Villegas vs Hiu Chong

G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 19!

"a#$s% Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 prohibits aliens from being employed or to
engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether
permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the ayor
of anila and paying the permit fee of !5"."".
&ssue% #hether or not Ordinance No. 6537 of the $ity of anila %iolates the due process of
law and e&ual protection rule of the $onstitution.
Hel'% 'es. (he ordinance %iolates the due process of law and e&ual protection rule of the
$onstitution.
)e&uiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the $ity ayor of anila
who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the
people in the !hilippines to engage in a means of li%elihood. #hile it is true that the
!hilippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is
admitted, he cannot be depri%ed of life without due process of law. (his guarantee includes the
means of li%elihood. (he shelter of protection under the due process and e&ual protection
clause is gi%en to all persons, both aliens and citi*ens.
(N )*NC
+ G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 19! ,
-*./R *N0/N&/ 1. V&LL(G*2, 3(0&0&/N(R, V2. H&4 CH&/NG 02*& 3*/ H/
*N5 145G( "R*NC&2C/ *RC*, R(23/N5(N02.
5 ( C & 2 & / N
"(RN*N5(6, 1.%
(his is a petition for certiorari to re%iew the decision dated September 17, 1+6, of respondent
-udge .rancisco /rca of the $ourt of .irst 0nstance of anila, 1ranch 0, in $i%il $ase No.
727+7, the dispositi%e portion of which reads3

4#56)6.O)6, 7udgment is hereby rendered in fa%or of the petitioner and against the
respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6537 of the $ity of anila null and %oid. (he
preliminary in7unction is hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to cost.
SO O)86)68.
anila, !hilippines, September 17, 1+6,.

9S:8.; .)/N$0S$O /)$/
-udge4
<1=

(he contro%erted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the unicipal 1oard of anila on
.ebruary 22, 1+6, and signed by the herein petitioner ayor /ntonio -. >illegas of anila on
arch 27, 1+6,.
<2=
$ity Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled3
4/N O)80N/N$6 /?0N: 0( @NA/#.@A .O) /N' !6)SON NO( / $0(0B6N O.
(56 !50A0!!0N6S (O 16 6!AO'68 0N /N' !A/$6 O. 6!AO'6N( O) (O 16
6N:/:68 0N /N' ?0N8 O. ()/86, 1@S0N6SS O) O$$@!/(0ON #0(50N (56
$0(' O. /N0A/ #0(5O@( .0)S( S6$@)0N: /N 6!AO'6N( !6)0( .)O
(56 /'O) O. /N0A/C /N8 .O) O(56) !@)!OS6S.4
<3=

Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537
<D=
prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or
participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent,
temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the ayor of anila
and paying the permit fee of !5"."" eEcept persons employed in the diplomatic or consular
missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the !hilippine
:o%ernment and any foreign go%ernment, and those worFing in their respecti%e households,
and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid
monetarily or in Find.
>iolations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than three 93;
months to siE 96; months or fine of not less than !1""."" but not more than !2""."" or both
such fine and imprisonment, upon con%iction.
<5=
%On ay D, 1+6,, pri%ate respondent 5iu
$hiong (sai !ao 5o, who was employed in anila, filed a petition with the $ourt of .irst
0nstance of anila, 1ranch 0, denominated as $i%il $ase No. 727+7, praying for the issuance
of the writ of preliminary in7unction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of
Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a 7udgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and
%oid.
<6=
0n this petition, 5iu $hiong (sai !ao 5o assigned the following as his grounds for wanting the
ordinance declared null and %oid3
1. /s a re%enue measure imposed on aliens employed in the $ity of anila,
Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and %iolati%e of the rule of the
uniformity in taEationC
2. /s a police power measure, it maFes no distinction between useful and
nonGuseful occupations, imposing a fiEed !5"."" employment permit,
which is out of proportion to the cost of registration and that it fails to
prescribe any standard to guide andHor limit the action of the ayor, thus,
%iolating the fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislati%e
powersC
3. 0t is arbitrary, oppressi%e and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens
who are thus, depri%ed of their rights to life, liberty and property and
therefore, %iolates the due process and e&ual protection clauses of the
$onstitution.
<7=

