G.R. No. L-31711 - Villegas vs. Subido

In this case, a controversy arose regarding the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila. The sequence of events is as follows:

On June 3, 1968, the Secretary of Finance authorized Jose R. Gloria, officer of the City Treasurer’s Office, to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer following the retirement of Felino Fineza.
Dissatisfied with this designation, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas issued Administrative Order No. 40 (dated June 17, 1968) commanding Gloria to desist from performing the functions of the Assistant City Treasurer, arguing that the appointment authority belonged not to the Finance Secretary but to the Mayor.
Acting on his authority, on January 1, 1969, Mayor Villegas appointed Manuel D. Lapid—then Chief of the Cash Division—as Assistant City Treasurer.
Shortly thereafter, on February 14, 1969, Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido disapproved of the appointment based on an opinion by the Secretary of Justice which held that appointments of this nature were governed by Section 2088(A) of the Revised Administrative Code rather than Section 4 of the Decentralization Act (Republic Act No. 5185).
Subsequently, on February 25, 1969, Mayor Villegas and Lapid filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and mandamus seeking to invalidate the authorization given to Gloria and compel the approval of Lapid’s appointment.
During the pendency of the case, respondent Gloria was eventually nominated by the President of the Philippines and confirmed as the Assistant City Treasurer.
The lower court, after reviewing the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the petition on August 4, 1969.

Whether Mayor Villegas had the authority under the Decentralization Act to appoint an Assistant City Treasurer, notwithstanding the clear provisions of the Manila City Charter.
Whether the general appointment provision in the Decentralization Act, which allows city mayors to appoint “other employees…,” can be liberally construed to include an appointment power over an “officer” (the Assistant City Treasurer), despite the Charter expressly vesting this power in the President.
Whether the Decentralization Act, by its expansive language, impliedly repealed or modified the specific mandate set forth in the City Charter regarding the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer.