Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 499 views

    Villegas V Subido G.R. NO. L 31711 Canedo PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jen
    This case involved a dispute over the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila between the City Mayor and the Civil Service Commissioner. The Civil Service Commissioner denied the Mayor's appointment based on provisions in the City Charter and Administrative Code that gave the President authority to appoint the position. However, the Mayor argued the Decentralization Act of 1967 impliedly repealed these provisions and allowed mayors to appoint assistants. The Supreme Court ruled that the Decentralization Act did not impliedly repeal the earlier laws because 1) it did not clearly deal with the same subject matter and 2) it was not irreconcilable or manifestly intended to repeal the provisions designating the President as the appointing authority for the Assistant City

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Villegas V Subido G.R. NO. L 31711 Canedo PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jen
    499 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila between the City Mayor and the Civil Service Commissioner. The Civil Service Commissioner denied the Mayor's appointment based on provisions in the City Charter and Administrative Code that gave the President authority to appoint the position. However, the Mayor argued the Decentralization Act of 1967 impliedly repealed these provisions and allowed mayors to appoint assistants. The Supreme Court ruled that the Decentralization Act did not impliedly repeal the earlier laws because 1) it did not clearly deal with the same subject matter and 2) it was not irreconcilable or manifestly intended to repeal the provisions designating the President as the appointing authority for the Assistant City

    Original Title

    Villegas-v-Subido-G.R.-NO.-L-31711-Canedo.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila between the City Mayor and the Civil Service Commissioner. The Civil Service Commissioner denied the Mayor's appointment based on provisions in the City Charter and Administrative Code that gave the President authority to appoint the position. However, the Mayor argued the Decentralization Act of 1967 impliedly repealed these provisions and allowed mayors to appoint assistants. The Supreme Court ruled that the Decentralization Act did not impliedly repeal the earlier laws because 1) it did not clearly deal with the same subject matter and 2) it was not irreconcilable or manifestly intended to repeal the provisions designating the President as the appointing authority for the Assistant City

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    499 views2 pages

    Villegas V Subido G.R. NO. L 31711 Canedo PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jen
    This case involved a dispute over the appointment of the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila between the City Mayor and the Civil Service Commissioner. The Civil Service Commissioner denied the Mayor's appointment based on provisions in the City Charter and Administrative Code that gave the President authority to appoint the position. However, the Mayor argued the Decentralization Act of 1967 impliedly repealed these provisions and allowed mayors to appoint assistants. The Supreme Court ruled that the Decentralization Act did not impliedly repeal the earlier laws because 1) it did not clearly deal with the same subject matter and 2) it was not irreconcilable or manifestly intended to repeal the provisions designating the President as the appointing authority for the Assistant City

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    VILLEGAS V. SUBIDO, G.R. NO.

    L-31711, SEPTEMBER 30,


    1971

    Topic- Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws with similar subject


    matter

    Facts:
    1. June 3, 1968, Eduardo Romualdez, Secretary of Finance, authorized Jose Gloria of the Office of
    the City Treasurer of Manila to assume the duties of Assistant City Treasurer.

    2. On the other hand, petitioner Antonio Villegas, Mayor of the City of Manila, issued an
    administrative order directed to 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.”

    3. On Jan 1, 1969, Mayor Villegas appointed Manuel Lapid as Assistant City Treasurer in the
    grounds of a provision in the Decentralization Act of 1967.

    4. However, upon the 1st endorsement, Abelardo Subido, Civil Service Commissioner, disapproved
    the Appointment of Lapid on the basis that the appointment of Asst City Treasurer is still
    governed by the Charter of the City of Manila and Section 2088 (A) of the Revised
    Administrative Code.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the Charter of the City of Manila and Section 2088 (A) of the Revised Administrative
    Code had been impliedly repealed by Decentralization Act of 1967 which authorizes the City Mayor to
    appoint the Assistant City Treasurer

    Ruling:

    No, the Decentralization Act of 1967 do not impliedly repeal the Charter of the City of Manila and
    Revised Administrative Code.

    The provision in the Decentralization Act of 1967 that the petitioners invoke states that “all other
    employees, except teachers, paid out of provincial, city or municipal general funds, subject to civil
    service law, rules and regulations, be appointed by the provincial governor, city or municipality”.
    However, the Revised Administrative Code distinguishes “an employee from an officer to
    designate those whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, may be considered to involve
    the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of government”. In this case, the
    Assistant City Treasurer is an officer.
    It is also expressly stated in the Charter of the City of Manila that the President of the Philippines,
    with the consent of the CA, the power to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer.
    Also, Section 4 of the Decentralization Act specifically enumerates the officials and their assistants
    the Mayor cannot appoint which includes city treasurers.

    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.

    Note: 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.

    You might also like