Edencia vs.

David
31 August 1953
G.R. No. L-6355-56

93 Phil. 696

Facts of the Case

Congress enacted into law R.A. No. 590 which legalizes the collection of income tax
from the salaries of all judicial officers. A portion of Sec 13 of the said law states that
payment (tax) of which is hereby declared not to be diminution (reduction in size) of his
compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.
Saturnino David (Defendant) a Collector of the Internal Revenue collected income
tax from Justice Pastor M. Edencia (Plaintiff) in the sum of PhP1,744.45 from his salary
as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals in 1951. The Defendant also collected from
Justice Fernando Jugo (Plaintiff) in the sum of PhP2,345.46 from his salary as
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals from 1 January 1950 to 19 October 1950 and
from his salary as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 20 October 1950 to
31 December 1950.
Issue
Whether or not sec. 12, R.A. No 590 in legalizing the collection of income tax on the
salary of judicial officers violates sec. 9 Art. 8 of the 1935 Constitution?
Decision
A portion of sec. 9, Art. 8 of the 1935 Constitution states They (members of the
Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts) shall receive such compensation as may
be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in officer.
The Court held that under the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer
(85 Phil. 552) that the collection of the income taxes from the salaries of the Plaintiffs
were in violation of the 1935 Constitution.
In the present case, the tax exemption granted to judicial officers was expressly
provided in the 1935 Constitution because it was grounded on public policy. The Public
Policy of securing and preserving the independence of judicial thought and action needed
to maintain the principles of the Constitution as well as to attract good and competent
persons to the bench (judicial) is of greater importance than any revenue from taxing
judicial officers.
Under the old system wherein the income tax was paid at the end of the year, the
judicial officer received his salary in full and then the income tax was computed (yearly

salary plus any other sources of income of the judicial officer). In this system the judicial
officer might not fully realized the fact that his salary had been decreased in the amount
of said income tax.
But under the present system (contested tax law- R.A. No. 590) wherein the tax
payable was withheld directly at the salary of the judicial officer. The income tax
corresponding to his salary was computed in advance and was divided into equal portions
(corresponding to the number of paydays) and is then deducted directly from the take
home pay of the judicial officer.
Old System
Yearly Salary fixed by law
Divide by No. Of
Months
Monthly Salary
Divide by No. Of payday/ month
Take home pay per pay day

PhP 12,000
/
12
1,000
/
2
PhP 500

Present System (R.A. No. 590)

Yearly Salary fixed by law
Divide by No. Of
Months
Monthly Salary
Divide by No. Of payday/ month
Gross income per pay day
Less income tax per pay day
Take home pay per pay day

PhP 12,000
/
12
1,000
/
2
500
(72.685)
PhP 427.31

The Court ruled that this system of collection of income tax on the salary of the
judicial officer is a diminution and violates the Constitution. The New System of taxation
directly decreases the compensation and independence of judicial officers .
The interpretation of the law is a judicial function and the legislative branch may not
limit or restrict the power granted to the courts by the Constitution; thus the Legislature
cannot lawfully declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a public official
(judicial officer) after the Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise.
The Court also ruled that tax exemptions that are based on public policy are valid as
long as the exemption is based on public policy and public interest.
Such other tax exemptions based on public policy are:
-Land/ improvements used for educational purposes
-Holders of government bonds
-Income received by persons under the laws administered by the United States
Veterans
Administration
- Allowances and income from serving in the Armed forces of the United States
- Allowances from enlisting in the Korean War

- New and Necessary Industries for a certain number of years (R.A. No. 35)
Members of Congress are exempt from arrest during their attendance in the session
of legislature (except for charges agaisnt treason and felonies and breach of the peace)
Before the courts can determine whether a law is constitutional or not it will have to
interpret and ascertain the law and also the pertinent portion of the Constitution in order
to decide whether there is a conflict between the two and if there is then the law will be
declared invalid and unconstitutional.
The act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an
invasion of the well-defined and established province (area of special knowledge) and
jurisdiction of the Judiciary. The act of the Legislature (of making a law that runs counter
to the doctrine laid down in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer (85 Phil. 552)) is equivalent to
tying the hands of the Judicial in interpreting the Constitution.
Appealed is affirmed and the defendant is ordered to refund the tax collected from
the Plaintiffs.