You are on page 1of 12

CSC vs. ANDAL, G.R. No.

185749, December 16, 2009 of the Ombudsman: (1) the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte
motion to refer to the Supreme Court filed by petitioner; and (2) the Order dated
FACTS: November 22, 1951 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration and directing
petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and other controverting evidences.
Herminigildo L. Andal, respondent, holds the position of Security Guard II in the
Sandiganbayan. He filed an application to take the Career Service Professional In his affidavit-complaint dated April 18, 1991 filed before the Office of the
Examination-Computer Assisted Test (CSPE-CAT), was admitted to take the Ombudsman, respondent Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorneys Office alleged
examination, and the result showed that he passed with the rate of 81.03%. that petitioner had falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated February 6, 1989, by
However, when Arlene S. Vito who claimed to have been authorized by respondent certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision or
to secure the results of the examination went to do so, verification and comparison determination for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or
of the pictures attached to the Picture Seat Plan and the identification card of Andal before January 31, 1998, when in truth and in fact, petitioner knew that no decision
brought by Vito showed dissimilarity in the facial features. Civil Service Commission had been rendered in five (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have been
National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) rendered judgment finding the respondent guilty submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera further alleged that petitioner similarly
of dishonesty and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service. falsified his certificates of service for the months of February, April, May, June, July
Aggrieved, the respondent appealed, however, it was denied. He then elevated the and August, all in 1989; and the months beginning January up to September 1990, or
case to the Court of Appeals (CA), in which the CA ruled in favor of the respondent. for a total of seventeen (17) months.
The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA but was denied. Hence, the
present petition for reversal of the decision of the CA. On the other hand, petitioner contends that he had been granted by the
Supreme Court an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the aforementioned cases.
ISSUE: Does the CSCs disciplinary jurisdiction extend to court personnel?
Issue: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint
RULING: for the alleged falsification of a judges certification submitted to the Supreme Court,
and assuming that it can, whether a referral should be made first to the Supreme
The instant petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 6, Article VIII Court
of the 1987 Constitution vests in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof, thus: Held: In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Supreme
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by
the personnel thereof. the Ombudsman encroaches into the Courts power of administrative supervision
By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
and court personnels administrative compliance with all laws, rules and
regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from
The Supreme Court also emphasized that in case of violation of the Civil Service Law the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court
by a court personnel, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the
against a judicial employee before the Office of the Court Administrator of the judges and court personnels compliance with all laws, and take the proper
Supreme Court, for the filing of the appropriate administrative case against him. administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other
Maceda v. Vasquez branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the
G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993. doctrine of separation of powers.
Nocon, J.
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioners
Facts: certificates of service to the Supreme Court for determination of whether said
certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Supreme Court
Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the has the necessary records to make such a determination. The Ombudsman cannot
Regional Trial Court of Antique, seeks the review of the following orders of the Office compel the Supreme Court, as one of the three branches of government, to submit
its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter, as suggested by public the constitution only intended for one seat of the JBC to be allotted for the
respondent Abiera in his affidavit-complaint. legislative.
It is evident that the definition of Congress as a bicameral body refers to its
In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee primary function in government to legislate. In the passage of laws, the
arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of each house in the process.
complaint and refer the same to the Supreme Court for determination whether said The same holds true in Congress non-legislative powers. An inter-play between the
Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties. two houses is necessary in the realization of these powers causing a vivid
dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount. This, however, cannot be said in
G.R. No. 202242 April 16, 2013 FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR the case of JBC representation because no liaison between the two houses exists in
COUNCIL, the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term Congress must be taken to mean the
entire legislative department. The Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed
NATURE: of seven (7) members only.
The case is a motion for reconsideration filed by the JBC in a prior decision rendered
July 17, 2012 that JBCs action of allowing more than one member of the congress FALLO: The motion was denied.
to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council

FACTS:
Facts: In 1994, instead of having only 7 members, an eighth member was added to
In 1994, instead of having only seven members, an eighth member was added to
the JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC one from the
the JBC as two representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC one from
House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2)
the House of Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half
of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001, decided
(1/2) of a vote. Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001,
to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives one
decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of
full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas,
Representatives one full vote each. Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature. It
Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as
is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition. Respondents argued
representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in
that the crux of the controversy is the phrase a representative of Congress. It is
this petition. it should mean one representative each from both Houses which
their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are
comprise the entire Congress. Respondent contends that the phrase a
permanent and mandatory components of Congress, such that the absence of
representative of congress refers that both houses of congress should have one
either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed under the
representative each, and that these two houses are permanent and mandatory
Constitution. Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires that
components of congress as part of the bicameral system of legislature. Both
both houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its mandated
houses have their respective powers in performance of their duties. Art VIII Sec 8 of
duty which is to legislate. Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution
the constitution provides for the component of the JBC to be 7 members only with
speaks of a representative from Congress, it should mean one representative each
only one representative from congress.
from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress.
