9/1/2016 G.R.No.

L29646

TodayisThursday,September01,2016

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.:

This is a petition for certiorari to review tile decision dated September 17, 1968 of respondent Judge Francisco
ArcaoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchI,inCivilCaseNo.72797,thedispositiveportionofwinch
reads.

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents,
declaringOrdinanceNo.637oftheCityofManilanullandvoid.Thepreliminaryinjunctionismade
permanent.Nopronouncementastocost.

SOORDERED.

Manila,Philippines,September17,1968.

(SGD.)FRANCISCOARCA

Judge1

ThecontrovertedOrdinanceNo.6537waspassedbytheMunicipalBoardofManilaonFebruary22,1968and
signedbythehereinpetitionerMayorAntonioJ.VillegasofManilaonMarch27,1968.2

CityOrdinanceNo.6537isentitled:

AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE

PHILIPPINESTOBEEMPLOYEDINANYPLACEOFEMPLOYMENTORTOBEENGAGEDINANY
KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST
SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.3

Section1ofsaidOrdinanceNo.6537 4prohibitsaliensfrombeingemployedortoengageorparticipateinanyposition
or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an
employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the
diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine
Governmentandanyforeigngovernment,andthoseworkingintheirrespectivehouseholds,andmembersofreligiousorders
orcongregations,sectordenomination,whoarenotpaidmonetarilyorinkind.

Violationsofthisordinanceispunishablebyanimprisonmentofnotlessthanthree(3)monthstosix(6)months
orfineofnotlessthanP100.00butnotmorethanP200.00orbothsuchfineandimprisonment,uponconviction.
5

OnMay4,1968,privaterespondentHiuChiongTsaiPaoHowhowasemployedinManila,filedapetitionwiththe
CourtofFirstInstanceofManila,BranchI,denominatedasCivilCaseNo.72797,prayingfortheissuanceofthe
writofpreliminaryinjunctionandrestrainingordertostoptheenforcementofOrdinanceNo.6537aswellasfora
judgmentdeclaringsaidOrdinanceNo.6537nullandvoid.6

Inthispetition,HiuChiongTsaiPaoHoassignedthefollowingashisgroundsforwantingtheordinancedeclared
nullandvoid:

1)AsarevenuemeasureimposedonaliensemployedintheCityofManila,OrdinanceNo.6537is
discriminatoryandviolativeoftheruleoftheuniformityintaxation

2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and nonuseful occupations,
imposingafixedP50.00employmentpermit,whichisoutofproportiontothecostofregistrationand
thatitfailstoprescribeanystandardtoguideand/orlimittheactionoftheMayor,thus,violatingthe
fundamentalprincipleonillegaldelegationoflegislativepowers:

3)Itisarbitrary,oppressiveandunreasonable,beingappliedonlytoalienswhoarethus,deprivedof
theirrightstolife,libertyandpropertyandtherefore,violatesthedueprocessandequalprotection
clausesoftheConstitution.7

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html 1/4
9/1/2016 G.R.No.L29646

On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on September 17, 1968
rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making permanent the writ of preliminary
injunction.8

ContestingtheaforeciteddecisionofrespondentJudge,thenMayorAntonioJ.Villegasfiledthepresentpetition
onMarch27,1969.PetitionerassignedthefollowingaserrorsallegedlycommittedbyrespondentJudgeinthe
latter'sdecisionofSeptember17,1968:9

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.

PetitionerMayorVillegasarguesthatOrdinanceNo.6537cannotbedeclarednullandvoidonthegroundthatit
violatedtheruleonuniformityoftaxationbecausetheruleonuniformityoftaxationappliesonlytopurelytaxor
revenuemeasuresandthatOrdinanceNo.6537isnotataxorrevenuemeasurebutisanexerciseofthepolice
powerofthestate,itbeingprincipallyaregulatorymeasureinnature.

ThecontentionthatOrdinanceNo.6537isnotapurelytaxorrevenuemeasurebecauseitsprincipalpurposeis
regulatoryinnaturehasnomerit.Whileitistruethatthefirstpartwhichrequiresthatthealienshallsecurean
employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and
approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the
secondpartwhichrequiresthepaymentofP50.00asemployee'sfeeisnotregulatorybutarevenuemeasure.
There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is
obviousthatthepurposeoftheordinanceistoraisemoneyundertheguiseofregulation.

TheP50.00feeisunreasonablenotonlybecauseitisexcessivebutbecauseitfailstoconsidervalidsubstantial
differencesinsituationamongindividualalienswhoarerequiredtopayit.Althoughtheequalprotectionclauseof
theConstitutiondoesnotforbidclassification,itisimperativethattheclassificationshouldbebasedonrealand
substantialdifferenceshavingareasonablerelationtothesubjectoftheparticularlegislation.Thesameamount
ofP50.00isbeingcollectedfromeveryemployedalienwhetherheiscasualorpermanent,parttimeorfulltime
orwhetherheisalowlyemployeeorahighlypaidexecutive

Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his
discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any
standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit,
enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor
arbitraryandunrestrictedpowertograntordenytheissuanceofbuildingpermits,suchordinanceisinvalid,being
anundefinedandunlimiteddelegationofpowertoalloworpreventanactivityperselawful.10

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.

