Villegas vs Subido

GR No. L-31711

September 30, 1971

Ponente: Fernando, J.

Facts:

A letter dated June 31, 1968, respondent Eduardo Z. Romualdez, Sec. of Finance,
authorized respondent Jose R. Gloria of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila to
assume the duties of Asst. City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968.

Vice Felino Fineza retired from government June 17 1968, petitioner Antonio
Villegas, Mayor of the City of Manila, directed respondent Jose Gloria to “desist and refrain
from exercising the duties and functions of Asst. Treasurer”, on the grounds that
respondent Romualdez “is not empowered to make such designations.”

January 1, 1969, Mayor Villegas appointed petitioner Manuel D. Lapid, Chief of the
Each Division of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila as the Asst. City Treasurer.

February 14, 1969, in a 1 st indorsement, Civil Service Commissioner – Abelardo

Subido disproved the appointment of Lapid besed on Sec. of Justice opinion, September 19,
1968 that said; “the appointment of Asst. Treasurer is still governed by the Sec. 2088 (A) of
the Revised Administrative Code, and not by Sec. 4 of the Decentralization Law, R.A. No.
5185.”

Issue:

WoN the lower court erred in deciding to dismiss the special civil action for
prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus of Mayor Villegas?

Held:

No. The lower court did not err in its decision. It is understandable why the choice
for the lower court was not difficult to make. What has been clearly ordained in the Charter
is “controlling”. It survives in the face of the assertion that “the additional power granted
to local officials to appoint employees paid out of the local funds would suffice to transfer
such authority to petitioner Mayor Villegas.”

A perusal of the words of the statute, even if from searching would not justify such
an interpretation.
 This is more evident considering the fidelity by this Court to the doctrine that looks
with less than favour on implied repeals. The decision now on appeal, to repeat, MUST BE
AFFIRMED.
Case notes:

1. 1949 Charter of the City of Manila – Express Terms:

Appointment by President – with consent of the Commission on Appointment

i.e. Appointment of City Treasurer

2. Villegas stand on the General Provision found in the 1967 Decentralization Act:

“… to effect the City Mayor be vested the power of appointment of all other
employees paid out of the City or Local Funds subject to Civil Service Law, Rules, and
Regulation.”

3. Requisites of Implied Repeal

The SC in this case ruled that repeals by implication are not favoured and will not
be declared UNLESS it be manifest that the legislature so intended. Such a doctrine goes
as far back as US vs Reyes (1908).

This case laid down two requisites before a repeal is deemed to exist:

1. It must be shown that the statute or statutory provisions deal with the
same subject matter;
2. The latter is inconsistent with the former. (i.e. The language used in the
latter statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had
been formerly enacted).
An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. What is
needed is a manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal.