maceda to prudential bank

7/26/2019 Maceda to Prudential Bank

1/22

Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No. 102781)

Judicial DepartmentFacts:Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO led a complaint before theOce of the Ombudsman against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio San!aceda" Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner !aceda has falsiedhis certicate of ser#ice b$ certif$ing that all ci#il and criminal cases

%hich ha#e been submitted for decision for a period of &' da$s ha#ebeen determined and decided on or before Januar$ ()* )&+&* %hen intruth and in fact* petitioner !aceda ,ne% that no decision had beenrendered in - ci#il and )' criminal cases that ha#e been submitted fordecision" Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner !aceda falsied hiscerticates of ser#ice for ). months"Issue:/hether or not the in#estigation made b$ the Ombudsmanconstitutes an encroachment into the SC0s constitutional dut$ ofsuper#ision o#er all inferior courtsHeld:A 1udge %ho falsies his certicate of ser#ice is administrati#el$liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under Sec" )* Rule )2' of theRules of Court* and criminall$ liable to the State under the Re#ised PenalCode for his felonious act"3n the absence of an$ administrati#e action ta,en against him b$ theCourt %ith regard to his certicates of ser#ice* the in#estigation beingconducted b$ the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court0s po%er ofadministrati#e super#ision o#er all courts and its personnel* in #iolationof the doctrine of separation of po%ers"Art" 4333* Sec" 5 of the Constitution e6clusi#el$ #ests in the SC

administrati#e super#ision o#er all courts and court personnel* from thePresiding Justice of the CA do%n to the lo%est municipal trial court cler,"B$ #irtue of this po%er* it is onl$ the SC that can o#ersee the 1udges0 andcourt personnel0s compliance %ith all la%s* and ta,e the properadministrati#e action against them if the$ commit an$ #iolation thereof"No other branch of go#ernment ma$ intrude into this po%er* %ithoutrunning afoul of the doctrine of separation of po%ers"/here a criminal complaint against a 1udge or other court emplo$eearises from their administrati#e duties* the Ombudsman must deferaction on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination

%hether said 1udge or court emplo$ee had acted %ithin the scope of theiradministrati#e duties"A.M. No. 1312-CFI January 31, 197

AN!"NI" #. $A%&I'A, complaint,vs.

DI(!$IC! J&D)* MA$IAN" CA(!A+*DA, J$., C"&$! "F FI$(! IN(!ANC* "F AMAN)A,$ANC III,espondent.
https://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/tag/judicial-department/https://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/tag/judicial-department/


2/22

A$$*D", J.:

!etition to ode t"e tans#e o# $pecial !oceedin%s No. &82' o# t"e out o# ist *nstance o# !ampan%a (+estate

state o# t"e late -on l#onso astellvi) #om t"e sala o# espondent /ud%e, on. Maiano astaeda to anot"e

anc" and administative complaint a%ainst t"e same /ud%e #o 3(1) violation o# t"e nti4Ga#t 5a6 (2) endein%

decision no6in% it to e un/ust and ille%al (9) e:totion ; means o# oppession and (') ie;.

#te espondent /ud%e "ad #iled "is comment on said petition and administative complaint, t"e out esolved on

u%ust 9, 1ie;.

* A ?nde ount *. complainant c"a%es espondent o# %ivin% Ms. Natividad astellvi Raquiza and

Ms. Nieves +oledo4Gozun un6aanted ene#its, advanta%e o pe#eence in violation o# paa%ap"(e), $ection 9, Repulic ct 901


3/22

equivalent amount in t"e second elease o# !1,000,000.00 deposited in t"e an in t"e name o# t"e

astellvi state as collateal. omplainant contends t"at espondent =ud%e no6s t"at Ms. Raquiza

"as no moe paticipation o inteest in o an; i%"ts to t"e astellvi state since accodin% to t"e

ecods in ivil ase No. 27&1 entitled 3!oe vs. Natividad astellvi Raquiza,3 ot" paties a%eed

to %ive all t"e popeties su/ect matte o# t"e suit to t"e Raquiza c"ilden.

*** A ?nde ount ***, complainant alle%es t"at espondent committed attempted e:totion ;

oppession in t"at a#te Ms. Raquiza %ot t"e total o# !990,000.00 #om t"e !"ilippine Veteans >an

in connection 6it" t"e #ist elease o# !1,000,000.00, "e visited t"e espondent =ud%e in "is "ouseasin% t"at "e 6ould also elease t"e alance o# !900,000.00 to t"e Raquiza c"ilden ecause pat o#

t"e mone; 6ould e used ; complainant in %oin% to t"e ?nited $tates #o "is e;e teatment and t"at

espondent pomised to %ive t"e necessa; ode t"e #ollo6in% da;. omplainant 6ent to !ampan%a

t"e #ollo6in% monin% pe advice o# espondent and sa6 t"e /ud%e in "is pivate c"ame t"at t"e

/ud%e invited complainant to a cone o# t"e oom and told "im t"at "e needed mone;, t"at taen

aac ; suc" alle%ed act o# %a#t and couption, complainant s"outed in a ve; loud voice, 3Dou ae

coupt.3 +"ee is %a#t and couption in t"is o##ice and t"en le#t t"e oom ut t"at #ollo6in% t"e

sa;in%, 3a man in need is a e%%a3, complainant called t"e /ud%e a #e6 da;s late and assistant. t"at

t"e; 6ee econciled ut nonet"eless. t"e espondent despite seveal equests #om tt;. Duzon,

counsel #o t"e complainant, consistentl; #ailed to compl; 6it" "is pomise t"at "e 6ould elease

mone; #o t"e Raquiza c"ilden t"at a#te t"e econciliation, complainant visited t"e espondent

=ud%e in "is "ouse and t"e latte pomised to %ive t"e ode t"e #ollo6in% da; t"at it 6as onl; a#te

epeated tips o# tt;. Duzon o "is assistant. M. Gacio -acutan, to !ampan%a t"at t"e espondent

=ud%e eleased t"e total amount o# !9B0,000.00 to t"e Raquiza c"ilden t"at as t"e Raquiza c"ilden

u%entl; needed some o# t"e mone; #o t"emselves, t"e alance 6as not enou%" an;moe to #inance

t"e tip o# t"e complainant to t"e ?nited $tates "ence, "e ased a%ain t"e !esident to elease anot"e

!1,000,000.00 t"at t"e complainant ands t"e imposition o# t"is "ads"ips ; espondent =ud%e,

6"ic" is supposedl; a case o# e:totion ; means o# oppession 6"ee espondent su/ected

complainant, "is counsel tt;. Duzon and "is assistant Gacio -acutan, "ad to s"uttle eve;da; #o a

peiod o# aout one mont" et6een Manila to !ampan%a to %et t"e pomised ode o# elease 6"ic"

neve came up to t"e pesent.

*V A s to t"e #out" count, t"e complainant c"a%es t"e espondent o# ie;, in t"at 3"e

(espondent) %ets ie mone; #om Ms. Raquiza and suel; #om all ot"e paties3 t"at on t"e #ist

elease o# !1,000,000.00, espondent =ud%e e:toted !70,000.00 #om Ms. Raquiza out o# t"e elease

o# aout !990,000.00.

*n "is comment o ans6e to t"e c"a%es, espondent alle%ed t"at t"ose indictments ae devoid o#

#actual andEo le%al asis ecause@

s to "a%e * (Violation o# nti4Ga#t 5a6) and ** (no6in%l; endein% un/ust and ille%al

/ud%ment), espondent Ms. Raquiza still "as a s"ae in t"e astellvi state ecause ; testamenta;

povision appoved ; #inal /ud%ment, Natividad astellvi Raquiza as instituted "ei, is entitled to 2E8

s"ae o# t"e estate alt"ou%" one4"al# (1E2) o# said 2E9 "ad een tans#eed to "e c"ilden ; vitue o#

a compomise a%eement sumitted ; ?ane !oe in ivil ase No. 27&1 entitled ?ano !oe

vs. Natividad astellvi4Raquiza (:"s. 2 F 9, des o# =ud%e onoio Romeo dated Mac" 2


4/22

?nited $tates #o "is e;e teatment as claimed t"at t"e eason %iven in complainantHs equest to t"e

!esident dated -eceme 2


5/22

Moeove, t"e Raquiza c"ilden susequentl; espected t"e emainin% s"ae o# t"ei mot"e ;

e:pessl; a%eein% to "e equest to t"e !"ilippine Veteans >an pesident #o additional loan (:".

').

*t is not also eutted t"at seveal claims c"a%eale a%ainst t"e estate "as not een completel; settled

#o 6"ic" eason espondent at t"e outset e#used to %ant an; elease. o6eve, #o "umanitaian

consideations and

... mainl; on t"e asis o# t"e !esidentHs "and6itten note on complainantHs lette,dated =ul; 1&, 1an deived #om t"e #ist elease

o# !1 million, #o t"e delive; to t"e Raquiza c"ilden -ais;, ntonio. =.. 5ev; and

-ou%las, in t"e amount o# !2'8,000.00, and an additional amount o# !20,000.00,

unde "is odes, dated u%ust 20, 1


6/22

ne salient #act also denies t"e veacit; o# t"e vesion o# t"e complainant elative to t"e 3s"outin%

incident.3 *t is not denied t"at at t"e time t"e espondent could "adl; stand and 6al 6it"out

cutc"es. e could not "ave stood t"ee#oe on a cone o# t"e cout c"ame duin% t"e incident.

C"at is moe, as "e 6as seated on a c"ai at t"e end o# "is des to t"e i%"t and t"at since

complainant 6as onl; one mete a6a; #om "im, t"e convesation natuall; 6ould "ave een audile

and t"e 6itnesses inside t"e cout c"ame neve testi#ied t"at t"e espondent 6as asin% mone; #om

t"e complainant. +"e evidence also emains uneutted t"at a #e6 da;s a#te t"e said incident, t"e

complainant apolo%ized to t"e espondent #o 6"at "e "ad done. n top o# it all, it is di##icult toelieve t"at t"e espondent 6ould "ave committed e:totion o attempted e:totion a%ainst t"e

complainant, 6"o is eputedl; o# "i%" statue, not countin% t"at "e 6as a #ome povincial %oveno,

con%essman, cainet meme and dele%ate to t"e onstitutional onvention and it could "ave taen

so muc" neve and dain% to do suc" an act.

s e%ads t"e #out" c"a%e o# ie;, complainant claims t"at Ms. Raquiza "ad told "im t"at out

o# t"e !900,000.00 s"e otained as loan #om t"e #ist elease o# !1 million, s"e %ave !70,000.00 to

t"e espondent, t"e undesi%ned also #inds t"at t"is c"a%e 6as not sustantiated. *n t"e #ist place, t"e

testimon; is puel; "easa;. s t"e complainant testi#ied on coss4e:amination@

J Dou ot"e c"a%e is ie;. Dou mentioned t"at t"e =ud%e e:toted !70,000 #om

Ms. Raquiza, 6"at is ;ou asis K

*t 6as told to me ; Ms. Raquiza.

J * t"ou%"t ;ou ae a 6ido6eK

* am sepaated #om "e, ut s"e comes to t"e "ouse ve; o#ten.

*NV$+*G+R@

Ma; t"e *nvesti%ato inquie, is t"at sepaation le%al

* #iled a divoce in t"e $tates.

::: ::: :::

J $o ;ou ae not a 6ido6eK

* am a 6ido6e.

J * cannot undestand t"atK

Des, * am maied to anot"e 6oman.

J Dou said ;ou 6ee told ; Ms. RaquizaK

$"e told me s"e pacticall; spent 1E2 o# 6"at 6as %iven to "e.

::: ::: :::

J $o, ;ou asis is 6"at ;ou %ot #om Ms. Raquiza

Des.

J # ;ou o6n pesonal no6led%e, ;ou donHt no6 t"atK

* "ave not seen Ms. Raquiza %ivin% t"e mone; to "im. (pp. 1& 17,18, tsn., e. 2,1


7/22

is misconduct in o##ice, 6ill#ul ne%lect, couption, incompetenc;, etc. +"e %eneal

ules in e%ad to admissiilit; o# evidence in ciminal tials appl; (99 .=.


8/22

ecision of administrati#e bod$ Bureau of 3mmigration declaring one a naturalEborn citien isnot bindingupon the courts %hen there are circumstances that entail factual assertions thatneed to be threshed out inproper 1udicial proceedings7ACTS8This case arose %hen respondent Iregor$ S" Ong %as appointed b$ M6ecuti#e Secretar$* in

representation of theOce of the President* as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court"Petitioners contended that respondent Ong isa Chinese citien* born on !a$ 9-* )&-( toChinese parents" The$ further added that e#en if it %ere granted that ele#en $ears afterrespondent Ong s birth* his father %as finall$ granted 7ilipino citienship b$naturaliation*that* b$ itself* %ould not ma,e respondent Ong a naturalEborn citien" 7or hispart* respondent Ong contendedthat he is a naturalEborn citien and presented acertication from the Bureau of 3mmigration and theOJdeclaring him to be such"3SSM8

y/hetherornot

responde

ntOng isa naturalEborn

7ilipino citien


9/22

RK3NI8666 respondent Ong is a naturalied 7ilipino citien" The alleged subseuentrecognition of his naturalEbornstatus b$ the Bureau of 3mmigration and theOJ cannot amend the nal decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong and hismother %ere naturalied along %ith his father"The series of e#ents and long string of allegedchanges in the nationalities of respondent Ong@s ancestors* b$#arious births* marriages and

deaths* all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper1udicialproceedings so as to correct the e6isting records on his birthand citienship" The chain of e#idence %ould ha#eto sho% that$ Iuio, Santos* respondent Ong@s mother* %as a 7ilipino citien* contrar$ to %hat stillappears inthe records of this Court" Respondent Ong has the burden of pro#ing in court hisalleged ancestral tree as %ellas his citienship under the timeEline of three Constitutions" ntilthis is done* respondent Ong cannot accept anappointment to this Court as that %ould be a#iolation of the Constitution" 7or this reason* he can be pre#entedb$ in1unction from doing so"

/).$ No. 20213 July 03, 2012

FAM*4A $. D&4A5 6. J&DICIA4 AND A$ C"&NCI4 AND A%&I!" N. "C"A, J$., A(**C&!I#* (*C$*!A$5.

(ir8Me8dame8

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 3, 2012, which reads as follows: cralaw

"G.R No. 202143 (Famela R. Dulay v. Judicial and Ba !ouncil and "a#ui$o N. %c&oa, J., a' )ecu$ive *ece$ay.+.-This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with Prayer for the Issuance of a TemporaryRestraining rder, filed by petitioner !amela R #ulay against the $udicial and %ar Council &$%C' and ()ecuti*e +ecretary Pauito choa, $r, raising the following issues.

/0hether the respondent 1onorable $%C can legitimately, *alidly and constitutionally accepts &sic' application fornomination and inter*iew of nominees for the position of a Chief $ustice of the 1onorable Court and, thereafter, submits

&sic' short list of nominees to the President of the Republic of the Philippines for the appointment of a Chief $ustice of the1onorable Court2

30hether the President of the Republic of the Philippines may legitimately, *alidly and constitutionally appoint a Chief$ustice of the 1onorable Court, in replacement of the remo*ed and impeached 1onorable Renato C Corona2

%0hether the respondent 1onorable $%C can constitutionally be headed by a retired 3ssociate $ustice of the 1onorableCourt, instead of an incumbent Chief $ustice of the 1onorable Court4

Petitioner claims that the President of the Republic of the Philippines cannot legitimately, *alidly, and constitutionally appoint theChief $ustice of the +upreme Court, because the 789 Constitution only empowers him to appoint members or $ustices but not the

Chief $ustice4:+he adds that the Chief $ustice should be replaced and designated e)clusi*ely from among their peers

4;Petitioner also contends that the $%C cannot be *alidly, legally and constitutionally headed by a retired 3ssociate $ustice ofthe +upreme Court, because the Constitution specifically pro*ides that it be headed by the incumbent Chief $ustice and no other

4


10/22

relief from the Court in the *indication of a public right The assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging an officialaction rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public in general49

In this case, howe*er, petitioner has not shown in her petition that she is entitled to protection or relief from the Court +he did note*en e)plain her capacity in instituting the present special ci*il action for certiorari and prohibition owhere in her petition did she

assert her right either as citi>en or ta)payer filing her petition on behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issues3ccordingly, she is wanting in legal standing to institute the instant petition utright dismissal of the present petition is, therefore,warranted

(*en if we ignore the technical defect and we loo= into the merits of the case, the petition is still bound to be dismissed

+imply stated, petitioner see=s the resolution of two substanti*e issues. &' whether or not the President of the Philippines has theconstitutional power to appoint the Chief $ustice of the +upreme Court2 and &:' whether or not the $%C can *alidly be headed by aperson other than the incumbent Chief $ustice

0e answer in the affirmati*e to both uestions

+ection 7, 3rticle ?III of the Constitution, pro*ides for the appointment of $ustices and $udges, to wit.

+ection 7 The @embers of the +upreme Court and Audges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of atleast three nominees prepared by the $udicial and %ar Council for e*ery *acancy +uch appointments need no confirmation ) ) )&(mphasis supplied'

In interpreting the abo*e-stated constitutional pro*ision, petitioner considers only the 3ssociate $ustices as the "members of the+upreme Court" thereby e)cluding the Chief $ustice from the PresidentBs appointing power +aid interpretation is baseless

3 plain reading of the constitutional pro*isions on the $udicial #epartment in 3rticle ?III of the 789 Constitution clearly shows thatthe phrase "@embers of the +upreme Court" and the words "@embers" and "@ember" are repeatedly used to refer to the $usticesof the +upreme Court without distinction whether he be the Chief $ustice or any of the 3ssociate $ustices or all fifteen $ustices

+ection < &l',48 3rticle ?III thereof defines the composition of the +upreme Court, namely, "a Chief $ustice and fourteen 3ssociate$ustices" who may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in di*isions of three, fi*e, or se*en@embers2 +ection < &:'47 and &;'4/ describe the manner of conducting business in the Court whether it be (n %anc or in di*ision2 +ection 9 &'4 enumeratesthe ualifications of the @embers of the Court and the other members of the $udiciary2 +ection 4: pro*ides for the security oftenure in the $udiciary2 +ection :4;states the prohibition on non-Audicial assignments of the @embers of the +upreme Court andof other courts2 and +ection ;4


11/22

@R CC(PCI 0e hope so

@R #( C3+TR 3nd one of the members thereof is a @ember of Congress

@R CC(PCI That is right

@R #( C3+TR 3n e) officio member %y the time this is ratified, Congress is not yet con*ened and there will stillbe an election2 so there will still be a delay of more than 7/ days @aybe before the *acancies occur in the +upreme

Court, they will be filled up by the President

@R CC(PCI That is possible

@R #( C3+TR Therefore, it will ta=e perhaps until o*ember or #ecember before the four other Austices will beappointed, if we follow the $udicial and %ar Council r can the $udicial and %ar Council function without thepresence yet of a member of Congress who is ane)-officio memberD

@R CC(PCI It can operate without the e)-officio member because a maAority would be enough, although itwould be preferable if it were complete

@R #( C3+TR +o that upon ratification of this Constitution, it is possible, and the President may do it byappointing the members of the $udicial and %ar Council without first a representati*e from Congress

@R CC(PCI That is correct

@R #( C3+TR +o that we can immediately fill up the four *acancies in the +upreme Court

@R CC(PCI That is correct

@R #( C3+TR I am as=ing this Aust for the record, that the *acancies in the +upreme Court be immediately filledup so that our bac=log of cases can be immediately attended to

) ) ) &(mphases supplied'4:/

Considering, howe*er, that complete membership in the $%C is preferable and pursuant to its super*isory power o*er the $%C, thisCourt should not be depri*ed of representation The most +enior $ustice of this Court who is not an applicant for the position ofChief $ustice should participate in the deliberations for the selection of nominees for the said *acant post and preside o*er the

proceedings in the absence of the constitutionally-named ()-fficioChairman, pursuant to +ection : of Republic 3ct o :76, orthe $udiciary 3ct of 7


12/22

concei#ed of a bod$ representati#e of all the sta,eholders in the 1udicial appointment process

and called it the Judicial and Bar Council JBC"

3n particular* Paragraph ) Section +* Article 4333 of the Constitution states that ) A Judicial

and Bar Council is hereb$ created under the super#ision of the Supreme Court composed of

the Chief Justice as e6 ocio Chairman* the Secretar$ of Justice* and a representati#e of the

Congress as e6 ocio !embers* a representati#e of the 3ntegrated Bar* a professor of la%* aretired !ember of the Supreme Court* and a representati#e of the pri#ate sector" 3n

compliance there%ith* Congress* from the moment of the creation of the JBC* designated one

representati#e from the Congress to sit in the JBC to act as one of the e6 ocio members"

3n )&&2 ho%e#er* the composition of the JBC %as substantiall$ altered" 3nstead of ha#ing onl$

se#en . members* an eighth +th member %as added to the JBC as t%o 9 representati#es

from Congress began sitting in the JBC U one from the Qouse of Representati#es and one from

the Senate* %ith each ha#ing oneEhalf )F9 of a #ote" uring the e6istence of the case*

Senator 7rancis Joseph I" Mscudero and Congressman Niel C" Tupas* Jr" respondents

simultaneousl$ sat in JBC as representati#es of the legislature"

3t is this practice that petitioner has uestioned in this petition"

The respondents claimed that %hen the JBC %as established* the framers originall$ en#isioned

a unicameral legislati#e bod$* thereb$ allocating a representati#e of the National Assembl$

to the JBC" The phrase* ho%e#er* %as not modied to aptl$ 1i#e %ith the change to

bicameralism %hich %as adopted b$ the Constitutional Commission on Jul$ 9)* )&+5" The

respondents also contend that if the Commissioners %ere made a%are of the conseuence of

ha#ing a bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral one* the$ %ould ha#e made the

corresponding ad1ustment in the representation of Congress in the JBCG that if onl$ one house

of Congress gets to be a member of JBC %ould depri#e the other house of representation*

defeating the principle of balance"