ItwasalsoheldinPrimiciasvs.Fugoso 12 that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes
conferredupontheMayorofManilabytheRevisedCharterofManilaisnotuncontrolleddiscretionbutlegaldiscretiontobe
exercisedwithinthelimitsofthelaw.

OrdinanceNo.6537isvoidbecauseitdoesnotcontainorsuggestanystandardorcriteriontoguidethemayorin
theexerciseofthepowerwhichhasbeengrantedtohimbytheordinance.

TheordinanceinquestionviolatesthedueprocessoflawandequalprotectionruleoftheConstitution.

RequiringapersonbeforehecanbeemployedtogetapermitfromtheCityMayorofManilawhomaywithholdor
refuseitatwillistantamounttodenyinghimthebasicrightofthepeopleinthePhilippinestoengageinameans
oflivelihood.WhileitistruethatthePhilippinesasaStateisnotobligedtoadmitalienswithinitsterritory,oncean
alienisadmitted,hecannotbedeprivedoflifewithoutdueprocessoflaw.Thisguaranteeincludesthemeansof
livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and equal protection clause is given to all persons,
bothaliensandcitizens.13

Thetrialcourtdidnotcommittheerrorsassigned.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyaffirmed,withoutpronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

Barredo,Makasiar,MuozPalma,SantosandGuerrero,JJ.,concur.

Castro,C.J.,AntonioandAquino,Fernando,JJ.,concurintheresult.

Concepcion,Jr.,J.,tooknopart.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html 2/4
9/1/2016 G.R.No.L29646

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
country is a matter of national policy and regulation, which properly pertain to the national government officials
and agencies concerned and not to local governments, such as the City of Manila, which after all are mere
creationsofthenationalgovernment.

Thenationalpolicyonthematterhasbeendeterminedinthestatutesenactedbythelegislature,viz,thevarious
Philippinenationalizationlawswhichonthewholerecognizetherightofalienstoobtaingainfulemploymentinthe
countrywiththeexceptionofcertainspecificfieldsandareas.Suchnationalpoliciesmaynotbeinterferedwith,
thwartedorinanymannernegatedbyanylocalgovernmentoritsofficialssincetheyarenotseparatefromand
independentofthenationalgovernment.

AsstatedbytheCourtintheearlycaseofPhil.Coop.LivestockAss'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
with other countries and their nationals who have been lawfully admitted here, since in such matters the views
and decisions of the Chief of State and of the legislature must prevail over those of subordinate and local
governmentsandofficialswhohavenoauthoritywhatevertotakeofficialactstothecontrary.

SeparateOpinions

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:

IconcurinthedecisionpennedbyMr.JusticeFernandezwhichaffirmsthelowercourt'sjudgmentdeclaring
OrdinanceNo.6537oftheCityofManilanullandvoidforthereasonthattheemploymentofalienswithinthe
countryisamatterofnationalpolicyandregulation,whichproperlypertaintothenationalgovernmentofficials
andagenciesconcernedandnottolocalgovernments,suchastheCityofManila,whichafterallaremere
creationsofthenationalgovernment.

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,sinceinsuchmatterstheviews
anddecisionsoftheChiefofStateandofthelegislaturemustprevailoverthoseofsubordinateandlocal
governmentsandofficialswhohavenoauthoritywhatevertotakeofficialactstothecontrary.

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,permanentorotherwiseandirrespectiveofthesourceororiginofhiscompensationor
numberofhoursspentinsaidoffice,store,restaurant,factory,corporationoranyotherplaceof
employment,ortoengageinanykindofbusinessandtradewithintheCityofManila,withoutfirst
securinganemploymentpermitfromtheMayorofManila,andpayingthenecessaryfeethereforto
theCitytheCityTreasurer:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,Thatpersonsemployedindiplomaticand
consularmissionsofforeigncountriesandintechnicalassistanceprogramsagreeduponbythe
PhilippineGovernmentandanyforeigngovernment,andthoseworkingintheirrespective
households,andmembersofdifferentcongregationsorreligiousordersofanyreligion,sector
denomination,whoarenotpaideithermonetarilyorinkindshagbeexemptedfromtheprovisionsof
thisOrdinance.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html 3/4
9/1/2016 G.R.No.L29646

5Section4.AnyviolationofthisOrdinanceshalluponconviction,bepunishedbyimprisonmentof
notlessthanthree(3)monthsbutnotmorethansix(6)monthsorbyafineofnotlessthanone
hundredpesos(P100.00)butnotmorethantwohundredpesos(P200.00),orbybothsuchfineand
imprisonment,inthediscretionoftheCourt:PROVIDED,HOWEVER,Thatincaseofjuridical
persons,thePresident,theVicePresidentorthepersoninchargeshallbeliable.

6Annex"B",Petition,Rollo,p.39.

7Ibid

8Annex"F",Petition,Rollo,pp.7583.

9Petition,Rollo,p.31.

10Peoplevs.Fajardo,104Phil.443,446.

1189Phil.439,459460.

1280Phil.86.

13KwongSingvs.CityofManila,41Phil,103.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/nov1978/gr_29646_1978.html 4/4