Você está na página 1de 16

Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.

3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 1 of 16


o (2) the Order dated November 22, 1951 denying petitioner's motion for
ARTICLE VIII - Sec. 6 reconsideration and directing petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and
1. Maceda v Vasquez (PR) other controverting evidences.
221 SCRA 464/ GR 102781 | April 22, 1993 In his affidavit-complaint dated April 18, 1991 filed before the Office of the
Petitioner: Bonifacio Sanz Maceda
Ombudsman, respondent Napoleon A. Abiera of the Public Attorney's Office alleged
Respondents: Hon. Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez and Atty. Napolean A. Abiera
that Judge Maceda had falsified his Certificate of Service 1 dated February 6, 1989,
Summary: An affidavit complaint was filed by Atty. Abiera of the PAO alleging that Judge by:
Maceda had falsified his Certificate of Service. Abiera said that Maceda certified that all o Certifying "that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for
criminal and civil cases which have been submitted for decision of determination for a period decision or determination for a period of 90 days have been determined
of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before Jan 31, 98, when Judge Maceda and decided on or before January 31, 1998," when in truth and in fact,
knew that there were still undecided cases (5 civil and 5 10 crim), and that the Judge also petitioner Judge Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in five
falsified his other certificates of service. Judge Bonifacio contended that he had been granted (5) civil and ten (10) criminal cases that have been submitted for decision.
an extension by the court and that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction despite the ruling in o Respondent Abiera further alleged that petitioner similarly falsified his
Orap since this arose from a judges official duties so the SC has control and supervision. SC: certificates of service for the months of February, April, May, June, July and
There is nothing in the Orap decision that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a August, all in 1989; and the months beginning January up to September
judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service may be 1990, or for a total of seventeen (17) months.
administratively and criminally liable. However, in the absence of any administrative action Petitioner Judge Abieras contentions:
taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation o (a) That he had been granted by this Court an extension of ninety (90) days
being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of administrative to decide the aforementioned cases.
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of o (b) He also contends that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over said
powers. Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court case despite this Court's ruling in Orap vs. Sandiganbayan, since the
administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of offense charged arose from the judge's performance of his official duties,
the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it which is under the control and supervision of the Supreme Court.
is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance o (c)Furthermore, the investigation of the Ombudsman constitutes an
with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any encroachment into the Supreme Court's constitutional duty of supervision
violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without over all inferior courts.
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Ombudsman cannot justify its
investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the Constitution, for such a ISSUE: (in this petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining
justification not only runs counter to the specific mandate of the Constitution granting order) W/N the Office of the Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint for the alleged
supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise falsification of a judges certification submitted to the SC, and assuming that it can, whether a
undermines the independence of the judiciary. The Ombudsman should first refer the matter referral should first be made to the SC. OMBUDSMAN IS ORDERED BY SC TO DISMISS THE
of petitioner's certificates of service to this Court for determination of whether said CASE. (see ratio for reason)
certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary
records to make such a determination. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of HELD:
the three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on The Court disagrees with the first Part of petitioner's basic argument. There is
this matter. In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee nothing in the decision in Orap that would restrict it only to offenses committed by a
arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint judge unrelated to his official duties. A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee administratively liable to the Supreme Court for serious misconduct and inefficiency
had acted within the scope of their administrative duties. under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State
Nocon, J.: under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act. (Syllabus: REMEDIAL LAW;
FACTS: JURISDICTION; OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE
Herein petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda is the Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the OFFENSE COMMITTED BY JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT OFFENSE RELATES TO OFFICIAL
Antique RTC. He seeks the review of the following Orders of the Office of the DUTIES; REASON.)
