Villegas vs. Subido

A Civil Service directive already set aside by the Office of the President has no force and effect and cannot justify withholding approval of appointments, for a public official must point to a valid law or rule to sustain challenged authority.

Antonio J. Villegas served as Mayor of the City of Manila with authority over city appointments, while Abelardo Subido served as Commissioner of Civil Service with functions concerning the noting and recording of such appointments. The exercise of the Commissioner's approving authority over municipal appointments, and its limits when based solely on an internal memorandum circular, supplied the institutional setting for the controversy.

On April 10, 1964, Commissioner of Civil Service Abelardo Subido issued Memorandum Circular No. 18 on women in laborer positions. The circular observed that some offices made women laborers perform work in the street alongside men, stated that making them perform manual labor outside office premises exposed them to contempt and ridicule and violated traditional dignity and respect accorded Filipino womanhood, and directed affected agencies to stop the practice immediately, otherwise approval of appointments of women to laborer positions would be withheld for lack of justifiable reasons and the matter brought to the General Auditing Office.

Thereafter, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas extended appointments to 91 women as street sweepers in the City government of Manila. By letter to the City Auditor of Manila dated October 5, 1966, the Civil Service stated that women were still employed as street sweepers contrary to Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 1964, that all appointments extended to females as street sweepers would be disapproved when submitted, and requested immediate withholding of salaries or wages of all women street sweepers or women laborers to prevent disbursement for illegal employment and possible refund liability.

According to the Mayor, the memorandum relied upon had already been set aside and declared without force and effect by the Office of the President under a fifth indorsement to respondent on September 14, 1965. Respondent, for his part, answered that a motion for reconsideration was still pending, referring to his sixth indorsement dated November 7, 1966 requesting the Office of the President to reconsider. The lower court noted that the reconsideration attempt came more than one year after the disapproval and only after the hearing of the case on October 28, 1966.

Villegas then filed certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, resulting first in the November 8, 1966 injunction and ultimately in a judgment restraining enforcement of the October 5, 1966 directive and commanding notation of the 91 appointments. With no restraining order issued on appeal, the sweepers continued working while the appeal remained pending, and the late Commissioner was later succeeded in office.

• Disapproval by the Office of the President: Petitioner maintained that Memorandum Circular No. 18 dated April 10, 1964, on which respondent based refusal to note the appointments of the 91 women street sweepers, had been set aside and declared without force and effect by the Office of the President under a fifth indorsement to respondent on September 14, 1965.
• Entitlement to Notation of Appointments: Petitioner argued that, the circular being without force, respondent had no lawful basis to enforce the October 5, 1966 directive and should be compelled to note and record the appointments listed in Annex B of the petition.

• Pending Reconsideration: Respondent alleged that there was still a pending motion for reconsideration of the Office of the President's disapproval, as embodied in his sixth indorsement dated November 7, 1966.
• Policy on Women Laborers: Respondent relied on the policy in Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 1964 that women laborers should not be made to perform manual labor outside office premises alongside men, as allegedly exposing them to contempt and ridicule and violating traditional dignity and respect accorded Filipino womanhood.

• Force of Disapproved Circular: Whether Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 1964 could still be enforced after its disapproval by the Office of the President.
• Authority to Withhold Approval: Whether the Commissioner of Civil Service could withhold approval of the 91 appointments and direct withholding of wages based solely on personal policy without a valid law or rule.
• Equal Protection and Policy: Whether barring women from street-sweeper work could be sustained in light of equal rights under the equal protection clause.

• Force of Disapproved Circular: No. The circular could not be enforced until and unless the Office of the President reconsidered its disapproval, the request for reconsideration having come more than a year later and after the case was heard.
• Authority to Withhold Approval: No. Withholding was invalid, a public official having to point to a particular provision of law or rule and not merely personal predilection or departmental zeal.
• Equal Protection and Policy: No. The sex-based bar was further undermined by greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes under the equal protection clause and by experience showing women capably serving in such work.

• Force of Disapproved Circular: The refusal rested entirely on Memorandum Circular No. 18 dated April 10, 1964, yet the Office of the President had declared it without force and effect on September 14, 1965. Because the sixth indorsement seeking reconsideration was dated November 7, 1966, more than one year afterward and only after the October 28, 1966 hearing, the disapproval remained the controlling status. Accordingly, enforcement through the October 5, 1966 letter to the City Auditor lacked any operative circular to support it.
• Authority to Withhold Approval: Reliance was placed not on any law or rule but on the Commissioner's own concept of policy, namely that outdoor street work by women ran counter to Filipino tradition. While sincerity of conviction was conceded, sincerity alone did not suffice. Applied here, the absence of a valid grant of authority was fatal, departmental zeal being impermissible to outrun statutory authority and neither high dignity of office nor righteousness of motive serving as a substitute.
• Equal Protection and Policy: From the policy standpoint, even less justification remained where Filipino women had for at least six years served as Metro Aides keeping Metro Manila clean without offense to the tradition of holding women in high esteem, taking just pride in the work. The trend toward greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes under the equal protection clause thus argued strongly against this kind of discrimination.

• Public office as power, not right — A public official exercises power, not rights; government officers are agents whose authority must be delegated expressly or impliedly, with no presumption that they are empowered to act, so that acts without a valid grant suffer from fatal infirmity. Applied here, the Commissioner's refusal to note the 91 appointments failed because it rested on a disapproved circular and personal policy rather than a particular provision of law or rule.
• Limitation on departmental zeal — Departmental zeal may not outrun authority conferred by statute, and neither high dignity of office nor righteousness of motive substitutes for lawful delegation. Applied here, the Commissioner's sincere belief about Filipino tradition could not validate withholding approval of women's appointments and wages.
• Equal protection against sex-based employment bar — Greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes under the shelter of the equal protection clause weighs against discrimination excluding women from laborer positions. Applied here, the exclusion of women street sweepers was deemed unjustified, particularly where experience with Metro Aides showed such service compatible with respect for women.

• "to (a) refrain from enforcing and implementing the directive contained in its letter to the City Auditor of Manila dated October 5, 1966 (Annex D); (b) making the preliminary injunction issued for this purpose to be permanent, and (c) commanding the respondent to note and record the appointments of the 91 women street sweepers listed in Annex B of the petition." — States the lower court order affirmed on appeal, defining the exact relief sustained for the 91 appointees.
• "It must be conceded that departamental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute." — Articulates the limit on administrative action invoked to invalidate reliance on personal policy rather than law.
• "Nothing is better settedt in tha law than that a public official exercises power, not rights." — States the canonical premise for requiring express or implied delegation before a challenged official act may stand.
• "Neither the high dignity of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an acceptable substitute." — Explains why sincerity and rank could not cure the absence of legal authority for the Commissioner's directive.

• Villegas vs. Subido, L-26534, November 28, 1969, 30 SCRA 498 — Followed as controlling on the same parties and analogous situation where reliance was placed on personal policy rather than law, supplying the public-power doctrine and quoted passages on delegation and departmental zeal.
• City of Manila and Mayor Antonio J. Villegas vs. Subido, 123 Phil 1080 (1966) — Cited comparatively in support of the same limitation on official power invoked against the Commissioner's position.

• Article IV, Section 1, Constitution — Provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of the laws; invoked to support the trend toward greater recognition of equal rights for both sexes against the sex-based exclusion of women from street-sweeper work.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., took no part.