ISSUE: Issue:
Whether the JBCs practice of having members from the Senate and the House of
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as 1. Are the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial
provided in Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution. review have been met in this case?
2. Is the JBCs practice of having members from the Senate and the House of
HELD: Yes. The practice is unconstitutional; the court held that the phrase a Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members unconstitutional?
representative of congress should be construed as to having only one 3. What is the effect of the Court's finding that the current composition of the
representative that would come from either house, not both. That the framers of JBC is unconstitutional?

Held:
The use of the singular letter a preceding representative of Congress is
unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what
1. Yes. The Courts power of judicial review is subject to several limitations, namely: the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may
(a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more
power; (b) the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge; he must than one (1) representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers
have a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or could have, in no uncertain terms, so provided.
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (c) the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (d) the issue One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the words
of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. Generally, a party will be of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
allowed to litigate only when these conditions sine qua non are present, especially meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled principle
when the constitutionality of an act by a co-equal branch of government is put in of constitutional construction that the language employed in the Constitution must
issue. be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. As
much as possible, the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense
The Court disagrees with the respondents contention that petitioner lost his they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be
standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief Justice. construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based
While it is true that a personal stake on the case is imperative to have locus standi, on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Verba legis
this is not to say that only official nominees for the post of Chief Justice can come to non est recedendum from the words of a statute there should be no departure.
the Court and question the JBC composition for being unconstitutional. The JBC
likewise screens and nominates other members of the Judiciary. Albeit heavily Applying the foregoing principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the word
publicized in this regard, the JBCs duty is not at all limited to the nominations for the Congress used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is used in its generic
highest magistrate in the land. A vast number of aspirants to judicial posts all over sense. No particular allusion whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the House
the country may be affected by the Courts ruling. More importantly, the legality of of Representatives is being referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular
the very process of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is the nucleus of the representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC.
controversy. The claim that the composition of the JBC is illegal and unconstitutional
is an object of concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all citizens It is worthy to note that the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical
who have the right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders. purpose, that is, to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. This
2. Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides: underlying reason leads the Court to conclude that a single vote may not be divided
into half (1/2), between two representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of members of the JBC for that matter. This unsanctioned practice can possibly cause
the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the disorder and eventually muddle the JBCs voting process, especially in the event a tie
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a is reached. The aforesaid purpose would then be rendered illusory, defeating the
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the precise mechanism which the Constitution itself createdWhile it would be
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. unreasonable to expect that the Framers provide for every possible scenario, it is
sensible to presume that they knew that an odd composition is the best means to
From a simple reading of the above-quoted provision, it can readily be discerned that break a voting deadlock.
the provision is clear and unambiguous. The first paragraph calls for the creation of
a JBC and places the same under the supervision of the Court. Then it goes to its The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of Congress, the word
composition where the regular members are enumerated: a representative of the Congress in Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution should be read as including
Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Court and a both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They theorize that it was so
representative from the private sector. On the second part lies the crux of the present worded because at the time the said provision was being drafted, the Framers initially
controversy. It enumerates the ex officio or special members of the JBC composed of intended a unicameral form of Congress. Then, when the Constitutional Commission
the Chief Justice, who shall be its Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a eventually adopted a bicameral form of Congress, the Framers, through oversight,
representative of Congress. failed to amend Article VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution.
It is evident that the definition of Congress as a bicameral body refers to its primary because an applicants integrity is challenged, a unanimous vote is
function in government to legislate. In the passage of laws, the Constitution is required. Jardeleza was then directed to make himself available on June 30, 2014
explicit in the distinction of the role of each house in the process. The same holds before the JBC during which he would be informed of the objections to his integrity.
true in Congress non-legislative powers. An inter-play between the two houses is
necessary in the realization of these powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court Jardeleza wrote a letter-petition asking the SC to exercise its supervisory power and
cannot simply discount. This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC direct the JBC to, among others, give Jardeleza a written notice and sworn written
representation because no liaison between the two houses exists in the workings of statements of his oppositors or any documents in the JBC hearings, and to disallow
the JBC. Hence, the term Congress must be taken to mean the entire legislative CJ Sereno from participating in the voting process for nominees on June 30, 2014.
department.