Ombudsman: However, We agree with petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action
o (1) the Order dated September 18, 1991 denying the ex-parte motion to taken against him by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
refer to the Supreme Court filed by petitioner; and investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's
power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of
the doctrine of separation of powers. (Syllabus: JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 2 of 16
OFFENSE RELATED TO OFFICIAL DUTIES SUBJECT TO PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION sitting of Escudero and Tupas is unconstitutional, the current JBC cannot act validly. The Court
TAKEN AGAINST JUDGE BY SUPREME COURT; REASON.) ruled in favor of Chavez and held that the current composition of the JBC is unconstitutional.
Article VIII, section 6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme The Court went through the history of the creation of JBC, and found that its sole purpose is to
Court administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the eliminate politics in the appointment of the members of the Judiciary. Also, it interpreted the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court phrase a representative of Congress. Applying statutory construction rules, the wording is
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the plain and needs no interpretation. The word a pertains to a single member. Further, by
judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper looking at the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it was intended that only seven
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other members shall sit in the JBC. The contention of the respondents that the phrase should be
branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the interpreted as having two individuals because of the bicameral nature of Congress has no
doctrine of separation of powers. merit, because in this case, the JBC is not performing a legislative function, hence, no
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers interaction exists between the two houses. However, the Court said that official acts of the JBC
granted to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to done prior to the declaration of the unconstitutionality of its composition are still valid because
the specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the of the doctrine of operative fact.
Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise undermines the
independence of the judiciary. Facts:
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of petitioner's certificates of The present action stemmed from the unexpected departure of former CJ Corona,
service to this Court for determination of whether said certificates reflected the and the nomination of Francisco Chavez, as his potential successor. He asks the Court
true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the necessary records to make to determine the following:
such a determination. The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the o Whether the first paragraph of Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
three branches of government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to Constitution allows more than 1 member of Congress to sit in the JBC; and
testify on this matter, as suggested by public respondent Abiera in his affidavit- o If the practice of having two (2) representatives from each House of
complaint. (Syllabus: PROCEDURE TO BE OBSERVED BY OMBUDSMAN REGARDING Congress with one (1) vote each is sanctioned by the Constitution.
COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE OR OTHER COURT EMPLOYEE; PURPOSE. OMBUDSMAN Currently, 8 members sit in the JBC. The Constitution provides that there shall be a
CANNOT SUBPOENA SUPREME COURT AND ITS PERSONNEL; REASON) representative from Congress. However, the JBC construed this phrase as
The rationale for the foregoing pronouncement is evident in this case. representatives coming from both the Senate and the House. The representatives
Administratively, the question before Us is this: should a judge, having been granted from Congress sitting in the JBC today are respondents Tupas (House) and Escudero
by this Court an extension of time to decide cases before him, report these cases in (Senate).
his certificate of service? As this question had not yet been raised with, much less Grounds of petitioner Chavez in assailing the composition of the JBC (take note of
resolved by, this Court. how could the Ombudsman resolve the present criminal this, these are the winning arguments).
complaint that requires the resolution of said question? o Article VIII, Section 8, Paragraph 1 is clear, definite and needs no
In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises interpretation in that the JBC shall have only one representative from
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said Congress.
complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or o The framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned, contemplated and
court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties. decided on a JBC composed of only seven (7) members.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Ombudsman is hereby o The composition of the JBC providing for three ex-officio members is
directed to dismiss the complaint filed by public respondent Atty. Napoleon A. Abiera purposely designed for a balanced representation of each of the three
and to refer the same to this Court for appropriate action. branches of the government.
o One of the two (2) members of the JBC from Congress has no right (not
even right) to sit in the said constitutional body and perform the duties
Sec. 8 and functions of a member thereof.
1. Chavez v. JBC (AJG) o The JBC cannot conduct valid proceedings as its composition is illegal and
G.R. No. 202242 | July 17, 2012 | Mendoza, J.
unconstitutional.
Petitioner: Francisco I. Chavez Respondents answer:
Respondents: Judicial and Bar Council, Sen. Francis G. Escudero, and Rep. Niel C. Tupas, Jr. o The two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, are
permanent and mandatory components of Congress, such that the
Summary: absence of either divests the term of its substantive meaning as expressed
Due to the unexpected departure of CJ Corona, Chavez was nominated as his potential under the Constitution. Hence, the letter of the Constitution would
successor. He assails the validity of the current composition of the JBC, which has 8 members. produce absurdity and incongruity to the bicameral nature of Congress.
