29-Villegas Vs Subido 30 SCRA 498
29-Villegas Vs Subido 30 SCRA 498
29-Villegas Vs Subido 30 SCRA 498
FERNANDO, C.J.:
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. 5 All 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 entitled Villegas v. Subido. 7 There 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 cited Villegas v. Subido decision 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. 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 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.