FACTS ISSUE RULING

Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974

President Corazon C. Aquino appointed Salvador Mison as the Whether or not the The Court ruled that the appointment of
Commissioner for the Bureau of Customs (BOC), a bureau under the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of the BOC
Department of Finance, without the consent (confirmation) of the Salvador Mison was constitutional, and that there was no
Commission on Appointments (CA). without the need for the confirmation from the CA.
confirmation of the CA
was unconstitutional. Ratio Decidendi:
It is evident that the position of Commissioner
of the Bureau of Customs (a bureau head) is
not one of those within the first group of
appointments where the consent of the
Commission on Appointments is required. As
a matter of fact, as already pointed out, while
the 1935 Constitution includes "heads of
bureaus" among those officers whose
appointments need the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, the 1987
Constitution on the other hand, deliberately
excluded the position of "heads of bureaus"
from appointments that need the consent
(confirmation) of the Commission on
Appointments.
Perfecto v. Meer, G.R. No. L-2348
In April, 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Whether or not the The Court ruled that the salary and
Gregorio Perfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of salary and compensation of the members of the
this Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount (P802), he compensation of Judiciary, where the plaintiff is a member, is
instituted this action in the Manila Court of First Instance contending members of the not subject to income tax.
that the assessment was illegal, his salary not being taxable for the Judiciary are subject
reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of to income tax, based Ratio Decidendi:
the Constitution. on the provision The danger may be demonstrated. Suppose
against diminution of there is power to tax the salary of judges, and
The Manila judge upheld his contention, and required the refund of compensation for the judiciary incurs the displeasure of the
the amount collected. The defendant appealed. members of the Legislature and the Executive. In retaliation
Judiciary. the income tax law is amended so as to levy a
30 per cent on all salaries of government

Endencia v. David, G.R. Nos. L-6355-56
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.
officials on the level of judges. This naturally
reduces the salary of the judges by 30 per
cent, but they may not grumble because the
tax is general on all receiving the same
amount of earning, and affects the Executive
and the Legislative branches in equal
measure. However, means are provided
thereafter in other laws, for the increase of
salaries of the Executive and the Legislative
branches, or their perquisites such as
allowances, per diems, quarters, etc. that
actually compensate for the 30 per cent
reduction on their salaries. Result: Judges
compensation is thereby diminished during
their incumbency thanks to the income tax
law. Consequence: Judges must "toe the line"
or else. Second consequence: Some few
judges might falter; the great majority will not.
But knowing the frailty of human nature, and
this chink in the judicial armor, will the parties
losing their cases against the Executive or the
Congress believe that the judicature has not
yielded to their pressure?
Whether or not Sec. The Court ruled that Sec. 13 of Ra 590 is
13 of RA 590 is indeed unconstitutional.
unconstitutional for
encroaching with the Ratio Decidendi:
Judicial province of In conclusion we reiterate the doctrine laid
statutory interpretation down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra,
and construction. 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. We further hold that the
interpretation and application of the
Constitution and of statutes is within the
exclusive province and jurisdiction of the

Nitafan v. Comm. of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 78780
Petitioners, the duly appointed and qualified Judges presiding over
Branches 52, 19 and 53, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region, all with stations in Manila, seek to
prohibit and/or perpetually enjoin respondents, the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue and the Financial Officer of the Supreme Court,
from making any deduction of withholding taxes from their salaries.
In a nutshell, they submit that "any tax withheld from their
emoluments or compensation as judicial officers constitutes a
decrease or diminution of their salaries, contrary to the provision of
Section 10, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating that
"(d)uring their continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased," even as it is anathema to the Ideal of an independent
judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution."
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, specially 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.
Whether or not the The Court ruled that income taxes withheld
income taxes withheld from members of the Judiciary is not violative
from members of the of Sec. 10 Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Judiciary is violative of
Sec. 10 Article VIII of Ratio Decidendi:
the 1987 Constitution, It is plain that the Constitution authorizes
and an anathema to Congress to pass a law fixing another rate of
judicial independence. compensation of Justices and Judges but
such rate must be higher than that which they
are receiving at the time of enactment, or if
lower, it would be applicable only to those
appointed after its approval. It would be a
strained construction to read into the provision
an exemption from taxation in the light of the
discussion in the Constitutional Commission.
With the foregoing interpretation, and as
stated heretofore, the ruling that "the
imposition of income tax upon the salary of
judges is a diminution thereof, and so violates
the Constitution" in Perfecto vs. Meer,13 as
affirmed in Endencia vs. David 14 must be
declared discarded. The framers of the
fundamental law, as the alter ego of the
people, have expressed in clear and