He is saying that only one representative of Congress may sit in the JBC. Since the simultaneous

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 3 of 16
o They claim that when the JBC was established, the Framers originally The annals of history bear witness to the fact that the exercise of appointing
envisioned a unicameral legislative body, thereby allocating a members of the Judiciary has always been the exclusive prerogative of the executive
representative of the National Assembly to the JBC. The phrase, however, and legislative branches of the government. Their appointment was vested by the
was not modified to aptly jive with the change to bicameralism. If they Malolos Constitution and 1935 Constitution in the President, subject to confirmation
were made aware of the consequence of a bicameral legislature, they by the Commission on Appointments.
would have modified it. o It was during these times that the country became witness to the
o While they admit that the purpose in creating the JBC was to insulate deplorable practice of aspirants seeking confirmation of their appointment
appointments to the Judiciary from political influence, they likewise in the Judiciary to ingratiate themselves with the members of the legislative
cautioned the Court that this constitutional vision did not intend to entirely body
preclude political factor in said appointments. The 2 members from With the fusion of executive and legislative power under the 1973 Constitution, the
Congress even provide balance as against the other 6 members who are appointment of judges and justices was no longer subject to scrutiny of another
presidential appointees. body. The only limitation to this is that they should have the qualifications under the
law.
Issues/Held Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to the Judiciary from
Whether or not the conditions sine qua non for the exercise of the power of judicial political pressure and partisan activities, the members of the Constitutional
review have been met in this case - YES Commission saw the need to create a separate, competent and independent body to
Whether or not the current practice of the JBC to perform its functions with eight (8) recommend nominees to the President. Thus, it conceived of a body representative
members, two (2) of whom are members of Congress, runs counter to the letter and of all the stakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial
1
spirit of the 1987 Constitution. YES and Bar Council (pwede nyo sabihin dito we have a reactive Constitution kaya
ganun yung current omposition ng JBC haha).
Ratio
Locus Standi Issue (not relevant, copy-pasted this from the Internet) Current Status of the JBC
The Courts power of judicial review is subject to several limitations, namely: (a) In 1994, the composition of the JBC was substantially altered. Instead of having only
there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; seven (7) members, an eighth (8th) member was added to the JBC as two (2)
(b) the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge; he must have a representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC: one from the Senate and one
personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will from the House. They have vote each at that time.
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (c) the question of Then in 2000 and 2001, the JBC, during their meetings en banc, allowed those
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (d) the issue representatives from the Senate and House to have one full vote each. Today,
of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. Generally, a party will be respondents Escudero and Tupas simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of
allowed to litigate only when these conditions sine qua non are present, especially the Congress.
when the constitutionality of an act by a co-equal branch of government is put in
issue. Courts Ruling
The Court disagrees with the respondents contention that petitioner lost his An Understanding of the Provision
standing to sue because he is not an official nominee for the post of Chief Justice. The crux of the controversy is an understanding of the composition of the JBC. The
While it is true that a personal stake on the case is imperative to have locus standi, Constitution provides the following:
this is not to say that only official nominees for the post of Chief Justice can come to
the Court and question the JBC composition for being unconstitutional. The JBC
likewise screens and nominates other members of the Judiciary. Albeit heavily
1
publicized in this regard, the JBCs duty is not at all limited to the nominations for the Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of
the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio
highest magistrate in the land. A vast number of aspirants to judicial posts all over
Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
the country may be affected by the Courts ruling. More importantly, the legality of representative of the private sector.
the very process of nominations to the positions in the Judiciary is the nucleus of the (2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of
controversy. The claim that the composition of the JBC is illegal and unconstitutional the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve
for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private
is an object of concern, not just for a nominee to a judicial post, but for all citizens sector for one year.
who have the right to seek judicial intervention for rectification of legal blunders. (3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its
proceedings.
