals engaged through JO or COS arrangements. The controlling consideration is therefore not merely the office or body to which the personnel is assigned, but the legal nature of the engagement, the source of funds, and the statutory basis for the exercise of the personnel or contracting authority. Finally, as to the sixth issue, this Office refrains from rendering opinions on matters that are essentially justiciable in nature or that require the determination of factual issues based on conflicting evidence. The determination of whether particular acts of the City Mayor constitute undue interference or encroachment upon the functions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, including whether such acts amount to an impermissible intrusion into the sphere of authority of the local legislative body contemplated in Atienza v. Villarosa, would necessarily require an examination of the specific acts complained of, the circumstances under which they were undertaken, the applicable personnel and appropriation records, and other evidence. Such factual and legal determination is more appropriately addressed by the courts or other competent authorities in the proper proceeding. Page 4 of 5