The respondents further argue that the allo%ance of t%o 9 representati#es of Congress to be

members of the JBC does not render JBC0s purpose of pro#iding balance nugator$G that the

presence of t%o 9 members from Congress %ill most li,el$ pro#ide balance as against the

other si6 5 members %ho are undeniabl$ presidential appointees

Supreme Court held that it has the po%er of re#ie% the case herein as it is an ob1ect of

concern* not 1ust for a nominee to a 1udicial post* but for all the citiens %ho ha#e the right to

see, 1udicial inter#ention for rectication of legal blunders"

3ssue8/hether the practice of the JBC to perform its functions %ith eight + members* t%o 9 of

%hom are members of Congress* defeats the letter and spirit of the )&+. Constitution"

Qeld8

No" The current practice of JBC in admitting t%o members of the Congress to perform the

functions of the JBC is #iolati#e of the )&+. Constitution" As such* it is unconstitutional"


13/22

One of the primar$ and basic rules in statutor$ construction is that %here the %ords of a

statute are clear* plain* and free from ambiguit$* it must be gi#en its literal meaning and

applied %ithout attempted interpretation" 3t is a %ellEsettled principle of constitutional

construction that the language emplo$ed in the Constitution must be gi#en their ordinar$

meaning e6cept %here technical terms are emplo$ed" As such* it can be clearl$ and

unambiguousl$ discerned from Paragraph )* Section +* Article 4333 of the )&+. Constitution

that in the phrase* a representati#e of Congress* the use of the singular letter a preceding

representati#e of Congress is uneui#ocal and lea#es no room for an$ other construction" 3t

is indicati#e of %hat the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind* that is*

Congress ma$ designate onl$ one ) representati#e to the JBC" Qad it been the intention that

more than one ) representati#e from the legislature %ould sit in the JBC* the 7ramers could

ha#e* in no uncertain terms* so pro#ided"

!oreo#er* under the ma6im noscitur a sociis* %here a particular %ord or phrase is ambiguous

in itself or is euall$ susceptible of #arious meanings* its correct construction ma$ be made

clear and specic b$ considering the compan$ of %ords in %hich it is founded or %ith %hich it

is associated" M#er$ meaning to be gi#en to each %ord or phrase must be ascertained from

the conte6t of the bod$ of the statute since a %ord or phrase in a statute is al%a$s used in

association %ith other %ords or phrases and its meaning ma$ be modied or restricted b$ the

latter" Appl$ing the foregoing principle to this case* it becomes apparent that the %ord

Congress used in Article 4333* Section +) of the Constitution is used in its generic sense" No

particular allusion %hatsoe#er is made on %hether the Senate or the Qouse of

Representati#es is being referred to* but that* in either case* onl$ a singular representati#e

ma$ be allo%ed to sit in the JBC

Considering that the language of the sub1ect constitutional pro#ision is plain and

unambiguous* there is no need to resort e6trinsic aids such as records of the ConstitutionalCommission" Ne#ertheless* e#en if the Court should proceed to loo, into the minds of the

members of the Constitutional Commission* it is undeniable from the records thereof that it

%as intended that the JBC be composed of se#en . members onl$" The underl$ing reason

leads the Court to conclude that a single #ote ma$ not be di#ided into half )F9* bet%een t%o

representati#es of Congress* or among an$ of the sitting members of the JBC for that matter"

/ith the respondents0 contention that each representati#e should be admitted from the

Congress and Qouse of Representati#es* the Supreme Court* after the perusal of the records

of Constitutional Commission* held that Congress* in the conte6t of JBC representation*

should be considered as one bod$" /hile it is true that there are still diVerences bet%een the

t%o houses and that an interEpla$ bet%een the t%o houses is necessar$ in the realiation of

the legislati#e po%ers conferred to them b$ the Constitution* the same cannot be applied in

the case of JBC representation because no liaison bet%een the t%o houses e6ists in the

%or,ings of the JBC" No mechanism is reuired bet%een the Senate and the Qouse of

Representati#es in the screening and nomination of 1udicial ocers" Qence* the term

Congress must be ta,en to mean the entire legislati#e department"


14/22

The framers of Constitution* in creating JBC* hoped that the pri#ate sector and the three

branches of go#ernment %ould ha#e an acti#e role and eual #oice in the selection of the

members of the Judiciar$" Therefore* to allo% the Kegislature to ha#e more uantitati#e

inWuence in the JBC b$ ha#ing more than one #oice spea,* %hether %ith one full #ote or oneE

half )F9 a #ote each* %ould negate the principle of eualit$ among the three branches of

go#ernment %hich is enshrined in the Constitution"

3t is clear* therefore* that the Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of se#en .

members onl$" Thus* an$ inclusion of another member* %hether %ith one %hole #ote or half

)F9 of it* goes against that mandate" Section +)* Article 4333 of the Constitution* pro#iding

Congress %ith an eual #oice %ith other members of the JBC in recommending appointees to

the Judiciar$ is e6plicit" An$ circum#ention of the constitutional mandate should not be

countenanced for the Constitution is the supreme la% of the land" The Constitution is the

basic and paramount la% to %hich all other la%s must conform and to %hich all persons*

including the highest ocials of the land* must defer" Constitutional doctrines must remain

steadfast no matter %hat ma$ be the tides of time" 3t cannot be simpl$ made to s%a$ and

accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the %hims and caprices of

the go#ernment and the people %ho run it"