IMPT: JBC Composition Issue (4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
Constitutional History of the Rule (5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other
functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 4 of 16
o Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the Bicameral Nature of Congress Argument
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex The respondents insist that owing to the bicameral nature of Congress, the word
officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress should be read as including both Senate and the House. This argument
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a has no merit.
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a No parallelism can be drawn between the representative of Congress in the JBC and
representative of the private sector. the exercise by Congress of its legislative powers under Article VI and constituent
A simple reading of the provision, it can readily be discerned that the provision is powers under Article XVII of the Constitution
clear and unambiguous. o The exercise of legislative and constituent powers requires the Senate and
The use of the singular letter a preceding representative of Congress is House of Representatives to coordinate and act as distinct bodies in
unequivocal and leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what furtherance of Congress role under our constitutional scheme. In the
the members of the Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may exercise of those powers, it necessitates the separateness of the two
designate only one (1) representative to the JBC. houses of Congress as they relate inter se.
o Statcon: Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from o In this case however, Congress is not performing a legislative function.
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without Congress, in relation to the executive and judicial branches of government,
attempted interpretation. is constitutionally treated as another coequal branch of in the matter of its
o Verba legis non est recedendumfrom the words of a statute there should representative in the JBC. No such dichotomy need be made when
be no departure. Congress interacts with the other two co-equal branches of government.
Moreover, under the maxim noscitur a sociis, where a particular word or phrase is o It is more in keeping with the co-equal nature of the three governmental
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its correct branches to assign the same weight to considerations that any of its
construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in representatives may have regarding aspiring nominees to the judiciary. The
which it is founded or with which it is associated. A statute must be so construed as representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives act as such
to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. for one branch and should not have any more quantitative influence as the
o Applying the foregoing principle to this case, it becomes apparent that the other branches in the exercise of prerogatives evenly bestowed upon the
word Congress is used in its generic sense. No particular allusion three.
whatsoever is made on whether the Senate or the House of The Constitution lets the Congress act as a bicameral body when acting in its primary
Representatives is being referred to, but that, in either case, only a singular capacity: to legislate. However, in the other functions of Congress, the Court
representative may be allowed to sit in the JBC. distinguishes their roles, such as in the power of appropriation, declaration of
o The memorandum of former Justice Quisumbing, also a consultant to the existence of war, canvassing of electoral returns for President and VP, and
JBC, also points out that the enumeration under the Constitution pertains impeachment.
to a single individual only. In this case, no liaison between the two houses exists. Hence, the Court finds the
The spirit and reason of the statute may be passed upon where a literal meaning above thesis as the paramount justification of the Courts conclusion that Congress,
would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or defeat the clear purpose of the in the context of JBC representation, should be considered as one body.
lawmakers. Not any of these instances, however, is present in the case at bench. Note that the primary purpose of the JBC is to eliminate politics in the appointment
Nevertheless, even if the Court examines the minds of the Framers of the of the members of the Judiciary. They adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in
Constitution, the same result will be arrived at. creating a JBC, the private sector and the three branches of government would have
o It is undeniable from the records thereof that it was intended that the JBC an active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary.
be composed of seven (7) members only. o Therefore, to allow the Legislature to have more quantitative influence in
o See full text for this. But basically, Delegate Rodrigo said Of the SEVEN the JBC by having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or
MEMBERS of the JBC, the President appoints four of them who are regular one-half (1/2) a vote each, would, as one former congressman and member
members. They also added that the only purpose of the Committee is to of the JBC put it, negate the principle of equality among the three
eliminate partisan politics. branches of government which is enshrined in the Constitution.