During the June 30, 2014 meeting of the JBC, Justice Carpio appeared and disclosed
3. As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it a confidential information which, to CJ Sereno, characterized Jardelezas integrity as
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if dubious. Jardeleza demanded that CJ Sereno execute a sworn statement specifying
it has not been passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine her objections and that he be afforded the right to cross-examine her in a public
of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are hearing. He also requested deferment of the JBC proceedings, as the SC en banc has
legally recognized. They are not nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair play. yet to decide in his letter-petition.

The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a
However, the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the
matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by
nominees to be included in the shortlist. Thereafter, the JBC released the shortlist
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of
of 4 nominees. It was revealed later that there were actually 5 nominees who
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
made it to the JBC shortlist, but 1 nominee could not be included because of the
always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
invocation of the unanimity rule..
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an
undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a
criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus via Rule 65 with prayer for TRO to
double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance compel the JBC to include him in the list of nominees on the grounds that the JBC
upon a law creating it.3 and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion in excluding him, despite having
garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for the position.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in this case and
holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current Issue: W/N the right to due process is demandable as a matter of right in JBC
composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are nonetheless valid. (Chavez vs. proceedings
Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)
Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis, it does not mean that
an applicants access to the rights afforded under the due process clause is
Jardeleza vs Sereno discretionary on the part of JBC.
GR 213181 August 19, 2014
The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature of JBC
Facts: Following Justice Abads compulsory retirement, the JBC announced the proceedings. Notwithstanding being a class of its own, the right to be heard and
application or recommendations for the position left by the Associate to explain ones self is availing. In cases where an objection to an applicants
Justice. Jardeleza, the incumbent Sol-Gen at the time, was included in the list of qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither contradicts the
candidates. However, he was informed through telephone call from some Justices fulfillment of the JBCs duty to recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on
that the Chief Justice herself CJ Sereno, will be invoking Sec 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or its discretion in the nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of
the so-called unanimity rule against him. Generally, the rule is that an applicant is due process supports and enriches the exercise of its discretion. When an applicant,
included in the shortlist when s/he obtains affirmative vote of at least a majority of who vehemently denies the truth of the objections, is afforded the chance to
all the members of the JBC. When Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, however, is invoked protest, the JBC is presented with a clearer understanding of the situation it faces,
thereby guarding the body from making an unsound and capricious assessment of But may the salaries of the members of the judiciary be increased?
information brought before it. The JBC is not expected to strictly apply the rules of
evidence in its assessment of an objection against an applicant. Just the same, to Yes. The Congress may pass a law increasing the salary of the members of the
hear the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates of fairness judiciary and such increase will immediately take effect thus the incumbent
because the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of members of the judiciary (at the time of the passing of the law increasing their
soundness. salary) shall benefit immediately.

Consequently, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza should have been Congress can also pass a law decreasing the salary of the members of the judiciary
included in the shortlist submitted to the President for the vacated position of but such will only be applicable to members of the judiciary which were appointed
Associate Justice Abad. This consequence arose not from the unconstitutionality of AFTER the effectivity of such law.
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 per se, but from the violation by the JBC of its own
rules of procedure and the basic tenets of due process. By no means does the Court Note: This case abandoned the ruling in Perfecto vs Meer and in Endencia vs David.
intend to strike down the unanimity rule as it reflects the JBCs policy and,
therefore, wisdom in its selection of nominees. Even so, the Court refuses to turn a
Perfecto v Meer 85 Phil 552
blind eye on the palpable defects in its implementation and the ensuing treatment
GREGORIO PERFECTO vs. BIBIANO L. MEER
that Jardeleza received before the Council. True, Jardeleza has no vested right to a
[G.R. No. L-2348. February 27, 1950.]
nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC failed to observe
the minimum requirements of due process.
Facts:
In April, 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio
Judge David Nitafan vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of this Court during the year
152 SCRA 284 Political Law Constitutional Law The Judicial Department 1946. After paying the amount (P802), he instituted this action in the Manila Court
Judicial Autonomy Income Tax Payment By The Judiciary of First Instance contending that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being
taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation
Judge David Nitafan and several other judges of the Manila Regional Trial Court of the Constitution.
seek to prohibit the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) from making any
deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries or compensation for such would Issue:
tantamount to a diminution of their salary, which is unconstitutional. Earlier Does the imposition of an income tax upon this salary amount to a diminution
however, or on June 7, 1987, the Court en banc had already reaffirmed the directive thereof?
