GR L 16174; (October, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16174; October 30, 1962
RUBEN O. SANGALANG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRIGIDA VERGARA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
This is a quo warranto action concerning the rightful appointee to a clerical position in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. Defendant-appellant Brigida Vergara was appointed to the position by the Secretary of Justice on March 28, 1958, upon recommendation of the City Fiscal. Plaintiff-appellee Ruben O. Sangalang was later appointed to the same position by the Mayor of Manila, with the consent of the Municipal Board, on February 1, 1959. Both are civil service eligibles. Sangalang filed suit, and the Court of First Instance of Manila upheld his appointment, ordering Vergara to vacate the office. Vergara appealed to the Supreme Court.
The core dispute hinges on the interpretation of Section 20 of the Revised Charter of Manila ( Republic Act No. 409 ), as amended by Republic Act No. 1201 . Before amendment, it listed city departments under the Mayor’s supervision, including the “Law Department.” The amended Section 20 states: “There shall be the following city departments over which the Mayor shall have direct supervision and control, except over the Office of the City Fiscal which shall be under the Department of Justice…” The trial court reasoned that since the Office of the City Fiscal remained enumerated as a city department, its employees were city employees, and thus their appointment power remained with the Mayor under Sections 11 and 22 of the Charter.
ISSUE
Whether the power to appoint clerks in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila is vested in the Mayor of Manila or in the Secretary of Justice.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, ruling that the power to appoint belongs to the Secretary of Justice. The legal logic centers on the effect of the amendatory phrase “except over the Office of the City Fiscal which shall be under the Department of Justice.” The Court held this phrase was meant to withdraw the Office of the City Fiscal from the list of city departments under the Mayor’s supervision and control and place it under the national Department of Justice. This interpretation gives meaning to the explicit exception; to hold otherwise would render the qualifying clause meaningless.
The Court found the change in nomenclature from “Law Department” to “Office of the City Fiscal” significant, indicating a legislative intent to distinguish it from other city departments. Citing the precedent in Lacson v. Villafranca, which held that employees of the Manila Municipal Court should be appointed by the Secretary of Justice because the administration of justice is a national concern, the Court applied the same rationale here. Consequently, since the office is under the Department of Justice, the applicable law is Section 79(D) of the Revised Administrative Code, which vests in the Department Head the power to appoint subordinate officers and employees not appointed by the President. Therefore, Vergara’s appointment by the Secretary of Justice was valid, and Sangalang’s appointment by the Mayor was without authority.