It is important to note that the seven-member composition of the JBC serves a
practical purpose: to provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting. OPERATIVE FACT
o Hence, that a single vote may not be divided into half (1/2), between two Considering the circumstances, the Court finds the doctrine of operative fact
representatives of Congress, or among any of the sitting members of the applicable in this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of
JBC for that matter because it can cause disorder and muddle the voting unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions
process of the JBC, especially when a tie is reached. are nonetheless valid.

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 5 of 16
At this point, the Court takes the initiative to clarify that it is not in a position to However, another provision provides: No salary or any form of
determine as to who should remain as the sole representative of Congress in the JBC. emolument of any public officer or employee, including
This is a matter beyond the province of the Court and is best left to the constitutional officers, shall be exempt from payment of income
determination of Congress. tax
Taking both provisions in the 1973 Consti, the taxes of judges
(who are public officers) shall NOT be exempt from tax.
Sec. 10 Prior to the 1987 Consti, the SC decided a case (entitled Perfecto v. Meer), which
1. Nitafan v. CIR (JT) declared the salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from payment of the
G.R. No. 78780 July 23, 1987 income tax and considered such payment as a diminution of their salaries during
DAVID G. NITAFAN, WENCESLAO M. POLO, and MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR., petitioners, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL their continuance in office.
REVENUE and THE FINANCIAL OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Then came the 1987 Consti, which provides this provision, as suggested by the too
awesome Fr. Bernas:
Recit Ready: The petitioners are judges, and are asking the SC basically one question: Is the o The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme
income of the judges taxable? The answer is YES. The intent of the framers of the 1987 Consti Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
provides that the income of the judges should be taxable, notwithstanding the exemption continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased
granted to them and other public officers by the 1973 Consti. The reason of the framers o No other provision in the 1987 Consti is present, which has a similar import
(actually mostly the reason of Fr B), was that other public officers are already being taxed, so to the non-exemption provision in the 1973 Consti
why not the judges? Also, and as a final note to the case, all citizens should bear their aliquot o Because of the absence of the non-exemption provision in the 1987 Consti,
part of the cost of maintaining the government and should share the burden of general income the petitioners assert that the intent of the framers of the Consti was to
taxation equitably. revert back to the 1935 provision prohibiting the diminution of the judges
salaries through taxation
Facts What was the intent of the Consti Commission, then? Why is the wording of the
Petitioners are all judges stationed in RTCs in Manila. They are complaining that the provision like that?
Respondents, by withholding taxes from their salaries, are unduly violating Sec. 10, Art VIII of o Fr. Bernas gave this speech:
the Consti, which provides that during the judges continuance in office, their salary shall not xxx it is not enough to drop the phrase "shall not be subjected to
be decreased. income tax," because if that is all that the Gentleman will do, then he
will just fall back on the decision in Perfecto vs. Meer xxx which
The SC settled this matter previously in a prior resolution, by saying: The Court REAFFIRMED excludes them from income tax, but rather I would propose that the
the Chief Justice's previous and standing directive to the Fiscal Management and Budget Office statement will read: During their continuance in office, their salary shall
of this Court to continue with the deduction of the withholding taxes from the salaries of the not be diminished BUT MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL INCOME TAX.
Justices of the Supreme Court as well as from the salaries of all other members of the Fr. B also pointed out that the judges might find it difficult to accept the
judiciary. suggestion, that their salaries are to be taxed, considering that, by
accepting their position as judges and ultimately as public officers, they
Issue/Held: Can the taxes be deducted from their salaries without violating the Consti?YES. are sacrificing the income that they would get from private practice.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Prohibition is hereby dismissed. #straighttothepoint But Fr. B was quick to point out that the judges are not the only public
officers whose income is/will be reduced by income tax.
Ratio In fact, many Cabinet officials and other public officers accepted
The SC deemed it wise to go back in time to decipher both the intent of the Consti Commission employment in the government knowing fully well that their income,
and the custom of the Supreme Court as regards taxation of the judges salaries. which is considerably low already, would be further reduced by tax.