Not%ithstanding its nding of unconstitutionalit$ in the current composition of the JBC* all its

prior ocial actions are nonetheless #alid" 3n the interest of fair pla$ under the doctrine of

operati#e facts* actions pre#ious to the declaration of unconstitutionalit$ are legall$

recognied" The$ are not nullied"

/QMRM7ORM* the petition is IRANTM" The current numerical composition of the Judicial and

Bar Council 3S declared NCONST3TT3ONAK" The Judicial and Bar Council is hereb$ en1oined

to reconstitute itself so that onl$ one ) member of Congress %ill sit as a representati#e in

its proceedings* in accordance %ith Section + ) * Article 4333 of the )&+. Constitution" This

disposition is immediatel$ e6ecutor$"

NI!AFAN #( CI$

Posted b$ ,a$e lee on )'8)5 P!

I"R" No" .+.+' Jul$ 9( )&+. XSalaries of the members of Judiciar$*

Ta6 M6emptionY

FACTS:

Nitafan and some others* dul$ ualied and appointed 1udges of the

RTC* NCR* all %ith stations in !anila* see, to prohibit andFor

perpetuall$ en1oin the Commissioner of 3nternal Re#enue and the
http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/10/nitafan-vs-cir.htmlhttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/10/nitafan-vs-cir.html


15/22

7inancial Ocer of the Supreme Court* from ma,ing an$ deduction

of %ithholding ta6es from their salaries"

The$ submit that ;an$ ta6 %ithheld from their emoluments or

compensation as 1udicial ocers constitutes a decrease or

diminution of their salaries* contrar$ to the pro#ision of Section )'*

Article 4333 of the )&+. Constitution mandating that during their

continuance in oce* their salar$ shall not be decreased*; e#en as

it is anathema to the 3deal of an independent 1udiciar$ en#isioned in

and b$ said Constitution";

ISSUE: /hether or not members of the Judiciar$ are e6empt from

income ta6es"

HELD:

No" The salaries of members of the Judiciar$ are sub1ect to the

general income ta6 applied to all ta6pa$ers" Although such intent

%as someho% and inad#ertentl$ not clearl$ set forth in the nal te6t

of the )&+. Constitution* the deliberations of the)&+5 ConstitutionalCommission negate the contention that the intent of the framers is

to re#ert to the original concept of nonEdiminutionZ of salaries of

1udicial ocers" Justices and 1udges are not onl$ the citiens %hose

income has been reduced in accepting ser#ice in go#ernment and

$et sub1ect to income ta6" Such is true also of Cabinet members

and all other emplo$ees"

!!5 vs. Gacott GR No. 11&0'< =ul; 19 1


16/22

Deci'ionTo reuire the entire court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrati*e

matter or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested

doc=et and undue delay in the adAudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrati*e

matters, since e*en cases in*ol*ing the penalty of reprimand would reuire action by the Court (n

%anc

D* 4A 44ANA #( A4A

Posted b$ ,a$e lee on )98)+ P!

IR No" KE-.++( !arch )9 )&+9

FACTS:

e Ka Klana* et" al" led a Petition for eclarator$ Relief andFor for

Prohibition* see,ing to en1oin the !inister of the Budget* the

Chairman of the Commission on Audit* and the !inister of Justice

from ta,ing an$ action implementing BP )9& %hich mandates that

Justices and 1udges of inferior courts from the CA to !TCs* e6cept

the occupants of the Sandiganba$an and the CTA* unless appointed

to the inferior courts established b$ such act* %ould be considered

separated from the 1udiciar$" 3t is the termination of their

incumbenc$ that for petitioners 1ustif$ a suit of this character* it

being alleged that thereb$ the securit$ of tenure pro#ision of the

Constitution has been ignored and disregarded"

ISSUE:

/hether or not the reorganiation #iolate the securit$ of tenure of

1ustices and 1udges as pro#ided for under the Constitution"

RULING:

/hat is in#ol#ed in this case is not the remo#al or separation of the

1udges and 1ustices from their ser#ices" /hat is important is the

#alidit$ of the abolition of their oces"
http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/11/de-la-llana-vs-alba.htmlhttp://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/11/de-la-llana-vs-alba.html


17/22

/ellEsettled is the rule that the abolition of an oce does not

amount to an illegal remo#al of its incumbent is the principle that*

in order to be #alid* the abolition must be made in good faith"

Remo#al is to be distinguished from termination b$ #irtue of #alid

abolition of the oce" There can be no tenure to a nonEe6istent

oce" After the abolition* there is in la% no occupant" 3n case of

remo#al* there is an oce %ith an occupant %ho %ould thereb$ lose

his position" 3t is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict la%*

the uestion of an$ impairment of securit$ of tenure does not arise"

Zandueta v. Dela Costa


18/22

November 28, 1938 G.R. No. L-4626

N!"#R$

"%&s &s a 'uo (arranto )ro*eed&n+ &nst&tuted b t%e onorable ran*&s*o Zandueta a+a&nst t%e onorable /&0to

de la Costa to obta&n rom t%&s *ourt a ud+ment de*lar&n+ t%e res)ondent to be &lle+all o**u)&n+ t%e

o&*e o ud+e o t%e &t% ran*% o t%e Court o &rst 5nstan*e o an&la, ourt% ud&*&al D&str&*t,

oust&n+ %&m rom sa&d o&*e, and %old&n+ t%at t%e )et&t&oner &s ent&tled to *ont&nue o**u)&n+ t%e o&*e

