G.R. No. L-27714 - NOVEMBER 1981 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-27714November 5, 1981 Antonio J. Villegas vs. Abelardo Subido A.M. No. P-2551November 6, 1981 Angel C. Del Mundo vs. Atilano Barrozo G.R. No. L-50155November 6, 1981 Saturnino Ocampo vs. Military Commission No. 25 G.R. No. L-51368November 6, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Saglala Macatanda G.R. No. L-56874November 6, 1981 Fructuoso Aguilar vs. Leuterio E. Chiu G.R. No. L-37442November 9, 1981 Fabia Masaganda vs. Juan Argamosa G.R. No. L-31472November 10, 1981 Alexander Leyson vs. Hon. Judge Santiago O. Tanada, et al. A.M. No. 2505-MJNovember 12, 1981 Francisca Salomon vs. Judge Froilan Blanco A.M. No. 3210-MJNovember 12, 1981 Martiniano O. De La Cruz vs. Judge Jose P. De Leon G.R. No. L-27029November 12, 1981 Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Epifanio D. Blanco G.R. No. L-32633November 12, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Alexio Lupango G.R. No. L-38718November 12, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Q. Adorna G.R. No. L-39889November 12, 1981 Union of Supervisors (R.B.) - Natu vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-44187November 12, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. George Daeng G.R. No. L-45026November 12, 1981 American Home Assurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-51528November 12, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Samson Robin G.R. No. L-53403November 12, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Emiterio D. Pascual, Jr. G.R. No. L-55464November 12, 1981 Miguel Acosta vs. Employees Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-57834November 12, 1981 Tomas R. Noda vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-35514November 13, 1981 Rene Nieto vs. Walfrido De Los Angeles G.R. No. L-54151November 16, 1981 Rodolfo Q. Pasion vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-58637November 16, 1981 Delmar A. Veneranda vs. People of the Philippines A.M. No. 2205-MJNovember 19, 1981 Buenaventura B. Sunga vs. Judge Concepcion Salud G.R. No. 2299-MJNovember 19, 1981 Rodolfo Cabe, et al. vs. Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan G.R. No. L-31145-47November 19, 1981 Miguel M. Mendoza vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-58284November 19, 1981 Bernabe Buscayno, et al. vs. Gen. Fabian Ver, et Al G.R. No. L-35156November 20, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Floro Rodil A.M. No. 1230-CFINovember 23, 1981 Margarito Pilos vs. Hon. Reynaldo P. Honrado G.R. No. L-32146November 23, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Luis B. Delmendo G.R. No. L-37831November 23, 1981 Restituta V. Vda. De Gordon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-52324November 23, 1981 Mar-Bay & Company, Inc. vs. M. G. Suntay Trading Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-54912-13November 23, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Leonora A. Dy A.M. No. 265-MJNovember 26, 1981 Leonardo Babatio vs. Hon. Jose Z. Tan A.M. No. P-2436November 25, 1981 Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Sergio E. Bagaybagayan A.M. No. 631-CFINovember 26, 1981 Josefa. Pernea vs. Juan Montecillo A.M. No. 1328November 27, 1981 Ruben Austria vs. Eduardo Apa G.R. No. L-26107November 27, 1981 Pedro Medina vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-28782November 27, 1981 Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. L-54996November 27, 1981 Ricardo M. Reyes vs. Philippine Duplicators, Inc. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Antonio J. Villegas vs. Abelardo Subido Angel C. Del Mundo vs. Atilano Barrozo Saturnino Ocampo vs. Military Commission No. 25 People of the Philippines vs. Saglala Macatanda Fructuoso Aguilar vs. Leuterio E. Chiu Fabia Masaganda vs. Juan Argamosa Alexander Leyson vs. Hon. Judge Santiago O. Tanada, et al. Francisca Salomon vs. Judge Froilan Blanco Martiniano O. De La Cruz vs. Judge Jose P. De Leon Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Epifanio D. Blanco People of the Philippines vs. Alexio Lupango People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Q. Adorna Union of Supervisors (R.B.) - Natu vs. Secretary of Labor People of the Philippines vs. George Daeng American Home Assurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Samson Robin People of the Philippines vs. Emiterio D. Pascual, Jr. Miguel Acosta vs. Employees Compensation Commission Tomas R. Noda vs. Social Security System Rene Nieto vs. Walfrido De Los Angeles Rodolfo Q. Pasion vs. Commission on Elections Delmar A. Veneranda vs. People of the Philippines Buenaventura B. Sunga vs. Judge Concepcion Salud Rodolfo Cabe, et al. vs. Judge Vivencio A. Bantugan Miguel M. Mendoza vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Bernabe Buscayno, et al. vs. Gen. Fabian Ver, et Al People of the Philippines vs. Floro Rodil Margarito Pilos vs. Hon. Reynaldo P. Honrado People of the Philippines vs. Luis B. Delmendo Restituta V. Vda. De Gordon vs. Court of Appeals Mar-Bay & Company, Inc. vs. M. G. Suntay Trading Co., Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Leonora A. Dy Leonardo Babatio vs. Hon. Jose Z. Tan Wearever Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Sergio E. Bagaybagayan Josefa. Pernea vs. Juan Montecillo Ruben Austria vs. Eduardo Apa Pedro Medina vs. Court of Appeals Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals Ricardo M. Reyes vs. Philippine Duplicators, Inc. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-27714 November 5, 1981
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service,respondent-appellant.
