1/8/2016

G.R.No.L29646

TodayisFriday,January08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L29646November10,1978
MAYORANTONIOJ.VILLEGAS,petitioner,
vs.
HIUCHIONGTSAIPAOHOandJUDGEFRANCISCOARCA,respondents.
AngelC.Cruz,GregorioA.Ejercito,FelixC.Chaves&JoseLauretaforpetitioner.
SoteroH.Laurelforrespondents.

FERNANDEZ,J.:
ThisisapetitionforcertioraritoreviewtiledecisiondatedSeptember17,1968ofrespondentJudgeFranciscoArca
oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchI,inCivilCaseNo.72797,thedispositiveportionofwinchreads.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents,
declaring Ordinance No. 6 37 of the City of Manila null and void. The preliminary injunction is made
permanent.Nopronouncementastocost.
SOORDERED.
Manila,Philippines,September17,1968.
(SGD.)FRANCISCOARCA
Judge1
The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and
signedbythehereinpetitionerMayorAntonioJ.VillegasofManilaonMarch27,1968.2
CityOrdinanceNo.6537isentitled:
AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE
PHILIPPINESTOBEEMPLOYEDINANYPLACEOFEMPLOYMENTORTOBEENGAGEDINANY
KINDOFTRADE,BUSINESSOROCCUPATIONWITHINTHECITYOFMANILAWITHOUTFIRST
SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.3
Section1ofsaidOrdinanceNo.65374prohibitsaliensfrombeingemployedortoengageorparticipateinanypositionor
occupationorbusinessenumeratedtherein,whetherpermanent,temporaryorcasual,withoutfirstsecuringanemployment
permitfromtheMayorofManilaandpayingthepermitfeeofP50.00exceptpersonsemployedinthediplomaticorconsular
missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign
government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or
denomination,whoarenotpaidmonetarilyorinkind.

Violationsofthisordinanceispunishablebyanimprisonmentofnotlessthanthree(3)monthstosix(6)monthsor
fineofnotlessthanP100.00butnotmorethanP200.00orbothsuchfineandimprisonment,uponconviction.5
OnMay4,1968,privaterespondentHiuChiongTsaiPaoHowhowasemployedinManila,filedapetitionwiththe
CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchI,denominatedasCivilCaseNo.72797,prayingfortheissuanceofthe
writofpreliminaryinjunctionandrestrainingordertostoptheenforcementofOrdinanceNo.6537aswellasfora
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html

1/5

1/8/2016

G.R.No.L29646

judgmentdeclaringsaidOrdinanceNo.6537nullandvoid.6
Inthispetition,HiuChiongTsaiPaoHoassignedthefollowingashisgroundsforwantingtheordinancedeclared
nullandvoid:
1) As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is
discriminatoryandviolativeoftheruleoftheuniformityintaxation
2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and nonuseful occupations,
imposingafixedP50.00employmentpermit,whichisoutofproportiontothecostofregistrationand
that it fails to prescribe any standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus, violating the
fundamentalprincipleonillegaldelegationoflegislativepowers:
3)Itisarbitrary,oppressiveandunreasonable,beingappliedonlytoalienswhoarethus,deprivedof
their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection
clausesoftheConstitution.7
OnMay24,1968,respondentJudgeissuedthewritofpreliminaryinjunctionandonSeptember17,1968rendered
judgmentdeclaringOrdinanceNo.6537nullandvoidandmakingpermanentthewritofpreliminaryinjunction.8
ContestingtheaforeciteddecisionofrespondentJudge,thenMayorAntonioJ.Villegasfiledthepresentpetitionon
March27,1969.PetitionerassignedthefollowingaserrorsallegedlycommittedbyrespondentJudgeinthelatter's
decisionofSeptember17,1968:9
I
THERESPONDENTJUDGECOMMITTEDASERIOUSANDPATENTERROROFLAWINRULING
THATORDINANCENO.6537VIOLATEDTHECARDINALRULEOFUNIFORMITYOFTAXATION.
II
RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN
RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE
DESIGNATIONOFLEGISLATIVEPOWER.
III
RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN
RULINGTHATORDINANCENO.6537VIOLATEDTHEDUEPROCESSANDEQUALPROTECTION
CLAUSESOFTHECONSTITUTION.
Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared null and void on the ground that it
violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the rule on uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or
revenuemeasuresandthatOrdinanceNo.6537isnotataxorrevenuemeasurebutisanexerciseofthepolice
powerofthestate,itbeingprincipallyaregulatorymeasureinnature.
The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is
regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an
employmentpermitfromtheMayorinvolvestheexerciseofdiscretionandjudgmentintheprocessingandapproval
ordisapprovalofapplicationsforemploymentpermitsandthereforeisregulatoryincharacterthesecondpartwhich
requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or
justificationinexactingP50.00fromalienswhohavebeenclearedforemployment.Itisobviousthatthepurposeof
theordinanceistoraisemoneyundertheguiseofregulation.
TheP50.00feeisunreasonablenotonlybecauseitisexcessivebutbecauseitfailstoconsidervalidsubstantial
differencesinsituationamongindividualalienswhoarerequiredtopayit.Althoughtheequalprotectionclauseof
the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and
substantialdifferenceshavingareasonablerelationtothesubjectoftheparticularlegislation.Thesameamountof
P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or
whetherheisalowlyemployeeorahighlypaidexecutive
OrdinanceNo.6537doesnotlaydownanycriterionorstandardtoguidetheMayorintheexerciseofhisdiscretion.
Ithasbeenheldthatwhereanordinanceofamunicipalityfailstostateanypolicyortosetupanystandardtoguide
orlimitthemayor'saction,expressesnopurposetobeattainedbyrequiringapermit,enumeratesnoconditionsfor
itsgrantorrefusal,andentirelylacksstandard,thusconferringupontheMayorarbitraryandunrestrictedpowerto
grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited
delegationofpowertoalloworpreventanactivityperselawful.10
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html