So what did the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions say? Basically, what Fr. B is saying is: What makes judges so special that
o 1935: (The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts) their income should not be taxed, unlike the income of other public
shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be officers???
diminished during their continuance in office o Likewise, the non-exemption provision found in the 1973 Consti was
This basically says that the salaries cannot be taxed. deleted in its entirety, thus foreclosing any argument that the 1987 Consti
o 1973: The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the allows the exemption in favor of the judiciary.
Supreme court, and of judges of inferior courts shall be fixed by law, which Ultimately, the general provision on the income, covering all government and
shall not be decreased during their continuance in office constitutional offices, was amended to read:

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 6 of 16
o "During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be DECREASED"; provides for qualification of members of the Supreme Court, other than those
and the phrase "nor subjected to income tax" is deleted. provided in section 6, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution; b) It authorizes the
Thus, considering all the foregoing, the salaries of the judges are subject to INCOME appointment of members of the Supreme Court who do not possess the
TAX. qualifications set forth in section 6, Article VIII, of the Philippine Constitution; c) It
o The doctrines in Perfecto v. Meer and in Endencia v. David (which had the removes from office the members of the Supreme Court by means of a procedure
same ruling as Perfecto) are to be disregarded, as theyre no longer other than impeachment; d) It creates two Supreme Courts.
applicable.
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the prosecution, opposes the motion and in
o The framers of the fundamental law, as the alter ego of the people, have
support of his opposition submits that Power of Congress to enact section 14 of
expressed in clear and unmistakable terms the meaning and import of
Section 10, Article VIII that they have adopted Commonwealth Act No. 68 and CA 68 does not amend the nor add to the
o Stated otherwise, due respect is accorded to the intent of the people, Constitutional provisions.
through the discussions and deliberations of their representatives, in the The law states that, SEC. 14. Any Justice of the Supreme Court who held any office or
spirit that all citizens should bear their aliquot part of the cost of position under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the government called
maintaining the government and should share the burden of general Philippine Republic may not sit and vote in any case brought to that Court under
income taxation equitably. section thirteen hereof in which the accused is a person who held any office or
position under either or both the Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippine
Republic or any branch, instrumentality and/or agency thereof.

Sec. 11 If, on account of such disqualification, or because of any of the grounds or


1. Vargas v Rilloraza (NO) disqualification of judges, in Rule 126, section 1 of the Rules of Court, or on account
Petitioners: JORGE B. VARGAS of illness, absence of temporary disability the requisite number of Justices necessary
Respondents: EMILIO RILLORAZA, JOSE BERNABE, MANUEL ESCUDERO, Judges of the People's Court, and to constitute a quorum or to render judgment in any case is not present, the
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, President may designate such number of Judges of First Instance, Judges-at-large of
G.R. No. L-1612|| February 26, 1948|| J. Hilado First Instance, or Cadastral Judges, having none of the disqualifications set forth in
said section one hereof, as may be necessary to sit temporarily as Justice of said
Summary: Court, in order to form a quorum or until a judgment in said case is reached.
This case stemmed from Commonwealth Act. No. 68. Sec. 14 of the said law disqualifies any
Justice of the Supreme Court who held an office or position under the Philippine Executive
Issue:
Commission or the Philippine Republic (Japanese period positions) to vote where the accused
Whether or not Sec. 14 of C.A. No. 86 is valid. No.
is likewise an officer of the said government. The law further allows the designation of Judges
from the CFI or Cadastral Courts as temporary designee to vote, as replacement of a
Held:
disqualified justice. The issue here is w/n Sec. 14 is valid. A resounding NO resonated the halls
For the foregoing consideration, it is declared and ordered: (a) that section 14 of the People's
of the Supreme Court in answering this question. The Court explained that what the
Court Act is unconstitutional in the respects specified in the body of this resolution; and (b)
constitution in this respect ordained as a power and a duty to be exercised and fulfilled by said
that this case be dealt with henceforward in pursuance of and in harmony with this resolution.
members of the People's Court Act would prohibit them from exercising and fulfilling. What
So ordered.
the constitution directs the section prohibits, since the Justice is disqualified from voting.