of the Chief Justice which directs the continued withholding of taxes of the justices
and the judges of the judiciary but the SC decided to rule on this case nonetheless Held:
to settle the issue once and for all. Yes. As in the United States during the second period, we must hold that salaries of
judges are not included in the word "income" taxed by the Income Tax Law. Two
ISSUE: Whether or not the members of the judiciary are exempt from the payment paramount circumstances may additionally be indicated, to wit: First, when the
of income tax. Income Tax Law was first applied to the Philippines 1913, taxable "income" did not
include salaries of judicial officers when these are protected from diminution. That
HELD: No. The clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, based on their was the prevailing official belief in the United States, which must be deemed to
deliberations, was NOT to exempt justices and judges from general taxation. have been transplanted here ; and second, when the Philippine Constitutional
Members of the judiciary, just like members of the other branches of the Convention approved (in 1935) the prohibition against diminution of the judges'
government, are subject to income taxation. What is provided for by the compensation, the Federal principle was known that income tax on judicial salaries
constitution is that salaries of judges may not be decreased during their really impairs them.
continuance in office. They have a fix salary which may not be subject to the whims
and caprices of congress. But the salaries of the judges shall be subject to the This is not proclaiming a general tax immunity for men on the bench. These pay
general income tax as well as other members of the judiciary. taxes. Upon buying gasoline, or cars or other commodities, they pay the
corresponding duties. Owning real property, they pay taxes thereon. And on courts when it inserted the phrase: payment of which [tax] is hereby declared not
incomes other than their judicial salary, assessments are levied. It is only when the to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.
tax is charged directly on their salary and the effect of the tax is to diminish their
official stipend that the taxation must be resisted as an infringement of the Here, Congress is already saying that imposing taxes upon judges is not a
fundamental charter. diminution of their salary. This is a clear example of interpretation or ascertainment
of the meaning of the phrase which shall not be diminished during their
Judges would indeed be hapless guardians of the Constitution if they did not continuance in office, found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution, referring
perceive and block encroachments upon their prerogatives in whatever form. The to the salaries of judicial officers. This act of interpreting the Constitution or any
undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilege of judges part thereof by the Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and established
personal and therefore waivable but a basic limitation upon legislative or province and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.
executive action imposed in the public interest (Evans vs. Gore).
The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature cannot pass any declaratory
Pastor Endencia vs Saturnino David act, or act declaratory of what the law was before its passage, so as to give it any
93 Phil. 699 Political Law The Judiciary Te Legislature Separation of Powers binding weight with the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in a statute
Statutory Construction Who May Interpret Laws is not conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature would
be usurping a judicial function in defining a term.
Saturnino David, the then Collector of Internal Revenue, ordered the taxing of
Justice Pastor Endencias and Justice Fernando Jugos (and other judges) salary The interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the
pursuant to Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 590 which provides that exclusive province and jurisdiction of the judicial department, and that in enacting a
law, the Legislature may not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a
No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of
shall be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, especially when the
declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous
law. interpretation already given in a case by the highest court of the land.

The judges however argued that under the case of Perfecto vs Meer, judges are Gualberto De La Llana vs Manuel Alba
exempt from taxation this is also in observance of the doctrine of separation of 112 SCRA 294 Political law Constitutional Law Political Question if there is
powers, i.e., the executive, to which the Internal Revenue reports, is separate from no question of law involved BP 129
the judiciary; that under the Constitution, the judiciary is independent and the
salaries of judges may not be diminished by the other branches of government; that In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
taxing their salaries is already a diminution of their benefits/salaries (see Section 9, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, was passed. Gualberto De la
Art. VIII, Constitution). Llana, a judge in Olongapo, was assailing its validity because, first of all, he would be
one of the judges that would be removed because of the reorganization and
The Solicitor General, arguing in behalf of the CIR, states that the decision in second, he said such law would contravene the constitutional provision which
Perfecto vs Meer was rendered ineffective when Congress enacted Republic Act No. provides the security of tenure of judges of the courts. He averred that only the
590. Supreme Court can remove judges NOT the Congress.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 13 of RA 590 is constitutional. ISSUE: Whether or not a judge like Judge De La Llana can be validly removed by the
legislature by such statute (BP 129).
HELD: No. The said provision is a violation of the separation of powers. Only courts
have the power to interpret laws. Congress makes laws but courts interpret them. HELD: Yes. The SC ruled the following way: Moreover, this Court is empowered to
In Sec. 13, R.A. 590, Congress is already encroaching upon the functions of the discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order
their dismissal. Thus it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the
Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of maximum ten months allowed by the law). The Secretary of Justice, however,
course, to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the convinced Macaraig to forego his leave and instead to assist the Secretary, without
office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition, there is being extended a formal detail, whenever he was not busy attending to the needs
in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who of his court.
would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of
strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Paz Garcia on the other hand filed a complaint alleging that Macaraig is
Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of incompetent, dishonest and has acted in violation of his oath as a judge. Garcia
separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition said that Macaraig has not submitted the progress of his Courts as required by
of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of law. And that Macaraig has received salaries as a judge while he is fully aware that
the judiciary. In the implementation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would he has not been performing the duties of a judge. Also questioned was the fact that
be in accordance with accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far a member of the judiciary is helping the the DOJ, a department of the executive oi
as incumbent justices and judges are concerned, this Court be consulted and that its charge of prosecution of cases.