2/5

1/8/2016

G.R.No.L29646

InChinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 11 where a law granted a government agency
power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of
uncontrolledpowerasitvestedintheadministrativeofficeranarbitrarydiscretiontobeexercisedwithoutapolicy,rule,or
standardfromwhichitcanbemeasuredorcontrolled.

It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso 12 that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes
conferredupontheMayorofManilabytheRevisedCharterofManilaisnotuncontrolleddiscretionbutlegaldiscretiontobe
exercisedwithinthelimitsofthelaw.

OrdinanceNo.6537isvoidbecauseitdoesnotcontainorsuggestanystandardorcriteriontoguidethemayorin
theexerciseofthepowerwhichhasbeengrantedtohimbytheordinance.
TheordinanceinquestionviolatesthedueprocessoflawandequalprotectionruleoftheConstitution.
RequiringapersonbeforehecanbeemployedtogetapermitfromtheCityMayorofManilawhomaywithholdor
refuseitatwillistantamounttodenyinghimthebasicrightofthepeopleinthePhilippinestoengageinameansof
livelihood.WhileitistruethatthePhilippinesasaStateisnotobligedtoadmitalienswithinitsterritory,oncean
alienisadmitted,hecannotbedeprivedoflifewithoutdueprocessoflaw.Thisguaranteeincludesthemeansof
livelihood.Theshelterofprotectionunderthedueprocessandequalprotectionclauseisgiventoallpersons,both
aliensandcitizens.13
Thetrialcourtdidnotcommittheerrorsassigned.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyaffirmed,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Barredo,Makasiar,MuozPalma,SantosandGuerrero,JJ.,concur.
Castro,C.J.,AntonioandAquino,Fernando,JJ.,concurintheresult.
Concepcion,Jr.,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
I concur in the decision penned by Mr. Justice Fernandez which affirms the lower court's judgment declaring
Ordinance No. 6537 of the City of Manila null and void for the reason that the employment of aliens within the
countryisamatterofnationalpolicyandregulation,whichproperlypertaintothenationalgovernmentofficialsand
agenciesconcernedandnottolocalgovernments,suchastheCityofManila,whichafterallaremerecreationsof
thenationalgovernment.
Thenationalpolicyonthematterhasbeendeterminedinthestatutesenactedbythelegislature,viz, the various
Philippinenationalizationlawswhichonthewholerecognizetherightofalienstoobtaingainfulemploymentinthe
country with the exception of certain specific fields and areas. Such national policies may not be interfered with,
thwarted or in any manner negated by any local government or its officials since they are not separate from and
independentofthenationalgovernment.
As stated by the Court in the early case of Phil. Coop. Livestock Ass'n. vs. Earnshaw, 59 Phil. 129: "The City of
Manila is a subordinate body to the Insular (National Government ...). When the Insular (National) Government
adopts a policy, a municipality is without legal authority to nullify and set at naught the action of the superior
authority."Indeed,"notonlymustallmunicipalpowersbeexercisedwithinthelimitsoftheorganiclaws,butthey
must be consistent with the general law and public policy of the particular state ..." (I McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations,2ndsec.367,P.1011).
Withmorereasonaresuchnationalpoliciesbindingonlocalgovernmentswhentheyinvolveourforeignrelations
withothercountriesandtheirnationalswhohavebeenlawfullyadmittedhere,sinceinsuchmatterstheviewsand
decisionsoftheChiefofStateandofthelegislaturemustprevailoverthoseofsubordinateandlocalgovernments
andofficialswhohavenoauthoritywhatevertotakeofficialactstothecontrary.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html

