Citation: Ang-Angco v. Castillo, No.

L-17169, SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TH E PHILIPPINES, 9 SCRA 619, February 16, 1960, Argued, November 30, 1963, Decided . Facts: The Pepsi-Cola Co. requested for the withdrawal of pepsi-cola concentrate s which were not covered by any Central Bank release certificate. Its counsels a pproached Collector of Customs Ang-Angco to secure the immediate release of the concentrates, but advised the counsel to secure the release certificate from the No-Dollar Import Office. The Non-Dollar Import Office wrote a letter to Ang-Ang co which stated that his office had no objection to the release of the concentra tes but could not take action on the request as it was not in their jurisdiction . Ang-Angco telephoned the Secretary of Finance who expressed his approval of th e release on the basis of said certificate. Collector Ang-Angco finally released the concentrates. When Commissioner of Customs learned of the release he filed an administrative complaint against Collector of Customs Ang-Angco. For three ye ars Ang-Angco had been discharging the duties of his office. Then, Executive Sec retary Castillo, by authority of the President, rendered his judgment against th e petitioner. Issue: Whether the President is empowered to remove officers and employees in th e classified civil service. Previous History: Secretary Castillo asserted that the President virtue of his p ower of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, can take di rect action and dispose of the administrative case in subordinate officers of th e executive branch of the government. Holding: The President does not have the power to remove officers or employees i n the classified civil service. Reasoning: It is clear that under the present provision of the Civil Service Act of 1959, the case of petitioner comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the C ommissioner of Civil Service, and having been deprived of the procedure laid dow n in connection with the investigation and disposition of his case, it may be sa id that he has been deprived of due process as guaranteed by said law. The Power of control of the President may extend to the Power to investigate, su spend or remove officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they are presidential appointees but not with regard to those officers or emplo yees who belong to the classified service for as to them that inherent power can not be exercised. This is in line with the provision of our Constitution which says that "the Cong ress may by law vest the appointment of the inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in heads of department" (Article VII, Section 10 [3], C onstitution). With regard to these officers whose appointments are vested on hea ds of departments, Congress has provided by law for a procedure for their remova l precisely in view of this constitutional authority. One such law is the Civil Service Act of 1959. Significance: It well established in this case that it is contrary to law to tak e direct action on the administrative case of an employee under classified servi ce even with the authority of the President without submitting the case to the C ommissioner of Civil Service.