view be accorded the fullest consideration. No fear need be entertained that there is
a failure to accord respect to the basic principle that this Court does not render ISSUE: Whether or not Macaraig has acted with incompetence and dishonesty as
advisory opinions. No question of law is involved. If such were the case, certainly Judge.
this Court could not have its say prior to the action taken by either of the two
departments. Even then, it could do so but only by way of deciding a case where the
HELD: No. Macaraigs inability to perform his judicial duties under the
matter has been put in issue. Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be
circumstances mentioned above does not constitute incompetence. Macaraig was,
appointed to the vacant positions created by the reorganization. That remains in the
like every lawyer who gets his first appointment to the bench, eager to assume his
hands of the Executive to whom it properly belongs. There is no departure therefore
judicial duties and rid himself of the stigma of being a judge without a sala, but
from the tried and tested ways of judicial power. Rather what is sought to be
forces and circumstances beyond his control prevented him from discharging his
achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge
judicial duties.
that in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing the inferior courts, the
power of removal of the present incumbents vested in this Tribunal is ignored or
On the other hand, none of these is to be taken as meaning that the Court looks
disregarded. The challenged Act would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint,
with favor at the practice of long standing, to be sure, of judges being detailed in
even one not readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with distrust.
the DOJ to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of
Moreover, such a construction would be in accordance with the basic principle that
exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line between what a judge
in the choice of alternatives between one which would save and another which
may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or
would invalidate a statute, the former is to be preferred.
officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept
clear and jealously observed, lest the principle of separation of powers on which
Paz Garcia vs Catalino Macaraig, Jr.
our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually
39 SCRA 106 Political Law Separation of Powers
eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of the
public service.
Judge Catalino Macaraig, Jr. took his oath as Judge of the CFI of Laguna and San
Pablo City on June 29, 1970. The court, being one of the 112 newly created CFI
The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the independence of said three
branches, had to be organized from scratch. From July 1, 1970 to February 28, 1971,
departments from each other, limited only by the specific constitutional precepts
Macaraig was not able to assume the duties and functions of a judge due to the fact
on check and balance between and among them, have long been acknowledged as
that his Court Room can not be properly established due to problems as to location
more paramount than the serving of any temporary or passing governmental
and as to appropriations to make his Court up and running. When Macaraig
conveniences or exigencies. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our
realized that it would be some time before he could actually preside over his court,
present constitutional scheme of government that no judge of even the lowest
he applied for an extended leave (during the 16 years he had worked in the
court in this Republic should place himself in a position where his actuations on
Department of Justice, he had, due to pressure of duties, never gone on extended
matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to review and
leave, resulting in his forfeiting all the leave benefits he had earned beyond the
prior approval and, worst still, reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any
authority other than the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper
be. Needless to say, the Court feels very strongly that it is best that this practice is and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators,
discontinued. the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the Manila
Electric Company. (Meralco vs. Pasay Transportation Company, G.R. No. L-37878,
Meralco vs. Pasay Transportation Company Case Digest November 25, 1932)
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative Fernando Lopez vs Gerardo Roxas
functions. (Sec. 12, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) 17 SCRA 756 Political Law Constitutional Law Judicial Power Defined

Facts: Fernando Lopez and Gerardo Roxas were the candidates for Vice President in the
1965 elections. Lopez won the election. Roxas appealed his loss before the
Act No. 1446 was passed. Section 11 of the Act provides: "Whenever any franchise Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). The PET was created by RA 1793. It is provided
or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in in the law that:
existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on
which said other person or corporation shall use such right of way, and the There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal . . . which shall be the
compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or corporation sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
for said use, shall be fixed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board president-elect and the Vice-president elect of the Philippines.
of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final."
In effect, a losing candidate would have the right to appeal his loss. Lopez assailed
Pursuant to said Act, Meralco filed a petition requesting the members of the Supreme the law and he sought to enjoin Roxas and the PET from proceeding with the case.
Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain Lopez averred that the PET is unconstitutional for it was not provided for in the
transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of the Manila constitution. Also, since the PET is composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten
Electric Company and the compensation to be paid to the Manila Electric Company members of the SC any decision of the PET cannot be validly appealed before the SC
by such transportation companies. or that there may be conflict that may arise once a PET decision is appealed before
the SC.
Copies of the petition were directed to be sent to transportation companies affected
by the petition. Opposition was entered to the petition by a number of public utility ISSUE: Whether or not the PET is a valid body.
operators.
