Endencia v. David, GR No.

L-6355-56 August 31, 1953

G.R. No. L-6355-56. August 31, 1953. 93 Phil 696

Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Saturnino David, as

Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellant.

Facts: This is a joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
declaring section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional, and ordering the appellant
Saturnino David as Collector of Internal Revenue to re-fund to Justice Pastor M. Endencia
the sum of P1,744.45, representing the income tax collected on his salary as Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals in 1951, and to Justice Fernando Jugo the amount of
P2,345.46, representing the income tax collected on his salary from January 1,1950 to
October 19, 1950, as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, and from October 20, 1950
to December 31,1950, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, without special
pronouncement as to costs.

Issue: Whether or not Republic Act No. 590, particularly section 13, can justify and legalize
the collection of income tax on the salary of judicial officers.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs.
Meer, to the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is a
diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. It is further held that the interpretation
and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the 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 way that it may not violate a
Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of later
interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation sought and provided in said
statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already given in a case by the highest court
of the land.