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

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31711)

Factual Background

Antonio J. Villegas was Mayor of Manila when Eduardo Z. Romualdez, as Secretary of Finance, by a letter dated June 3, 1968, authorized Jose R. Gloria to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968, succeeding a retiree. Mayor Villegas issued Administrative Order No. 40 dated June 17, 1968 directing Gloria to desist from exercising those duties on the ground that the Secretary of Finance lacked authority to make the designation. On January 1, 1969 Mayor Villegas appointed Manuel D. Lapid as Assistant City Treasurer. Abelardo Subido, as Commissioner of the Civil Service, on February 14, 1969 disapproved Lapid’s appointment, citing an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated September 19, 1968 that appointments of assistant provincial treasurers remained governed by Section 2088(A) of the Revised Administrative Code and not by Section 4 of the Decentralization Act. 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 void the Secretary of Finance’s authorization and to compel Commissioner Subido to approve Lapid’s appointment. After the petition was filed, Gloria was nominated by the President and confirmed as Assistant City Treasurer. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition on August 4, 1969.

Trial Court Proceedings

The petition for prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus proceeded on the pleadings and the parties’ stipulated exhibits before Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez. The trial court rendered a written decision on August 4, 1969 dismissing the petition, reasoning that the City Charter’s express grant of appointment power controlled over the general provision of the Decentralization Act. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court by way of certiorari.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioners urged that Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 (1967) vested mayors with the power to appoint "other employees" paid out of city funds, subject to civil service rules, and that such language should be construed broadly to include the Assistant City Treasurer, thereby advancing the Act’s purpose of enlarging local autonomy. Respondents, principally Abelardo Subido, maintained that the City Charter, Republic Act No. 409 (1949), expressly vested the appointment of the City Treasurer and his Assistant in the President of the Philippines with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, and that the Decentralization Act could not be read to effect an implied repeal of that specific grant. The Civil Service Commissioner relied also on the Secretary of Justice’s opinion and the settled rule disfavoring implied repeals.

Issue

The dispositive issue was whether Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 (1967) displaced the specific appointment provision of Republic Act No. 409 (1949) so as to vest in the Mayor of Manila the appointing power over the Assistant City Treasurer, or whether the City Charter’s express provision continued to control.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the City Charter’s express grant of appointment power to the President controlled and that Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 did not transfer the appointing authority to the City Mayor. The Court dismissed petitioners’ contention that the Decentralization Act effected an implied repeal or broader reallocation of appointing powers.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its ruling on several legal propositions stated in the source. First, the Court applied the statutory distinction in Section 2, Republic Act No. 2711 (1917) between "employees" and "officers," noting that the Assistant City Treasurer was an officer whose duties involved the exercise of discretion and were not merely clerical or manual. Consequently, the categorical term "other employees" in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 could not be read to include the Assistant City Treasurer. Second, the Court observed that Section 4 of the Decentralization Act specifically enumerated certain city officials and assistants whom the City Mayor could appoint and expressly excluded "City Treasurers" from the operation of that section; that textual exclusion confirmed that the Legislature did not intend to transfer appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer to the Mayor. Third, the Court invoked the longstanding doctrine that repeals by implication are not favored and that a general statute does not abrogate a prior special or specific enactment unless the legislative intent to repeal is manifest and the later law is repugnant to the earlier provision. The Court cited precedents tracing this principle to United States v. Reyes and to decisions such as Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31711)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Antonio J. Villegas and Manuel D. Lapid were the petitioners-appellants who sought prohibitory, mandamus, and quo warranto relief against administrative acts affecting the office of Assistant City Treasurer of Manila.
Abelardo Subido was named as respondent in his capacity as Commissioner of the Civil Service and opposed the petition.
Eduardo Z. Romualdez was named as respondent in his capacity as Secretary of Finance and had authorized an acting Assistant City Treasurer.
Jose R. Gloria was named as respondent as the official who had been authorized to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer and who was subsequently nominated and confirmed by the President.
The petitioners filed the special civil action with application for preliminary injunction on February 25, 1969 in the Court of First Instance, Branch V, Manila.
The trial court, presided over by Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez, dismissed the petition on August 4, 1969, and the petitioners appealed by certiorari.
The Supreme Court rendered the decision under review and affirmed the dismissal of the petition on the merits.

Key Factual Allegations

Eduardo Z. Romualdez authorized Jose R. Gloria to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Felino Fineza on May 31, 1968.
Antonio J. Villegas issued Administrative Order No. 40 dated June 17, 1968, directing Jose R. Gloria to desist from exercising the duties and functions of Assistant City Treasurer on the ground that the Secretary of Finance lacked power to make such designation.
Antonio J. Villegas appointed Manuel D. Lapid as Assistant City Treasurer on January 1, 1969.
Abelardo Subido disapproved the appointment of Manuel D. Lapid by a first indorsement dated February 14, 1969, relying upon an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated September 19, 1968 that the appointment was governed by Section 2088(A) of the Revised Administrative Code and not by Section 4 of the Decentralization Law.
The petitioners sought judicial relief to declare the Secretary of Finance’s authorization void ab initio and to compel the Commissioner of Civil Service to approve Lapid’s appointment.
After filing of the petition, Jose R. Gloria was nominated by the President and thereafter duly confirmed to the position of Assistant City Treasurer.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 409 (1949), Section 22, expressly provided that the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the City Treasurer and his Assistant.
Republic Act No. 5185 (1967), Section 4, granted mayors authority to appoint specified heads of offices and their assistants "entirely paid out of city funds" subject to civil service law, but explicitly excluded from application judges, auditors, fiscals, city superintendents of schools, supervisors, principals, city treasurers, city health officers and city engineers.
Republic Act No. 2711 (1917), Section 2, as embodied in the Revised Administrative Code, defined the term "officer" to denote persons whose duties are not clerical or manual in nature and which involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of governmental functions.
The Secretary of Justice opinion that was relied upon by Abelardo Subido invoked Section 2088(A) of the Revised Administrative Code as governing appointments of assistant provincial (and by extension city) treasurers.

Issues Presented

Whether Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 vested the Mayor of Manila with power to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer despite an express grant of that power to the President in Section 22 of Republic Act No. 409.
Whether Republic Act No. 5185 operated to impliedly repeal or modify the specific appointing provision contained in Republic Act No. 409.
Whether the Assistant City Treasurer was properly character