HELD: Yes. In coming up with the PET, the Congress merely conferred a new
Issue: Can the members of the Supreme Court sit as arbitrators and fix the terms and function to the Supreme Court. Such is within its power, the Constitution allowed
compensation as is asked of them in this case? Congress to determine which body should decide controversies relating to the
election of the President or the Vice President. RA 1793 did not create another
Held: The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three court within the SC for pursuant to the Constitution, the Judicial power shall be
divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only vested in one SC and in such inferior courts as may be established by law
which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian
of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of The Supreme Court went on to emphasize that the fundamental law vests in the
the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the judicial branch of the government, not merely some specified or limited judicial
powers expressly or by implication conferred on it. The Supreme Court and its power, but the judicial power under our political system, and, accordingly, the
members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform entirety or all of said power, except, only, so much as the Constitution confers
any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the upon some other agency, such as the power to judge all contests relating to the
administering of judicial functions. election, returns and qualifications of members of the Senate and those of the
House of Representatives, which is vested by the fundamental law solely in the
Section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal, respectively.
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic
involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or law of its existence (Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc., vs.
the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. The proper exercise of said Tapucar, SP-07599-R, 29 September 1978, Blacks Law Dictionary).
authority requires legislative action: (1) defining such enforceable and demandable
rights and/or prescribing remedies for violations thereof; and (2) determining the Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide said controversies or disputes, in the first established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi- judicial
instance and/or on appeal. For this reason, the Constitution ordains that Congress or administrative functions (Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Petition denied.
shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts, subject to the limitations set forth in the fundamental law. Air France vs Rafael Carrascoso
Civil Law Torts and Damages Negligence Malfeasance Quasi-Delict
The SC ruled that the PET is not in conflict with the constitution. RA 1793 merely Remedial Law Evidence Hearsay Rule Res Gestae Startling Event
added the courts jurisdiction and such can be validly legislated by Congress. It
merely conferred upon the SC additional functions i.e., the functions of the PET. In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and several other Filipinos were tourists en route
This is valid because the determining of election contests is essentially judicial. to Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air
France. But during a stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane manager of
IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE Air France to vacate his seat because a white man allegedly has a better right
ILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE. than him. Carrascoso protested but when things got heated and upon advise of
other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was transferred to the
FACTS: Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, an Executive Judge in RTC in Bangui, Ilocos planes tourist class.
Norte was appointed as a member of Provincial Committee on Justice created
pursuant to Presidential EO 856. Petitioner requested the Court to allow him to After their tourist trip when Carrascoso was already in the Philippines, he sued Air
accept the appointment and to consider his membership in the committee as France for damages for the embarrassment he suffered during his trip. In court,
neither violative to his judicial function. He also added that his membership in the Carrascoso testified, among others, that he when he was forced to take the tourist
said Committee is still part of the primary functions of an Executive Judge. class, he went to the planes pantry where he was approached by a plane purser
who told him that he noted in the planes journal the following:
Upon examination of EO 856 reveals that Provincial/City Committees on Justice are
created to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees, particularly those First-class passenger was forced to go to the tourist class against his will, and that
involving the poor and indigent ones, thus alleviating jail congestion and improving the captain refused to intervene
local jail conditions. Among the functions of the Committee are
The said testimony was admitted in favor of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually
3.3 Receive complaints against any apprehending officer, jail warden, final or judge awarded damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
who may be found to have committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and
refer the same to proper authority for appropriate action; Air France is assailing the decision of the trial court and the CA. It avers that the
3.5 Recommend revision of any law or regulation which is believed prejudicial to issuance of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an assurance that he will be
the proper administration of criminal justice. seated in first class because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was not the true
intent between the parties.
ISSUE: Whether the membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial
Committee discharges as administrative functions and will be in violation of the Air France also questioned the admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding the
Constitution. note made by the purser because the said note was never presented in court.

HELD: Yes. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for damages and on what basis.
control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for; their own welfare and the
promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of Carrasoso regarding the note which was purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the
not presented in court is admissible in evidence. circumstances of the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It
thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability is based on culpa-contractual and
on culpa aquiliana. Valladolid v Inciong; G.R. Nos. L-52364 & L-53349; 25 Mar 1983; 121 SCRA 205

Culpa Contractual FACTS:


Petitioner Ricardo Valladolid was refused admittance by JRM when he reported for
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a work on February 16, 1979 from a cumulative 50-day leave. [He requested a five-
contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class passage; Second, That said contract was day vacation leave on December 30, 1978, a fifteen-day sick leave on January 8,
breached when Air France failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; 1979 and a thirty-day sick leave on January 23, 1979. Only the first two leaves were
and Third, that there was bad faith when Air Frances employee compelled granted.]
Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already,
seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered On February 22, 1979, he filed for illegal dismissal with vacation and sick leave pay.
inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him mental
anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral On February 28, 1979, JRM filed an application for clearance with the Ministry of
damages. Labor for willful breach of trust and gross neglect of duty.

The Supreme Court did not give credence to Air Frances claim that the issuance of On May 2, 1979, the Regional Director issued the order denying the application for
a first class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance that he will be given a first class clearance with preventive suspension and directing JRM to reinstate Valladolid to
seat. Such claim is simply incredible. his former position without backwages and without loss of seniority rights.

Culpa Aquiliana ISSUE(S): Whether or not JRM was deprived of due process by the Regional Director
of the Ministry of Labor.
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a contract of carriage between Air France
and Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do RULING: NO. JRM cannot claim that it was deprived of due process considering that
not contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the applications for clearance have to be summarily investigated and a decision
carriers employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They required to be rendered within ten (10) days from the filing of the opposition. There
are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct, injurious language, is no violation of due process where the Regional Director merely required the
indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or discourteous submission of position papers and resolved the case summarily thereafter. Petitions
conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for are DENIED.
damages against the carrier. Air Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended
with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action is placed upon his wrongful NUAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS
expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the Air France a case of quasi- G.R. No. 94005
delict. Damages are proper. April 6, 1993

HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must be admitted based on res gestae. FACTS:
The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the Sometime in December 1974, after trial and hearing, the then Court of First Instance
entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such (now Regional Trial court) rendered its judgment in favor of private respondents and
testimony is admissible. Besides, when the dialogue between Carrascoso and the ordered the partition of the property of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Ekstrom
purser happened, the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and Lyon. The order of partition was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in July 1982
continued to be felt. The excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in then remanded to the lower court and two years later, a writ of execution was issued
this environment, are admissible as part of the res gestae. The utterance of the by the latter.
The remedy of Mary Lyon Martin is to file an independent suit against the parties in
On July 17, 1984, Mary Lyon Martin, daughter of the late Frank C. Lyon and Mary Civil Case No. 872 and all other heirs for her share in the subject property, in order
Ekstrom Lyon, assisted by her counsel filed a motion to quash the order of execution that all the parties in interest can prove their respective claims.
with preliminary injunction. In her motion, she contends that not being a party to the
above-entitled case her rights, interests, ownership and participation over the land Mangelen vs. Court of Appeals Case Digest
should not be affected by a judgment in the said case; that the order of execution is
unenforceable insofar as her share, right, ownership and participation is concerned,
said share not having been brought within the Jurisdiction of the court a quo. She There is a difference between a judgment against a defendant based on evidence
further invokes Section 12, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. presented ex-parte pursuant to a default order and one based on evidence
presented ex-parte and against a defendant who had filed an answer but who failed
On January 1987, the lower court issued the assailed order directing the inclusion of to appear at the hearing. In the former, section 5 of Rule 18 provides that the
Mary Lyon Martin as co-owner with a share in the partition of the property judgment against the defendant should not exceed the amount or to be different
in kind from that prayed for. In the latter, however, the award may exceed the
The petitioner filed an appeal before the CA assailing the decision of the lower court amount or be different in kind from the prayed for.
whether or not the trial court may order the inclusion of Mary L. Martin as co-heir Facts:
entitled to participate in the partition of the property considering that she was
neither a party plaintiff nor a party defendant in Civil Case No. 872 for partition and Mangelen filed a case for breach of contract against Habaluyas Enterprises,
accounting of the aforesaid property and that the decision rendered in said case has Inc. and Pedro Habaluyas. The Defendants were declared in default for their failure
long become final and executory. to file an answer within the reglementary period. The trial court rendered a Decision
in favor of plaintiff awarding him exemplary damages which was not included in his
ISSUE: prayer.
Whether or not the proper remedy to enforce a right of an excluded heir to a final Issue: Was the award of exemplary damages proper?
and executory judgment of partition is a motion to quash said judgment?
Held: No. Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides that judgment entered
HELD: against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from
The Court held in the negative. The Court said that when a final judgment becomes that prayed for. Consequently, an award of exemplary damages should not have been
executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no made since it was not even prayed for. Besides, the complaint is for beach of contract.
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what Exemplary damages may only be awarded therein if private respondents acted in a
is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There is no finding
the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest whatsoever on the matter.
