Pastor M.

Endencia and Fernando Jugo

Vs
Saturnino David, as collector of Internal Revenue
G.R. No. L-6355-56, August 31, 1953
Montemayor., J.:
Facts:
This is a joint appeal, wherein Justice Endencia as an associate Justice of Appeals in
1951, whose salary was taxed by the appellant, Saturnino David, as collector of the Internal
Revenue, amounting the sum of P1,744.45 and Justice Jugo as a presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals, whose salary was also taxed from January 1, 1950 to October 19, 1950 and from
October 20, 1950 to December 31, 1950, as associated Justice of the Supreme Court, amounting
P2,345.46
Following the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of Perfecto vs Meer, expresses
that the “Judicial officers are exempt from payment of income tax on their salaries because the
collection thereof was a diminution of such salary, specifically prohibited by the constitution.”
(Sec 9, Article 8.)
After the decision of the case of Perfecto and Meer, the Congress was saddened by the
decision of the court because, in a practical sense as they contends, that every citizen residing in
this country and out of patriotism, and love for their country, they should pay income tax from
their salaries enacting, Republic Act No. 590 says that, “no salary whenever received by any
public officer of the republic (naturally including a judicial officer) shall be considered as
exempt from the income tax.”

Issue/s:
W/N that the legislature acted outside its province or jurisdiction in enacting the law,
Section 13, of Republic Act No. 590 in contrary to the previous law which violated the
Constitutional inhibition?

Ruling:
YES, the legislature exceeds outside its jurisdiction by the enactment of the Law, Section
13 of Republic Act No. 590 which was a contrary to the previous law or doctrine used in the
decision under Perfecto and Meer, supra leading to a constitutional violation.
Furthermore, the promulgation of Section 13 was an overlapping act of Legislature’s
jurisdiction, by interpreting the law in its own perspective which, as the Constitution provides,
should and must fall under the legitimate power of the Judiciary.
 Whether a law is constitutional or not, it will have to interpret and ascertain the meaning
of not only the said law, but also of the pertinent portion of the Constitution in order to decide
whether there is a conflict, because if there is, then the law will have to give way and has to be
declared invalid and unconstitutional, if not so, this would surely cause confusion and instability
in judicial process and court decisions.