1.

HON. RICHARD J. GORDON, in his capacity as City Mayor of

Olongapo, Petitioner, v. JUDGE REGINO T. VERIDIANO II and Spouses EDUARDO
and ROSALINDA YAMBAO, Respondents.

G.R. No. L-55230. November 8, 1988

i. FACTS

A test buy operation was conducted at San Sebastian Drug Store owned the
private respondents Yambao. 200 tablets of Valium, 10 mg. worth P410.00 without a
doctor’s prescription was sold without a doctor’s prescription. This prompted the
petitioner who was the mayor of Olongapo to revoke mayor’s permit of the said drug
store for violating R.A. 5921, otherwise known as the Pharmacy Law and R.A. 6425 or
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The FDA, on the other hand, directed the closure of
the drug store for three days and its payment of a P100.00 fine for violation of R.A. No.
3720. When FDA lifted its closure order, Yambao requested permission from the FDA to
exchange the locations of the San Sebastian Drug Store and the Olongapo City Drug
Store which is also owned by them for reasons of "business preference" and this was
granted.

However, the petitioner disapproved the transfers and suspended the mayor’s
permit of Olongapo City Drug Store.

ii. ISSUE

Whether or not the mayor can order the indefinite suspension of the permit of
Olongapo City Drug Store.

iii. PRINCIPLE IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Courts of justice, when confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, should

endeavor to reconcile the same instead of declaring outright the invalidity of one as
against the other.

iv. RULING

Yes. The indefinite suspension of the mayor’s permit for Olongapo City Drug Store
was based on the transfer thereof to the site of the San Sebastian Drug Store as
approved by the FDA but without permission from the petitioner. On this matter, the
Court believes that the final decision rested with the mayor. The condition violated
related more to the location in Olongapo City of business establishments in general than
to the regulation of drug stores in particular. It therefore came under the petitioner’s
jurisdiction.

The FDA would have the right to disapprove the site of the drug store only if it
would impair the health or other interests of the customers in contravention of the
national laws or policies, as where the drug store is located in an unsanitary site. But
the local executive would have reason to object to the location, even if approved by the
FDA, where it does not conform to, say, a zoning ordinance intended to promote the
comfort and convenience of the city residents.
2.

HON. GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR., in his capacity as City Mayor of

Manila, Petitioner, v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. DANILO R.
LACUNA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor and Presiding Officer of the City Council
of Manila, and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 87119. April 16, 1991.

(En Banc)

i. FACTS

The only question in this petition is whether the City Council of Manila still has
the power to appoint Council officers and employees under Republic Act No. 409,
otherwise known as the Charter of the City of Manila, or whether the power is now
vested with the City Mayor pursuant to Republic Act No. 5185, the Decentralization
Law, and Batas Blg. 337, the Local Government Code.

ii. ISSUE

Whether or not R.A. No. 409 shall prevail over Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas
Blg. 337.

iii. PRINCIPLE IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Special law prevails over a general law regardless of their dates of passage and
the special is considered an exception to the general.

iv. RULING

There is no doubt that Republic Act No. 409, which provides specifically for the
organization of the Government of the City of Manila, is a special law, and whereas
Republic Act No. 5185 and Batas Blg. 337, which apply to municipal governments in
general, are general laws. As the Solicitor General points out, and we agree with him, it
is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law —
regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to be considered as remaining
an exception to the general.