FERNANDO,C.J.:
There is an aspect of futility to this appeal from an ably-written and well-reasoned decision of the then Judge Conrado M. Vasquez ordering then respondent Commissioner of Civil Service Abelardo Subido, now deceased, "to (a) refrain from enforcing and implementing the directive contained in its letter to the City Auditor of Manila dated October 5, 1966 (Annex D); (b) making the preliminary injunction issued for this purpose to be permanent, and (c) commanding the respondent to note and record the appointments of the 91 women street sweepers listed in Annex B of the petition."1Annex D reads as follows: "It has come to the knowledge of this Office that there are still women employed as street sweepers in the City, contrary to the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 1964, on the subject: "Womenin Laborer Positions." Pursuant to said memorandum circular, this Office will disapprove all appointments extended to females as street sweepers, when the same are submitted to this Office. In view thereof, and to prevent disbursement of city funds for illegal employment and to preclude injustice to these female employees who may leter be required to refund whatever they may have recieved as salary or wages, it is requested that the salaries or wages of all women street sweepers or women laborers employed as such be withheld immediately."2The pertinent portion of such memorandum is worded thus: "This Office has observed that some offices which employ women laborers make them perform work in the street alongside men workers. While it cannot be denied that those occupying laborer positions should be made to perform the duties properly belonging to such positions, it is the opinion of this Office that the practice of making them perform manual labor outside office premises exposes them to contempt and ridicule and constitutes a violation of the traditional dignity and respect accorded Filipino womwnhood. ... In view of the above, it is directed that agencies affected put a stop immediately to the practice referring to above; otherwise, this Office shall,except for justifiable reasons,be constrained to withhold approval of any or all appointments to laborer positions extended to women and shall accordingly, bring the matter to the attention of the General Auditing Office."3Upon the filing of the certiorariand mandamus petition with preliminary injunction was set for hearing. It resulted inthis order of then Judge Vasquez: "On motion of petitioner, it appearing that the respondent's Memorandum-circular No. 18 dated April 10, 1964 had already been set aside by the Office of the President of the Philippines, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue to enjoin the respondent from enforcing and implementing said memorandum circular until further orders from this Court, upon the filing of the petitioner of a bond and its approval by the Court in the sum of P5,000.00 to answer for damages that the respoindent may sustain by reason of the issuance of said writ."4
Clearly, the lower court decision is buttressed by the law and the applicable authorities.
1. It was pointed out in the petition of the then Mayor Villegas in the lower court that the memorandum on which then respondent Commissioner would base his refusal to not the appointments of the 91 women as street sweepers in the City goverment of Manila was his Memorandum Circular No. 18 dated April 10, 1964. It was then stated that it had been set aside and declared without force and effect by the Office of the President under a fiftth indorsement to respondent on September 14, 1965.5All that respondent could allege in the answer was that there was still a pending motion for reconsideration. Why such a contention could not be taken seriously was made clear in the applealed decision in this wise: " It is of no moment that the respondent, in a 6th Indorsement dated November 7, 1966, had requested the Office of the President to reconsider the ruling declaring Memorandum Circular No.18, series of 1964, as of no force and effect. Aside frim the fact the attempt to secure as reconsideration of the said ruling was done more than one year after the promulgation of the same, it is significant to note that the respondent sought the reconsideration only after the ruling of this case on October 28, 1966. In any event, as the situation stands, the memorandum circular in question may not be enforced until and unles the Office of the President shall reconsider its disapproval of the same."6
2. The situation thus presented is one akin to that found in another case between the dsame parties, likewise entitledVillegas v. Subido.7There as well as here, reliance of then respondent Commissioner was not on any law or rule but simply on his own concept of what policy to pursue, in this instance in accordance with his own personal predilection. Here he appeared to be unalterably convinced that to allow women laborers to work outside their offices as street sweepers would run counter to Filipino tratition. The sincerity of his conviction is conceded, but that does not suffice. Apublic official must be able to pint to a particular provision of law or rule justifying the exercise of a challenged authority. So it was correctly held in the decision on appeal. The pertinent excerpt from the citedVillegas v. Subidodecision follows: "One last word. Nothing is better settedt in tha law than that a public official exercises power, not rights. The gorverment itself is merly an agency through which the will of the state is expressed and enforce. Its officers therfore are likewise agents entrusted withe responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no presumption that they are empowered to act. There must be delegation of such atuhority, either expresse of implied. In gthe absence of a valid grant, they are devoid or power. What they do suffers from a fata infirmity. The principle cannot be sufficiently stressed. In the appropriate language of Chief Justice Hughes: 'It must be conceded that departamental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. "Neither the high dignity of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an acceptable substitute. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth. Such an eventuality, we must take all pains to avoid."8
3. It might be said by way of a concluding observation that for the past six yhears at least, Filipino women have been serving in that capacity among ohters as Metro Aides, an innovation introduced by the First Lady.ℒαwρhi৷They have contributed along with the male employees in keeping Metro Manila clean, attractive, and hygienic. There has been no offense to the well known Filipino tradition of holding the women in high esteem and respect. Moreover, as is quite obvious in civic parades where a contingent of them usually takes part, they take pride — and justly so — in what they are doing. There would even be less justification then even from the policy standpoint for a Memorandum Circular similar to that issued by respondent and justifiably nullified by the Office of the President. Moreover, the trened towards grteater and greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes under the shelter of the equal proctection clause argues most strongly against this kind of discrimination.9
4. If this case had not been decided earlier, it must have been due to the fact that with the lower court deciding in favor of the then City Mayor and no restraining order having been issued by this Court, the ninety-one street sweepers could continue with their work. Neither party then apparently failed to manifest further interest in the outcome of this litigaition. Moreover it was not long after this case was submitted for decision tht the late respondent Commissioner left public office. Apparently, his successor was of a different mind. Hence the case was not disposed of sooner.
WHEREFORE,the fappealed decision is affirmed. No cost.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., took no part.
Footnotes