Case Digest - Villegas vs Subido

 Villegas vs Subido Subido GR No. L-31711 September 30, 1971

Poete! "erado, #.

"a$ts!  A letter dated June 31, 1968, respondent respondent Eduardo Z. Romualdez, Sec. of Finance, auto autoriz rized ed respo respond ndent ent Jose Jose R. !loria !loria of te te "#ice "#ice of te te $it% $it% &reasu &reasurer rer of 'anila 'anila to assume te duties of Asst. $it% &reasurer e#ecti(e June 1, 1968.  )ice Felino Fineza retired from *o(ernment *o(ernment June 1+ 1968, petitioner Antonio  )ille*as,  )ille*as, 'a%or of te $it% of 'anila, 'anila, directed respondent respondent Jose Jose !loria to desist desist and refrain from from e-er e-erci cisi sin* n* te te duti duties es and and func functi tion ons s of Asst Asst.. &rea &reasu sure rer r,, on te te *rou *round nds s tat tat respondent Romualdez is not empo/ered to ma0e suc desi*nations.  Januar% 1, 1969, 'a%or )ille*as appointed petitioner petitioner 'anuel . 2apid, $ief of te Eac i(ision of te "#ice of te $it% &reasurer of 'anila as te Asst. $it% &reasurer. Feruar% 14, 1969, in a 1 st indorsement, $i(il Ser(ice $ommissioner 5 Aelardo Suido dispro(ed dispro(ed te appointment of 2apid esed on Sec. of Justice opinion, Septemer 19, 1968 tat said te appointment appointment of Asst. &reasurer is still *o(erned % te Sec. 788 A: of  te Re(ised Administrati(e $ode, and not % Sec. 4 of te ecentralization 2a/, R.A. ;o. <18<.

%ssue! =o; te lo/er lo/er court court erred erred in decid decidin* in* to dismi dismiss ss te specia speciall ci(il ci(il action action for proiition, >uo /arranto and mandamus of 'a%or )ille*as?

&eld! No. &e lo/er court did not err in its decision. @t is understandale /% te coice for te lo/er court /as not di#icult to ma0e. =at as een clearl% ordained in te $arter is controll controllin* in*.. @t sur(i(es in te face of te assertion tat te additional po/er *ranted to local o#icials to appoint emplo%ees paid out of te local funds /ould su#ice to transfer suc autorit% to petitioner 'a%or )ille*as.  A perusal of te /ords of te statute, e(en if from searcin* /ould not ustif% suc an interpretation.

&is is more e(ident considerin* te Bdelit% % tis $ourt to te doctrine tat loo0s /it less tan fa(our on implied repeals. &e decision no/ on appeal, to repeat, 'CS& DE  AFF@R'E.

'ase otes!

1. 19(9 ')arter o* t)e 'it+ o* aila  E-press &erms  Appointment % resident 5 /it consent of te $ommission on Appointment i.e. Appointment of $it% &reasurer

. Villegas stad o t)e Geeral Provisio *oud i t)e 19/7 e$etraliatio 2$t! G to e#ect te $it% 'a%or e (ested te po/er of appointment of all oter emplo%ees paid out of te $it% or 2ocal Funds suect to $i(il Ser(ice 2a/, Rules, and Re*ulation.

3. Reuisites o* %mplied Repeal &e S$ in tis case ruled tat repeals % implication are not fa(oured and /ill not e declared C;2ESS it e manifest tat te le*islature so intended. Suc a doctrine *oes as far ac0 as CS (s Re%es 198:.

&is case laid do/n t4o reuisites be*ore a repeal is deemed to e5ist 1. %t must be s)o4 t)at t)e statute or statutor+ provisios deal 4it) t)e same sub6e$t matter  . 8)e latter is i$osistet 4it) t)e *ormer. i.e. 8)e laguage used i t)e latter statute must be su$) as to reder it irre$o$ilable 4it) 4)at )ad bee *ormerl+ ea$ted:.  An inconsistenc% tat falls sort of tat standard does not su#ice. =at is needed is a manifest indication of te le*islati(e purpose to repeal.