G.R. No.

L-27714 – 109 SCRA 1 – Political Law – Basic Principles – Equal

Protection Clause – Discrimination Against Women; Appointing Women as
Street Sweepers is not Discriminatory

Then Metro Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas approved the appointment

of 91 women street sweepers in the City of Manila.  But the
appointments would still have to be approved by the Office of Civil
Service Commission under Commissioner Abelardo Subido. Subido
refused to extend approval to the appointments on the ground that
appointing women to manual labor is against Memorandum Circular
No. 18 series of 1964. Subido pointed out that putting women workers
with men workers outside under the heat of the sun and placing them
under manual labor exposes them to contempt and ridicule and
constitutes a violation of the traditional dignity and respect accorded
to Filipino womanhood. Villegas however pointed out that the said
Memo has already been set aside by the Office of the President hence
the same is no longer in effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of said women workers should

be confirmed by the Civil Service Commissioner.

HELD: Yes, the appointments must be confirmed. The basis of

Subido 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 tradition. A public official must
be able to point to a particular provision of law or rule justifying the
exercise of a challenged authority.

Villegas vs. Subido F3G.R. No. L-27714

F3G.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.

Section 14.
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

FACTS:

Pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 1964, on the subject: "Women in
Laborer 
Positions”
issued by Villegas, he said that this Office ( Manila City ) will disapprove all
appointments extended to females as street sweepers, when the same are
submitted to this Office.

In pursuant to the same memorandum he said that the 91 women working as street
sweepers or women laborers must be replaced by men because 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 womanhood.

The said Memorandum was denied by the Office of the President and that it has no
force and effect therefore Villegas had no legal basis in trying to remove the 91
women from their jobs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Commissioner through Memorandum-circular No. 18 violated the
rights of women in the Philippine Constitution
(particulary Article 2 Section 14)
.
HELD:
3. It might be said by way of a concluding observation that for the past six years at
least, Filipino women have been serving in that capacity among others as Metro
Aides, an innovation introduced by the First Lady. They 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
trend towards greater and greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes under
the shelter of the equal protection clause argues most strongly against this kind of
discrimination.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is affirmed. No cost.

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

Ponente: Fernando, J.

Facts: A letter dated June 31, 1968, respondent Eduardo Z. Romualdez, Sec. of
Finance, authorized respondent Jose R. Gloria of the Office of the City Treasurer of
Manila to assume the duties of Asst. City Treasurer effective June 1, 1968. Vice
Felino Fineza retired from government June 17 1968, petitioner Antonio Villegas,
Mayor of the City of Manila, directed respondent Jose Gloria to “desist and refrain
from exercising the duties and functions of Asst. Treasurer”, on the grounds that
respondent Romualdez “is not empowered to make such designations.” January 1,
1969, Mayor Villegas appointed petitioner Manuel D. Lapid, Chief of the Each
Division of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila as the Asst. City Treasurer.
February 14, 1969, in a 1st indorsement, Civil Service Commissioner – Abelardo
Subido disproved the appointment of Lapid besed on Sec. of Justice opinion,
September 19, 1968 that said; “the appointment of Asst. Treasurer is still governed
by the Sec. 2088 (A) of the Revised Administrative Code, and not by Sec. 4 of the
Decentralization Law, R.A. No. 5185.”

Issue: WoN the lower court erred in deciding to dismiss the special civil action for
prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus of Mayor Villegas?

Held: No. The lower court did not err in its decision. It is understandable why the
choice for the lower court was not difficult to make. What has been clearly ordained
in the Charter is “controlling”. It survives in the face of the assertion that “the
additional power granted to local officials to appoint employees paid out of the local
funds would suffice to transfer such authority to petitioner Mayor Villegas.” A perusal
of the words of the statute, even if from searching would not justify such an
interpretation.

This is more evident considering the fidelity by this Court to the doctrine that looks
with less than favour on implied repeals. The decision now on appeal, to repeat,
MUST BE AFFIRMED.
Case notes:

1. 1949 Charter of the City of Manila – Express Terms: Appointment by President –

with consent of the Commission on Appointment i.e. Appointment of City Treasurer

2. Villegas stand on the General Provision found in the 1967 Decentralization Act:
“… to effect the City Mayor be vested the power of appointment of all other
employees paid out of the City or Local Funds subject to Civil Service Law, Rules,
and Regulation.”

3. Requisites of Implied Repeal The SC in this case ruled that repeals by implication
are not favoured and will not be declared UNLESS it be manifest that the legislature
so intended. Such a doctrine goes as far back as US vs Reyes (1908).

This case laid down two requisites before a repeal is deemed to exist: 1. It must be
shown that the statute or statutory provisions deal with the same subject matter; 2.
The latter is inconsistent with the former. (i.e. The language used in the latter statute
must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted). An
inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. What is needed is a
manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal