Alba vs Evangelista

Nos. L10360 and L10433, January 17, 1957

Petitioner: JULIANO A. ALBA, in his capacity as Acting Vice Mayor of

Roxas City,

Respondents: HONORABLE JOSE D. EVANGELISTA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of

Capiz and VIVENCIO C. ALAJAR

Facts:

On January 1, 1954, the President of the Philippines appointed Vivencio Alajar as Vice
Mayor of the City of Roxas in Iloilo. He took his oath and assumed office on January 6, 1954;
and continued holding office until November, 1955, when the President had designated Juliano
Alba in his stead as Acting Vice Mayor of the City of Roxas and requesting him to turn over his
said office to Mr. Alba effective immediately. On November 19, 1955, Juliano A. Alba took his
oath and assumed office.
Not satisfied with the action of the President, Alajar instituted quo warranto proceedings
in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Capiz against Alba contending that there existed no legal
cause or reason whatsoever for his removal from office which follows that the designation of
Alba as Acting Vice Mayor of Roxas City was illegal. Judge Jose Evangelista of CFI Capiz ruled
in favor of Alajar and held that Alajar be entitled to remain in office. The decision was not
executed because Alba brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General intervened in the certiorari case and defended the constitutionality
of Section 8 of Republic Act 603:

“Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 creating the City of Roxas provides that the Vice
Mayor shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President.”

Alajar and Evangelista contended that a similar provision, Section 2545 of the Revised
Administrative Code, has been repealed by the Constitution and ceased to be operational when it
has been declared incompatible with the constitutional inhibition that “no officer or employee in
the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law”, because
the two provisions are mutually repugnant and absolutely irreconcilable.

Petinent part of Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code:

Appointment of City Officials. The President of the Philippines shall appoint, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments of the Congress of the Philippines, the
mayor, the vice mayor * * * and he may REMOVE at pleasure any of the said officers *
* *"

However, the Solicitor General that the respondents erred in citing Section 2545 of the
Revised Administrative Code because it involves the REMOVAL from office which is different
from what is provided in Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 which is concerned with the holding
of office at the pleasure of the President. The replacement of respondent Alajar is not removal,
but an expiration of its tenure, which is one of the ordinary modes of terminating official
relations.

Issue: Whether Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:
No. The court presumes that every statute is valid. This presumption is based upon the
theory of separation of powers which makes the enactment and repeal of laws exclusively a
legislative function.
In Darmouth College vs. Woodward, Chief Justice Marshall said that any law is
presumed valid until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the respondents failed to prove the unconstitutionality of Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 603.
Therefore, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 is not unconstitutional.