Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31711)
Facts:
Antonio J. Villegas as Mayor of the City of Manila and Manuel D. Lapid, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. Abelardo Subido as Civil Service Commissioner, Eduardo Z. Romualdez as Secretary of Finance, Jose R. Gloria as Acting Asst. City Treasurer of Manila, and Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez as Presiding Judge of Branch V, Court of First Instance of Manila, G.R. No. L-31711. September 30, 1971. The Supreme Court En Banc. Fernando, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Antonio J. Villegas, as Mayor of Manila, claimed authority to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer and on January 1, 1969 appointed Manuel D. Lapid to that post. Earlier, by letter dated June 3, 1968, Secretary of Finance Eduardo Z. Romualdez had authorized Jose R. Gloria to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968; Mayor Villegas responded by Administrative Order No. 40 (June 17, 1968) directing Gloria to desist from exercising those duties on the ground that Romualdez lacked appointing power.
On February 14, 1969, Abelardo Subido, Commissioner of the Civil Service, formally disapproved Lapid’s appointment, relying on a Department of Justice opinion (September 19, 1968) that appointments to assistant provincial/municipal treasurers remained governed by Section 2088(A) of the Revised Administrative Code and not by Section 4 of the Decentralization Law (Republic Act No. 5185). On February 25, 1969 Mayor Villegas and Lapid filed a special civil action for prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus (with application for preliminary injunction) seeking to declare Romualdez’s authorization void ab initio and to compel Commissioner Subido to approve Lapid’s appointment.
After the petition was submitted on pleadings and stipulated exhibits, the Court of First Instance (Branch V, presided by Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez) rendered judgment on August 4, 1969 dismissing the petition. Following that dismissal, petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari. The dispositive question below and before the Court was whether, in light of Republic Act No. 5185 (Decentralization Act of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Mayor of Manila have the legal authority under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer notwithstanding the Manila City Charter's provision delegating that power to the President?
- If not, did Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 effect an implied repeal of the specific appointing provision of the Manila City Cha...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)