Court of land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or
the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, There is a difference between a judgment against a defendant based on evidence
and, of course, where the judgment is void." presented ex-parte pursuant to a default order and one based on evidence presented
ex-parte and against a defendant who had filed an answer but who failed to appear
Furthermore, "any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and at the hearing. In the former, section 5 of Rule 18 provides that the judgment against
executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire the defendant should not exceed the amount or to be different in kind from that
proceedings held for that purpose." prayed for. In the latter, however, the award may exceed the amount or be different
in kind from the prayed for. (Mangelen vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88954, October
In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 872 has become final 29, 1992)
and executory. Thus, upon its finality, the trial judge lost his jurisdiction over the case.
Consequently, any modification that he would make, as in this case, the inclusion of SAMSON B. BEDRUZ and EMMA C. LUNA v . OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
Mary Lyon Martin would be in excess of his authority. YOLANDA P. LIONGSON 484 SCRA 452 (2006)
The omission of the trial court to state the factual and legal bases of its decision is Bernardino Marcelino was charged for the crime of rape. On August 4, 1975, the
not violative of the constitutional requirement if the same can be inferred from the prosecution finished presenting evidence against Marcelino and rested its case. On
discussion of the decision. Petitioners Tagaytay City Engineer Samson B. Bedruz and the same date, the attorneys of both parties in the criminal case moved for time
City Administrator Emma C. Luna were held administratively liable for violation of the within which to submit their respective memoranda. The presiding judge, Fernando
Constitution, the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Cruz, Jr., gave them 30 days or until September 4, 1975. Only Marcelino submitted
Standards for Public Officials, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in a memoranda.
manifesting arrogance, bias, abuse and crystal personal interest in connection with
the issuance of a permit to fence a lot. Resolving in the affirmative, the Deputy On November 28, 1975, Judge Cruz filed with the Clerk of Court a copy of his
Ombudsman fined them in an amount equivalent to One (1) Month Salary. On decision, his decision bears the same date of November 28, 1975. The promulgation
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Ombudsman. Hence, this of the decisions was scheduled in January 1976. Marcelino is now contending that
petition. the court can no longer promulgate judgment because by January 1976, the 3-
month period (90 day period) within which lower courts must decide on cases had
ISSUE: Whether or not Court of Appeals committed grave error and mistake in already lapsed, thus, the lower court lost its jurisdiction over the case.
denying the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Cruz had resolved the case within the allotted period.
HELD: A review of the records of the case shows that the following factual findings of
the Ombudsman, upon which its decision of May 8, 1999 was based, and which were HELD: Yes. The case is deemed submitted for decision on September 4, 1975 (date
cited by the appellate court in arriving at its assailed decision, are supported by the of last day of filing of the memoranda by the respective parties). From that day, the
evidence on record. Clearly, the appellate court did not err in finding that the 3-month period begins to run so Judge Cruz had until December 4, 1975 to rule on
Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. As for Bedruz and Lunas the case. Judge Cruz made a rendition of his decision on November 28, 1975. The
complaint that the Ombudsman did not express in a clear manner the law on which date of rendition is the date of filing of the decision with the clerk of court. Hence,
its decision was based, thereby violating Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Judge Cruz was able to rule on the case within the 3-month period because
Constitution which provides that [n]o decision shall be rendered by any court November 28, 1975 was merely the 85th day from September 4, 1975.
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based, the same fails. Political Law A trial courts omission to specify the offense The date of promulgation of a decision, in this case it was set in January 1976, could
committed, or the specific provision of law violated, is not in derogation of the not serve as the reckoning date because the same necessarily comes at a later date.
constitutional requirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the
factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court as long as the
Is the period to decide provided for by the Constitution mandatory?
legal basis can be inferred from the discussion in the decision. From the
Ombudsmans decision, it can be gathered that Bedruz and Luna violated Sections 19
Section 11 (1), Art 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides that upon the effectivity of
of R.A. No. 6770 (THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1989) in relation to Section 4,
this constitution, the maximum period within which case or matter shall be decided
paragraphs A(b) & (c) of R.A. No. 6713, as amended (THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND
or resolved from the date of its submission shall be; 18 months for the Supreme
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES), requiring public
Court, 12 months for the inferior courts and 3 months for lower courts. In practice,
officials and employees to perform and discharge their duties with the highest
the Supreme Court is liberal when it comes to this provision. The provision is
degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill, act with justness and
mandatory, its merely directive. Extensions can be granted in meritorious cases. To
sincerity and not to discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
interpret such provision as mandatory will only be detrimental to the justice
underprivileged.
system. Nevertheless, the SC warned lower court judges to resolve cases within the
prescribed period and not take this liberal construction as an excuse to dispose of
Bernardino Marcelino vs Fernando Cruz, Jr.
cases at later periods.
121 SCRA 51 Political Law Constitutional Law Period to Resolve a Case from
Date of Submission Promulgation vs Rendition of Judgment
Constitutional Period to Decide not Mandatory