Pursuant to Article VIII, sections 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Constitution the jurisdiction of the
Ratio:
Supreme Court may only be exercised by the Chief Justice with the consent of the Commission
Power of congress to add disqualifications of a Justice of the Supreme Court
of Appointments, sitting in banc or in division, and in cases like those involving treason they
must sit in banc. If according to section 4 of said Article VIII, "the Supreme Court shall be
No act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution can become law.
composed" of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices therein referred to, its jurisdiction can
only be exercised by it as thus composed. To disqualify any of these constitutional component One of the best tests would be to compare the operation with the same section if the
members of the Court particularly, as in the instant case, a majority of them is nothing latter (Constitution) were to be allowed to produce its effects. So if you put JT and
short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental Barney together, the latter would produce Tinky-Winky, it would not be contrary to
law. the organic law.
It is self-evident that before the enactment of the oft-quoted section of the People's
Facts: Court Act, it was not only the power but the bounden duty of all members of the
A motion dated August 28, 1947, assails the constitutionality of section 14 of the Supreme Court to sit in judgment in all treason cases duly brought or appealed to the
People's Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. 682) for the following reasons: a) It Court.
Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 7 of 16
That power and that duty arise from the above cited sections of Article VIII of the are replaced by judges of first instance. It is distinctly another Supreme Courtin
Constitution, namely, section 4, providing how the court shall be composed and how addition to this. And the constitution provides for only one Supreme Court.
it may sit, section 9, ordaining that they shall hold office during good behavior until
they reach the age of seventy years or become, incapacitated to discharge the duties Supreme Court Justice Designee
of their office, and the pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions bearing on
the jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the Supreme Court. The Designee violates the Constitutional Requirements on who can become a Justice of the
Competently referring to the instant case, if section 14 of the People's Court Act had Supreme Court.
A Judge of First Instance, Judge-at-large of First Instance or Cadastral Judge, under
not been inserted therein, there can be no question that each and every member of
section 149 of the Revised Administrative Code, need not be at least forty years of
this Court would have to sit in judgment in said case.
age, nor have more than ten years or more been a judge of a court of record or
But if said section 14 were to be effective, such members of the Court "who held any
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
office or position under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the
So that it may happen that a "designee" under section 14 of the People's Court Act,
government called Philippine Republic" would be disqualified from sitting and voting
sitting as a substitute Justice of the Supreme Court in particular collaboration cases,
in the instant case, because the accused herein is a person who likewise held an
and participating therein in the deliberations and functions of the Supreme Court,
office or position at least under the Philippine Executive Commission.
like any regular Justice thereof, does not possess the required constitutional
In other words, what the constitution in this respect ordained as a power and a duty
qualifications of a regular member of said Court.
to be exercised and fulfilled by said members of the People's Court Act would
And if we consider the actual fact that only four of the present ten Justices of this
prohibit them from exercising and fulfilling. What the constitution directs the section
Court are not adversely affected by the disqualification established in section 14 of
prohibits. A clearer case of repugnancy of fundamental law can hardly be imagined.
the People's Court Act, we see that the "designees" constitute a majority when
What matters here is not only that the Justice affected continue to be a member of
sitting with said four Justices, giving rise to the result that, if the composed by them
the Court and to enjoy the emoluments as well as to exercise the other powers and
all should be considered as the Supreme Court, it would be composed by four
fulfill the other duties of his office, but that he be left unhampered to exercise all the
members appointed and confirmed pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of Article VIII of the
powers and fulfill all the responsibilities of said office in all cases properly coming
Constitution and six who have not been so appointed and confirmed.
before his Court under the constitution, again without prejudice to proper cases of
The situation would not be helped any by saying that such composition of the Court
disqualification under Rule 126(Itong rule ang may disqualification for judges kasi
is only temporary, for no temporary composition of the Supreme Court is authorized
before).
by the constitution. This tribunal, as established under the organic law, is one of the
The tripartite system, the mutual independence of the three departments in
permanent institutions of the government.
particular, the independence of the judiciary , the scheme of checks and balances,
The clause "unless otherwise provided by law" found in said section 4 cannot be
are commonplaces in democratic governments like this Republic. No legislation may
construed to authorize any legislation which would alter the composition of the
be allowed which would destroy or tend to destroy any of them.
