G.R. No. L-31711 September 30, 1971
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS as Mayor of the City of Manila and MANUEL D. LAPID, petitioners-appellants, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO as Civil Service Commissioner, EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ as Secretary of Finance, JOSE R. GLORIA as Acting Asst. City Treasurer of Manila, and HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ as Presiding Judge of Branch V, Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio J. Villegas, as Mayor of Manila, appointed petitioner Manuel D. Lapid as Assistant City Treasurer. This appointment was disapproved by Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo Subido. The disapproval was based on an opinion of the Secretary of Justice stating that the appointment of Assistant City Treasurers remained governed by the Revised Administrative Code, not by the Decentralization Act ( Republic Act No. 5185 ). The legal conflict arose because the City Charter of Manila ( Republic Act No. 409 ) expressly vests the power to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer in the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Meanwhile, respondent Jose R. Gloria was authorized by the Secretary of Finance to assume the duties of the position and was later formally nominated by the President and confirmed.

ISSUE

The decisive issue is whether the general provision on local appointing power in Section 4 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 transferred the authority to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer of Manila from the President to the City Mayor, thereby impliedly repealing the specific provision of the Manila City Charter.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, ruling that the Mayor of Manila lacked the authority to appoint the Assistant City Treasurer. The Court’s legal logic is anchored on statutory construction and the hierarchy of laws. First, the Manila City Charter is a specific law that explicitly designates the President as the appointing authority for this particular office. Second, the Decentralization Act is a general law that grants city mayors the power to appoint “employees” paid from local funds. The Court clarified that an Assistant City Treasurer is an “officer,” not a mere “employee,” as the role involves the exercise of discretionary governmental functions. Furthermore, Section 4 of the Decentralization Act itself enumerates specific officials city mayors can appoint and notably excludes “City Treasurers” from that list, which logically extends to their assistants. The Court emphasized the doctrine that implied repeals are not favored. A general law like the Decentralization Act does not repeal a specific, existing charter provision by mere implication, especially when no irreconcilable conflict exists. The specific mandate of the Charter therefore remains controlling. The President’s power of appointment under the Charter was undisturbed by the later, general statute.