&n 'uest&on b )la*&n+ %&m &n )ossess&on t%ereo, (&t% *osts to sa&d res)ondent

!C"/

7r&or to t%e )romul+at&on o Common(ealt% !*t No.14, t%e )et&t&oner, t%e onorable ran*&s*o Zandueta (as

d&s*%ar+&n+ t%e o&*e o ud+e o &rst &nstan*e, N&nt% ud&*&al D&str&*t, *om)r&s&n+ solel t%e C&t o

an&la, and (as )res&d&n+ over t%e &t% ran*% o t%e Court o &rst 5nstan*e o sa&d *&t, b v&rtue o

an ad &nter&m a))o&ntment &ssued b t%e 7res&dent o t%e 7%&l&))&nes &n %&s avor on une 2, 1936, and

*on&rmed b t%e Comm&ss&on on !))o&ntments o t%e Nat&onal !ssembl-n November , 1936, t%e

date on (%&*% Common(ealt% !*t No. 14, ot%er(&se :no(n as t%e ud&*&al Reor+an&;at&on La(, too:

ee*t, t%e )et&t&oner re*e&ved rom t%e 7res&dent o t%e Common(ealt% a ne( ad &nter&m a))o&ntment

as ud+e o &rst &nstan*e, t%&s t&me o t%e ourt% ud&*&al D&str&*t, (&t% aut%or&t to )res&de over t%e

Courts o &rst 5nstan*e o an&la and 7ala(an-"%e Nat&onal !ssembl adourned (&t%out &ts

Comm&ss&on on !))o&ntments %av&n+ a*ted on sa&d ad &nter&m

a))o&ntment-!not%er ad &nter&m a))o&ntment to t%e same o&*e (as &ssued &n avor o sa&d )et&t&oner, )ursuant to

(%&*% %e too: a ne( oat%-!ter %&s a))o&ntment and 'ual&&*at&on as ud+e o &rst &nstan*e o t%e

ourt% ud&*&al D&str&*t, t%e )et&t&oner, a*t&n+ as e0e*ut&ve ud+e, )erormed several e0e*ut&ve a*ts-n

a 19, 1938, t%e Comm&ss&on on !))o&ntments o t%e Nat&onal !ssembl d&sa))roved t%e aoresa&d

ad &nter&m a))o&ntment o sa&d )et&t&oner-n !u+ust 1, 1938, t%e 7res&dent o t%e 7%&l&))&nes a))o&nted

t%e %ere&n res)ondent, onorable /&0to de la Costa, ud+e o &rst &nstan*e o t%e ourt% ud&*&al

D&str&*t, (&t% aut%or&t to )res&de over t%e &t% ran*% o t%e Court o &rst 5nstan*e o an&la and t%e

Court o &rst 5nstan*e o 7ala(an, and %&s a))o&ntment (as a))roved b t%e Comm&ss&on on

!))o&ntments

5//#$


19/22

11

!mer&*an ur&s)ruden*e, 166, )ar. 121@&d., 6, )ar. 123?. e &s e0*e)ted rom sa&d rule onl (%en %&s

non-a**e)tan*e o t%e ne( a))o&ntment ma ae*t )ubl&* &nterest or (%en %e &s *om)elled to a**e)t &tb reason o le+al e0&+en*&es. 5n t%e *ase under *ons&derat&on, t%e )et&t&oner (as ree to a**e)t or not

t%e ad &nter&m a))o&ntment &ssued b t%e 7res&dent o t%e Common(ealt% &n %&s avor, &n a**ordan*e

(&t% sa&d Common(ealt% !*t No. 14. 5 t%e )et&t&oner bel&eved t%at Common(ealt% !*t No.14 &s

un*onst&tut&onal, %e s%ould %ave reused to a**e)t t%e a))o&ntment oered %&m or, at least, %e s%ould

%ave a**e)ted &t (&t% reservat&on, %ad %e bel&eved t%at %&s dut o obed&en*e to t%e la(s *om)elled

%&m to do so, and ater(ards resort to t%e )o(er entrusted (&t% t%e &nal determ&nat&on o t%e 'uest&on

(%et%er a la( &s un*onst&tut&onal or not.-"%e )et&t&oner, be&n+ a(are o %&s *onst&tut&onal and le+al

r&+%ts and obl&+at&ons, b &m)l&ed order o t%e la(>art. 2, C&v&l Code?, a**e)ted t%e o&*e and entered

&nto t%e )erorman*e o t%e dut&es &n%erent t%ere&n, ater ta:&n+ t%e ne*essar oat%, t%ereb a*t&n+ (&t%

ull :no(led+e t%at & %e voluntar&l a**e)ted t%e o&*e to (%&*% %e (as a))o&nted, %e (ould later be

sto))ed rom 'uest&on&n+ t%e val&d&t o sa&d a))o&ntment b alle+&n+ t%at t%e la(, b v&rtue o (%&*% %&s

a))o&ntment (as &ssued, &s un*onst&tut&onal. "%e )et&t&on or 'uo (arranto &nst&tuted &s den&ed and t%e

same &s d&sm&ssed (&t% *osts to t%e )et&t&oner.