On ay 2D, 1+6,, respondent -udge issued the writ of preliminary in7unction and on
September 17, 1+6, rendered 7udgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and %oid and
maFing permanent the writ of preliminary in7unction.
<,=
$ontesting the aforecited decision of respondent -udge, then ayor /ntonio -. >illegas filed
the present petition on arch 27, 1+6+. !etitioner assigned the following as errors allegedly
committed by respondent -udge in the latterIs decision of September 17, 1+6,3
<+=
40
(56 )6S!ON86N( -@8:6 $O0((68 / S6)0O@S /N8 !/(6N( 6))O) O. A/#
0N )@A0N: (5/( O)80N/N$6 NO. 6537 >0OA/(68 (56 $/)80N/A )@A6 O.
@N0.O)0(' O. (/J/(0ON.
00
)6S!ON86N( -@8:6 A0?6#0S6 $O0((68 / :)/>6 /N8 !/(6N( 6))O) O.
A/# 0N )@A0N: (5/( O)80N/N$6 NO. 6537 >0OA/(68 (56 !)0N$0!A6
/:/0NS( @N8@6 86S0:N/(0ON O. A6:0SA/(0>6 !O#6).

000
)6S!ON86N( -@8:6 .@)(56) $O0((68 / S6)0O@S /N8 !/(6N( 6))O)
O. A/# 0N )@A0N: (5/( O)80N/N$6 NO. 6537 >0OA/(68 (56 8@6 !)O$6SS
/N8 6K@/A !)O(6$(0ON $A/@S6S O. (56 $ONS(0(@(0ON.4
!etitioner ayor >illegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared null and %oid on
the ground that it %iolated the rule on uniformity of taEation because the rule on uniformity of
taEation applies only to purely taE or re%enue measures and that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a
taE or re%enue measure but is an eEercise of the police power of the state, it being principally a
regulatory measure in nature.
(he contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely taE or re%enue measure because its
principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. #hile it is true that the first part which
re&uires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the ayor in%ol%es the
eEercise of discretion and 7udgment in the processing and appro%al or disappro%al of
applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character, the second part
which re&uires the payment of !5"."" as employeeIs fee is not regulatory but a re%enue
measure. (here is no logic or 7ustification in eEacting !5"."" from aliens who ha%e been
cleared for employment. 0t is ob%ious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under
the guise of regulation.
(he !5"."" fee is unreasonable not only because it is eEcessi%e but because it fails to consider
%alid subGstantial differences in situation among indi%idual aliens who are re&uired to pay it.
/lthough the e&ual protection clause of the $onstitution does not forbid classification, it is
imperati%e that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences ha%ing a
reasonable relation to the sub7ect of the particular legislation. (he same amount of !5"."" is
being collected from e%ery employed alien, whether he is casual or permanent, part time or
full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid eEecuti%e.
Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the ayor in the
eEercise of his discretion. 0t 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 mayorIs action, eEpresses no
purpose to be attained by re&uiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal,
and entirely lacFs standard, thus conferring upon the ayor arbitrary and unrestricted power
to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is in%alid, being an
undefined and unlimited delegation of power to allow or pre%ent an acti%ity per se lawful.
<1"=
0n Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board,
<11=
where a law granted
a go%ernment agency power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the
Supreme $ourt ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled power as it %ested in the
administrati%e officer an arbitrary discretion to be eEercised without a policy, rule, or standard
from which it can be measured or controlled.
0t was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso
<12=
that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse
permits of all classes conferred upon the ayor of anila by the )e%ised $harter of anila is
not uncontrolled disGcretion but legal discretion to be eEercised within the limits of the law.
Ordinance No. 6537 is %oid because it does not contain or suggest any standard or criterion to
guide the mayor in the eEercise of the power which has been granted to him by the ordinance.
(he ordinance in &uestion %iolates the due process of law and e&ual protection rule of the
$onstitution.
)e&uiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the $ity ayor of anila
who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the
people in the !hilippines to engage in a means of li%elihood. #hile it is true that the
!hilippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is
admitted, he cannot be depri%ed of life without due process of law. (his guarantee includes the
