HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, AS MAYOR OF MANILA AND CONRADO AQUINO, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. SANTOS VILLAFRANCA, HON. RAMON YCASIANO, AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, MUNICIPAL COURT, MANIL…

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which is
before this Court only questions of law being involved in this case.

As stated in the decision appealed from, “it appears that in March, 1958,
when the incumbent Deputy Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court of Manila
retired” from the service, “the Secretary of Justice appointed respondent Santos
Villafranca to the position just vacated. This appointment was based on merit
and seniority”—Villafranca having been an employee of said court for several
fears, with an efficiency rating of 90% and his appointment being a promotional
one, from P2,700 to P3,600 per annum (Exhibit 1, p. 35, Record)—”on
recommendation of the Executive Judge of the Municipal Court and approved by the
Commissioner of Civil Service. Some months thereafter”—or on January, 27,
1959—”the Mayor of Manila appointed Conrado Aquino to the same position with the
consent of the Municipal Board. However, the appointee was not accepted by the
Executive Judge of the Municipal Court when he”—Aquino—”reported for duty on the
ground that the position was already occupied.”

Subsequently, or on September 8, 1959, Aquino, as well as the Mayor of
Manila, instituted this action for quo warranto and mandamus
against Villafranca and Hon. Ramon Ycasiano, as Executive Judge of the Municipal
Court of Manila, as well as the Secretary of Justice, for the purpose of ousting
Villafranca from the office of Deputy Clerk of said municipal court and securing
a declaration that Aquino is the person legally entitled to hold said office and
to exercise the functions thereof, aside from an order directing respondent
Municipal Judge to acknowledge Aquino as such Deputy Clerk of Court, upon the
theory that the power to fill the office is vested in the Mayor of Manila, not
in the Secretary of Justice. The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained
this pretense and consequently rendered judgment for petitioner Aquino and
against respondents Santos Villafranca, Hon. Ramon Ycasiano and the Secretary of
Justice. Hence, this appeal by certiorari of said respondents.

The main issue is: In whom is the power to appoint the Deputy Clerk of the
Municipal Court of Manila vested? Is it the Secretary of Justice or the Mayor of
Manila?

Petitioners-appellees maintain that it is the latter, relying upon section
22, in relation to section 11, of the Charter of the City of Manila, or Republic
Act No. 409, pertinent parts of which read:

“SEC. 22. Appointment and removal of official and employees.—With the
consent of the Commission on Appointments of Congress, the President of the
Philippines shall appoint the City Fiscal and his assistants, the judges and the
clerk of the municipal court and, in case of a temporary vacancy on such court,
an acting judge therefor, the city engineer and his assistant, the chief of
police and his deputy and the chief of detectives, the chief of the fire
department and his deputy, the city treasurer and his assistant, the city
assessor and hie assistant, the city health officer and his assistant, the city
public service officer and his assistant and the city superintendent of schools
and his assistants. The Mayor shall appoint all other officers and employees
of the city whose appointment is not vested in the President subject to
the provisions of Section 11 (r). Appointive city officers or employees not
appointed by the President of the Philippines shall be suspended and removed by
the Mayor, subject to appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, whose decision
shall be final. The Mayor may recommend to the President the suspension or
removal of any city officer or employee appointed by him.”

“SEC. 11. General duties and powers of the mayor.—The general duties
and powers of the mayor shall be:

* * * * * * *

(q) Subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Law, to appoint all
officers and employees of the City of Manila, any existing law to the
contrary, nothwithstanding, except those whose appointments are vested in the
President. All appointments of the mayor shall be with the consent of the
majority of all the members of the Municipal Board.” (Italics
supplied.)

However, the Deputy Clerk of the Municipal Court of Manila is not
specifically mentioned in any of these provisions, which merely make reference
to the authority of the Mayor to appoint officers and employees of the
City whose appointment is not vested in the President. The question hinges,
therefore, on whether or not said Deputy Clerk of Court is an officer or
employee of the City of Manila.

We hold that he is not. Section 20 of Republic Act No. 409 enumerates the
“city departments”, and—as in the corresponding provisions of the Original
Charter of Manila (Sec. 11, Act No. 183) and the Administrative Codes of 1916
(Sec. 2417) and 1917 (Sec. 2445)—the Municipal Court is not included in the
enumeration. Even the Office of the City Fiscal, one of the city departments
mentioned in said section 20, has been placed by the same under the
Department of Jusfice and beyond the supervision and control of the
Mayor. Moreover, section 39 of said Republic Act No. 409 explicitly confers
upon the Secretary of Justice the power to designate any of the municipal judges
to hold session at night, to prescribe rules governing the distribution of cases
among the different branches of the municipal court, and to designate the
officer who shall act as judge in case of absence, sickness or incapacity of any
of the judges of said court or in case of any vacancy in said office, thus
indicating that the court is under the administrative supervision of the
Secretary of Justice. This conclusion is in line with section 83 of the Revised
Administrative Code, which explicitly vests in the Department of Justice the
executive supervision over Courts of First Instance and inferior courts,
including, therefore, municipal courts.

Indeed, the administration of justice is a matter of national, not local,
concern. For this reason, the clerks of court and other employees of justice of
the peace and municipal courts, except those of the Municipal Court of Manila,
are appointed by the respective justices of the peace or municipal judges,
pursuant to section 75 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296), and
section 22 of Republic Act No. 409 makes the Clerk of the Municipal Court of
Manila an appointee of the President—as the former has been since the original
Charter of Manila (Section 40, Act 183), as well as under the Administrative
Codes of 1916 (Section 2419) and 1917 (Section 2447)— whereas section 79 (D) of
the Revised Administrative Code, provides, in part:

“The Department Head, upon the recommendation of the chief of the Bureau or
office concerned, shall appoint all sulbordinate officers and employees whose
appointment is not expressly vested, by law in the President, and may remove or
punish them except as especially provided otherwise, in accordance with the
Civil Service Law. * * *. “

Inasmuch as the Municipal Court of Manila Is under the executive supervision
of the Department of Justice, it follows that the deputy clerk of court and all
other subordinate officers and employees of said court are appointees of the
Secretary of Justice.

It may not be amiss to note that an action for quo warranto against an
appointive officer may be brought only by the Solicitor General or fiscal, or by
the person who claims to be entitled to the office in question (Rule 68,
sections 3 and 6, Rules of Court). The Mayor of Manila should not have been
included, therefore, as petitioner in this case.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from should be reversed and the case is
dismissed, with costs against petitioner-appellee, Conrado Aquino. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes,
Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.