In $e $odol:o Man;anoPosted on Decem


20/22

Issue8

/hat is an administrati#e agenc$\ /here does it dra% the line insofar as

administrati#e functions are concerned\

Ruling8

The petition is denied" The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the

Judiciar$ to an$ agenc$ performing ]uasiEJudicial or Administrati#e functions

Sec")9*Art"4333* )&+. Constitution"

Quasi-Judicialhas a fairl$ clear meaning and Judges can condentl$ refrain from

participating in the %or, of an$ Administrati#e Agenc$ %hich ad1udicates disputes ?

contro#ersies in#ol#ing the rights of parties %ithin its 1urisdiction"

Adinist!ati"e #uncti$ns are those %hich involve the regulation and control over

the conduct & afairs o individuals or their own welareand thepromulgation o

rules and regulations to better carr out the polic o the !egislatureor such as are

devolved upon the administrative agenc b the organic law o its e"istence"LAdministrati#e functions as used in Sec" )9 refers to the Io#ernment0s e6ecuti#e

machiner$ and its performance of go#ernmental acts" 3t refers to the management

actions* determinations* and orders of e6ecuti#e ocials as the$ administer the la%s

and tr$ to ma,e go#ernment eVecti#e" There is an element of positi#e action* of

super#ision or control"

3n the dissenting opinion of Justice Iutierre8

Administrati#e functions are those %hich in#ol#e the regulation and control o#er the

conduct and aVairs of indi#iduals for their o%n %elfare and the promulgation of rules

and regulations to better carr$ out the polic$ of the legislature or such as are

de#ol#ed upon the administrati#e agenc$ b$ the organic la% of its e6istence %e can

readil$ see that membership in the Pro#incial or Cit$ Committee on Justice %ould not

in#ol#e an$ regulation or control o#er the conduct and aVairs of indi#iduals" Neither

%ill the Committee on Justice promulgate rules and regulations nor e6ercise an$

uasiElegislati#e functions" 3ts %or, is purel$ ad#isor$" A member of the 1udiciar$

1oining an$ stud$ group %hich concentrates on the administration of 1ustice as long as

the group merel$ deliberates on problems in#ol#ing the speed$ disposition of cases

particularl$ those in#ol#ing the poor and need$ litigantsEor detainees* pools thee6pertise and e6periences of the members* and limits itself to recommendations

%hich ma$ be adopted or re1ected b$ those %ho ha#e the po%er to legislate or

administer the particular function in#ol#ed in their implementation"

%!udential &an' "(Cast!$( )*+ SCRA ,, .)/++0


21/22

7ast factsThe case at bar relates %ith the disbarment of Att$" Ireciaresp"Contentions cFo RespCJ Claudio Teehan,ee should ha#e #oluntar$ inhibitedhimself from the proceedings" CJ %as pre1udicial against Ireciathat he rendereda decision against Irecia disbarment"The Court0s decision #iolates theConstitution in that it lac,s certication b$ the CJ that the conclusions of the Court%erereached in consultation before the case %as assigned to a member for

the %riting of the opinion of the Court"Qeld ? RatioAs to CJ Teehan,ee0s #oluntar$inhibition" Petition denied for lac, of legal and factual basis" After a member hasgi#en anopinion on the merits of a gi#en case* he ma$ not be disualied fromparticipating in the proceedings because a litigantcannot be permitted tospeculate upon the action of the Court and raise an ob1ection of this sort afterdecision has alread$been rendered" 3t should be made of record that at no timeduring the deliberations on the case did the CJ sho% an$ ill %illnor an$ sign of#indicti#eness much less an$ attempt to e6act #engeance for past aVront againstIrecia" As to the lac, of certication" This reuirement is onl$present in 1udicial decisions* not in administrati#e cases*li,e a disbarmentproceeding" M#en if such certication %ere reuired* it is

be$ond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision %erearri#ed at afterconsultation and deliberations and #oted attest to that"Per curiam decision Uopinion of the court as a %holeG there is no ponente"7or cases %here the courtdoes not %ant to e6pose the identit$ of the ponente"Resolution #ecisionResolution U does not decide the caseG dilator$G i"e" dismissal of a case forlac, of meritecision U %hen the court has gi#en due courseG must state facts andla%C$nsing "( C$u!t $# A11eals2 )33SCRA ) .)/+/07ast facts!erlin Cons ing pet sold a house and lot to Caridad Santos"Pro#ided in their contract of sale %ere particular terms of pa$ment in%hich the purchase price shall be paid installment basis* plus interest" 3n the

process* Santos defaulted in her pa$ments" Consing demanded for her pa$mentand had planned to resort to court litigation" Santos e6pressed her %illingnesstosettle her obligation" Qo%e#er* this is upon the condition that the Consingscompl$ %ith all the la%s and regulations onsubdi#ision and after pa$ment to herdamages as a conseuence of the use of a portion of her lot as a subdi#ision road"3nresponse* the Consings submitted a re#ised subdi#ision plan"C73 ecisionSantos%as full$ 1ustied in refusing to pa$ further her monthl$ amortiationsbecause although Consing submitted are#ised plan and ma$ ha#e correctedirregularities andFor ha#e complied %ith the legal reuirements for the operationof their subdi#ision* he cannot escape liabilit$ to Santos for ha#ing sold to herportions of the roads or streets denominated asrightEofE%a$"Contention

cFo ConsingCA did not compl$ %ith the certication reuirement"Purposeof certication reuirementTo ensure that all court decisions are reached afterconsultation %ith members of the court en banc or di#ision* as the casema$ beToensure that the decision is rendered b$ a court as a %hole* not merel$ b$ amember of the sameTo ensure that decisions are arri#ed onl$ after deliberation*e6change of ideas* and concurrence of ma1orit$ #ote


22/22

Qeld ? RatioThe absence of certication does not in#alidate a decision" 3t is onl$e#idence for failure to obser#e the reuirement" Therecould be an administrati#ecase on the ground of lac, of certication"

maceda to prudential bank

Documents