means of li%elihood. (he shelter of protection under the due process and e&ual protection
clause is gi%en to all persons, both aliens and citi*ens.
<13=
(he trial court did not commit the errors assigned.
7H(R("/R(, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to
costs.
2/ /R5(R(5.
Barredo, Makasiar, Muoz Palma, Santos, and !uerrero, ""., concur.
Castro, C."., Antonio, and A#uino, ""., in the result.
Fernando, "., concurring in the result, relies primarily on the ultra vires character of the
ordinance and eEpresses conformity with the concurring opinion of -ustice (ehanFee.
$eehankee, "., concurs in a separate opinion.
Concepcion, "r., "., no part.
<1=
/nneE 4.4, !etition, )ollo, p. 6D.
<2=
!etition, )ollo, p. 2,.
<3=
/nneE 4/4 of !etition, )ollo, pp. 37G3,.
<D=
Section 1. 0t shall be unlawful for any person not a citi*en of the !hilippines to be employed
in any Find of position or occupation or allowed directly or indirectly to participate in the
functions, administration or management in any office, corporation, store, restaurant, factory,
business firm, or any other place of employment either as consultant, ad%iser, clerF, employee,
technician, teacher, actor, actress, acrobat, singer or other theatrical performer, laborer, cooF,
etc., whether temporary, casual, permanent or otherwise and irrespecti%e of the source or
origin of his compensation or number of hours spent in said office, store, restaurant, factory,
corporation or any other place of employment, or to engage in any Find of business and trade
within the $ity of anila, without first securing an employment permit from the ayor of
anila, and paying the necessary fee therefor to the $ity (reasurer3 !)O>0868,
5O#6>6), (hat persons employed in diplomatic and consular missions of foreign countries
and in technical assistance programs agreed upon by the !hilippine :o%ernment and any
foreign go%ernment, and those worFing in their respecti%e households, and members of
different congregations or religious orders of any religion, sect or denomination, who are not
paid either monetarily or in Find shall be eEempted from the pro%isions of this Ordinance.
<5=
Section D. /ny %iolation of this Ordinance shall, upon con%iction, be punished by
imprisonment of not less than three 93; months but not more than siE 96; months or by a fine
of not less than one hundred pesos 9!1"".""; but not more than two hundred pesos 9!2""."";,
or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the $ourt3 !)O>0868,
5O#6>6), (hat in case of 7uridical persons, the !resident, the >iceG!resident or the person
in charge shall be liable.
<6=
/nneE 414, !etition, )ollo, p. 3+.
<7=
0bid.
<,=
/nneE 4.4, !etition, )ollo, pp. 75G,3.
<+=
!etition, )ollo, p. 31.
<1"=
!eople %s. .a7ardo, 1"D !hil. DD3, DD6.
<11=
,+ !hil. D3+, D5+GD6".
<12=
," !hil. 71, ,6.
<13=
?wong Sing %s. $ity of anila, D1 !hil. 1"3.
2(3*R*0( C/NC4RR&NG /3&N&/N
0((H*N8((, 1.%
0 concur in the decision penned by r. -ustice .ernande* which affirms the lower courtIs
7udgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 of the $ity of anila null and %oid 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 go%ernment officials and agencies concerned and not to
local go%ernments, such as the $ity of anila, which after all are mere creations of the
national go%ernment.
(he national policy on the matter has been determined in the statutes enacted by the
legislature, %i*, the %arious !hilippine nationali*ation laws which on the whole recogni*e the
right of aliens to obtain gainful employment in the country with the eEception of certain
specific fields and areas. Such national policies may not be interfered with, thwarted or in any
manner negated by any local go%ernment or its officials since they are not separate from and
independent of the national go%ernment.
/s stated by the $ourt in the early case of Phil. Coop. %ivestock Ass&n. vs. 'arnsha(, 5+ !hil.
12+3 4(he $ity of anila is a subordinate body to the 0nsular 9National :o%ernment LL.;.
#hen the 0nsular 9National; :o%ernment adopts a policy, a municipality is without legal
authority to nullify and set at naught the action of the superior authority.4 0ndeed, 4not only
must all municipal powers be eEercised within the limits of the organic laws, but they must be
consistent with the general law and public policy of the particular stateL4 90
cKuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2nd, sec. 367, p. 1"11;.
#ith more reason are such national policies binding on local go%ernments when they in%ol%e
our foreign relations with other countries and their nationals who ha%e been lawfully admitted
here, since in such matters the %iews and decisions of the $hief of State and of the legislature
must pre%ail those of subordinate and local go%ernments and officials who ha%e no authority
whate%er to taFe official acts to the contrary.