G.R. No. L-27028 January 18, 1967
Case Parties:

ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, himself a Filipino citizen and taxpayer, in his official capacity as the Mayor of the City of Manila, petitioner,
vs.
CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, in his capacity as the Undersecretary of Justice; JOSE YULO, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice and ex oficio Chairman of the Anti-Dummy Board; and JOSE J. LEIDO JR. and RAFAEL SALAS respectively, the Assistant Executive Secretary and the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio J. Villegas, as Mayor of Manila, assails the validity of a directive issued by respondent Assistant Executive Secretary Jose J. Leido, Jr., by authority of the President, dated December 31, 1966. The directive ordered all executive departments, offices, and instrumentalities, both national and local, to act in conformity with the opinion of the Department of Justice pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of issues raised by the “Jarencio decision” in a related lower court case. This Justice Department opinion holds that American citizens and juridical entities wholly owned by them are exempt from the operation of Republic Act No. 1180 (the Retail Trade Nationalization Act). Petitioner agrees with the opinion insofar as it subjects juridical entities merely controlled, but not wholly owned, by American citizens to the Act. However, he challenges the directive only insofar as it permits American citizens and wholly American-owned corporations to operate in the retail trade pending final Supreme Court action. Petitioner’s challenge is based on the assumption that RA 1180’s operation was not affected by the Revised Philippine-U.S. Trade Agreement of 1955 (Laurel-Langley Agreement) and RA 1355, which authorized said Agreement. The cited provision of the Trade Agreement prohibits discrimination against citizens or business enterprises of the other country and provides that new limitations on alien business activities shall not apply to existing enterprises of the other Party or to citizens/corporations of the other Party if their home states do not impose like limitations.

ISSUE

The main issue is the validity of the executive directive ordering conformity with the Department of Justice opinion that American citizens and wholly American-owned corporations are exempt from RA 1180, pending the Supreme Court’s final determination of the issue.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and DENIED the writs prayed for. The Court resolved that:
1. A determination of the issue raised by petitioner would amount to a declaratory judgment, which is beyond the Court’s original exclusive jurisdiction.
2. Such a determination would effectively foreclose adjudication of the same issue in about twenty (20) pending cases in courts of first instance involving corporations not parties to this proceeding, thereby denying them due process.
3. Petitioner failed to adduce specific arguments or make an earnest effort to show that the executive directive is contrary to law, particularly in light of the quoted provision of the 1955 Trade Agreement. He thus failed to show, even prima facie, that the executive branch’s view is contrary to law or null and void.
4. RA 1180, RA 1355, and the Trade Agreement involve national policies whose enforcement is a constitutional duty of the President. The President’s decisions, views, or opinions on these matters—unless voided by a final court judgment in appropriate cases—should prevail over those of local executive officials and are binding upon them.
The dismissal is without prejudice to a more extended opinion and to passing upon the proper interpretation of the relevant statutes and Trade Agreement in appropriate proceedings.