3/5

1/8/2016

G.R.No.L29646

SeparateOpinions
TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:
IconcurinthedecisionpennedbyMr.JusticeFernandezwhichaffirmsthelowercourt'sjudgmentdeclaring
OrdinanceNo.6537oftheCityofManilanullandvoidforthereasonthattheemploymentofalienswithinthe
countryisamatterofnationalpolicyandregulation,whichproperlypertaintothenationalgovernmentofficialsand
agenciesconcernedandnottolocalgovernments,suchastheCityofManila,whichafterallaremerecreationsof
thenationalgovernment.
Thenationalpolicyonthematterhasbeendeterminedinthestatutesenactedbythelegislature,viz,thevarious
Philippinenationalizationlawswhichonthewholerecognizetherightofalienstoobtaingainfulemploymentinthe
countrywiththeexceptionofcertainspecificfieldsandareas.Suchnationalpoliciesmaynotbeinterferedwith,
thwartedorinanymannernegatedbyanylocalgovernmentoritsofficialssincetheyarenotseparatefromand
independentofthenationalgovernment.
AsstatedbytheCourtintheearlycaseofPhil.Coop.LivestockAss'n.vs.Earnshaw,59Phil.129:"TheCityof
ManilaisasubordinatebodytotheInsular(NationalGovernment...).WhentheInsular(National)Government
adoptsapolicy,amunicipalityiswithoutlegalauthoritytonullifyandsetatnaughttheactionofthesuperior
authority."Indeed,"notonlymustallmunicipalpowersbeexercisedwithinthelimitsoftheorganiclaws,butthey
mustbeconsistentwiththegenerallawandpublicpolicyoftheparticularstate..."(IMcQuillin,Municipal
Corporations,2ndsec.367,P.1011).
Withmorereasonaresuchnationalpoliciesbindingonlocalgovernmentswhentheyinvolveourforeignrelations
withothercountriesandtheirnationalswhohavebeenlawfullyadmittedhere,sinceinsuchmatterstheviewsand
decisionsoftheChiefofStateandofthelegislaturemustprevailoverthoseofsubordinateandlocalgovernments
andofficialswhohavenoauthoritywhatevertotakeofficialactstothecontrary.
Footnotes
1Annex"F",Petition,Rollo,p.64.
2Petition,Rollo,p.28.
3Annex"A",ofPetition,Rollo,p.3738.
4Section1.ItshallheunlawfulforanypersonnotacitizenofthePhilippinestobeemployedinany
kindofpositionoroccupationoralloweddirectlyorindirectlytoparticipateinthefunctions,
administrationormanagementinanyoffice,corporation,store,restaurant,factory,businessfirm,or
anyotherplaceofemploymenteitherasconsultant,adviser,clerk,employee,technician,teacher,
actor,actress,acrobat,singerorothertheatricalperformer,laborer,cook,etc.,whethertemporary,
casual,permanentorotherwiseandirrespectiveofthesourceororiginofhiscompensationornumber
ofhoursspentinsaidoffice,store,restaurant,factory,corporationoranyotherplaceofemployment,or
toengageinanykindofbusinessandtradewithintheCityofManila,withoutfirstsecuringan
employmentpermitfromtheMayorofManila,andpayingthenecessaryfeetherefortotheCitytheCity
Treasurer:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,Thatpersonsemployedindiplomaticandconsularmissionsof
foreigncountriesandintechnicalassistanceprogramsagreeduponbythePhilippineGovernmentand
anyforeigngovernment,andthoseworkingintheirrespectivehouseholds,andmembersofdifferent
congregationsorreligiousordersofanyreligion,sectordenomination,whoarenotpaideither
monetarilyorinkindshagbeexemptedfromtheprovisionsofthisOrdinance.
5Section4.AnyviolationofthisOrdinanceshalluponconviction,bepunishedbyimprisonmentofnot
lessthanthree(3)monthsbutnotmorethansix(6)monthsorbyafineofnotlessthanonehundred
pesos(P100.00)butnotmorethantwohundredpesos(P200.00),orbybothsuchfineand
imprisonment,inthediscretionoftheCourt:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,Thatincaseofjuridicalpersons,
thePresident,theVicePresidentorthepersoninchargeshallbeliable.
6Annex"B",Petition,Rollo,p.39.
7Ibid
8Annex"F",Petition,Rollo,pp.7583.
9Petition,Rollo,p.31.
10Peoplevs.Fajardo,104Phil.443,446.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html

4/5

1/8/2016

G.R.No.L29646

1189Phil.439,459460.
1280Phil.86.
13KwongSingvs.CityofManila,41Phil,103.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html

5/5