Gallego v. Verra G.R. No. L-48641 November 24, 1941; Ozaeta J, ponente
 Pedro Gallego is a native of Abuyog, Leyte. Whether or
 He was employed as a school teacher in the municipality of Gallego
Catarman, Samar, as well as in the municipalities of Burawen, disqualified
Dulag, and Abuyog, province of Leyte winning and holding
 He presented his candidacy for municipal mayor of his home the position
town, but was defeated. Municipal Mayor
 After his defeat in that election, finding himself in debt and Abuyog, Leyte on
unemployed, he went to Mindanao and found employment as grounds of
nurseryman in the chichona plantation of the Bureau of compliance of the
Forestry. requirements
 He stayed in the chinchona plantation until he resigned in residences.
September 1940
 During the period of his stay there, his wife and children
remained in Abuyog, and he visited them in the month of
August of the years 1938, and 1940.
 He declined the offer of the government of a free house and a
parcel of land in the chinchona plantation
 He never took his family there
 He and his wife own real property in Abuyog.
 On October 1, 1938 he registered himself as an elector in
Lantapan, municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, and voted
there in the election for assemblymen held in December, 1938.
 He ran as Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte and was elected in 1940
unmistakable terms the meaning and import
of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987
Constitution that they have adopted
Stated otherwise, we accord due respect to
the intent of the people, through the
discussions and deliberations of their
representatives, in the spirit that all citizens
should bear their aliquot part of the cost of
maintaining the government and should share
the burden of general income taxation
equitably.
not No. Gallego was not disqualified to hold the
was position as Municipal Mayor of Abuyog, Leyte
from on grounds of non-compliance of the
requirements on residences.
as
of Ratio Decidendi:
The term "residence" as used in the election
non- law is synonymous with "domicile" which
imports not only intention to reside in a fixed
on place but also personal presence in that
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention. In order to acquire a domicile by
choice, there must concur (1) residence or
bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an
intention to remain there, and (3) an intention
to abandon the old domicile. The purpose to
remain in or at the domicile of choice must be
for an indefinite period of time.
 which was assailed by his contender
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995; Kapunan J, ponente
 Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Whether or not there No. The petitioner is not disqualified from
Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First was deliberate winning and holding the position as
District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor on material Representative of the first district of Leyte on
March 8, 1995, providing the following information in item no. misrepresentation on grounds of non-compliance of the
8: RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO the part of requirements on residences.
BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: Romualdez-Marcos
__________ Years and seven Months. for amending the Ratio Decidendi:
 On March 23, 1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent entry in her COC; and It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate for whether or not she certificate of candidacy which ought to be
the same position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation and was disqualified from decisive in determining whether or not and
Disqualification" with the Commission on Elections alleging that winning and holding individual has satisfied the constitution's
petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for the position as residency qualification requirement. The said
residency. Representative of the statement becomes material only when there
 He contended that Mrs. Marcos lacked the Constitution's one first district of Leyte is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to
year residency requirement for candidates for the House of on grounds of non- mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
Representatives on the evidence of declarations made by her compliance of the otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It
in Voter Registration Record and in her Certificate of requirements on would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to
Candidacy. He prayed that "an order be issued declaring residences deliberately and knowingly make a statement
(petitioner) disqualified and canceling the certificate of in a certificate of candidacy which would lead
candidacy." to his or her disqualification.
 On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected
Certificate of Candidacy, changing the entry "seven" months to Romualdez-Marcos held various residences
"since childhood" in item no. 8 of the amended certificate. for different purposes during the last four
decades However, none of these purposes
unequivocally point to an intention to abandon
her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.
Even at the height of the Marcos Regime's
powers, she kept her close ties to her
domicile of origin by establishing residences
in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and
other important personal milestones in her
home province, instituting well-publicized
projects for the benefit of her province and
hometown, and establishing a political power
base where her siblings and close relatives
held positions of power either through the
ballot or by appointment, always with either
her influence or consent.