Supreme Court, as determined by the Constitution, for however brief a time as may
If according to section 4 of said Article VIII, "the Supreme Court shall be composed"
be imagined.
of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices therein referred to, its jurisdiction can only
In principle, what really matters is not the length or shortness of the constitutional
be exercised by it as thus composed. To disqualify any of these constitutional
composition of the Court, but the very permanence an unalterability of that
component members of the Court particularly, as in the instant case, a majority of
composition so long as the constitution which ordains it remains permanent and
them is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as
unaltered.
established by the fundamental law.
Note here that the legislature was allowed, at the start of the Commonwealth
And if that judge is the one designated by the constitution to exercise the jurisdiction
government, to fix the number of the justices sitting. However, the Supreme Court
of his court, as is the case with the Justices of this Court, the deprivation of his or
clarified that this does not empower them to alter the qualifications of the Justices.
their judicial power is equivalent to the deprivation of the judicial power of the court
itself.
Temporary status of Designees
Let it not be argued that the Court is the same, only the membership being different.
However temporary or brief may be the action or participation of a judge designated
Because Article VIII, sections 4 and 5, of the Constitution do not admit any
under section 14 of the People's Court Act in a collaboration case of the class therein
composition of the Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice and Associate Justices
defined, there is no escaping the fact that he would be participating in the
therein mentioned appointed as therein provided. And the infringement is enhanced
deliberations and acts of the Supreme Court, as the appellate tribunal in such a case,
and aggravated where a majority of the members of the Court as in this case

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 8 of 16
and if allowed to do so, his vote would count as much as that of any regular Justice of apprised the respondent judge of the fact that LOI No. 2 was issued in
the Court. implementation of P.D. No. 1.
Under sections 4 and 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution, it is clear that the framers o Obviously, respondent judge did not even bother to read the text of the cited LOI;
intended the Supreme Court to function through the members who are therein otherwise, he would have readily acknowledged the validity of the argument
defined: and by section 6 they determined who may be appointed such members. advanced by the prosecution.
o P.D. No. 1, issued by the former President Marcos under his martial law powers
This naturally excludes the intervention of any person or official who is not a member
have the same force and effect as the laws enacted by Congress.
of the Court in the performance of its functions; and it is self-evident that the
o Aquino v. COMELEC: all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions and acts
"designees" spoken of in section 14 of the People's Court Act can not be such promulgated, issued or done by the former President are part of the law of the
members in view of the fact that they have not been appointed and confirmed as land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective, unless modified,
such pursuant to said sections 5 and 6. revoked or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees,
Hence, we do not see the way clear to the proposition that the "designees" in such a instructions, or other acts of the President
case can constitutionally "sit temporarily as Justices" of the Supreme Court. o Respondent judge is of the mistaken belief that the duty to inform the court on
the applicable law to a particular case devolves solely upon the prosecution or
whoever may be the advocate before the court
2. People v. Gacott (RR) o Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC: courts are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws
GR No. 116049 | 7/13/1995 | REGALADO, J.
of the land
Petitioner/s: PEOPLE
Respondent/s: HON. EUSTAQUIO GACOTT, JR. (presiding judge), ARNE STROM, and GRACE REYES o While not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties is
nd
(Note: Arne Strom and Reyes, while not mentioned in the En Banc decision, were mentioned in the 2 Div. ruling as the subject to censure, respondent judges error is not a simple error in judgment but
private respondents in the criminal case) one amounting to gross ignorance of the law which could easily undermine the
public's perception of the court's competence.
SUMMARY: This case started when respondent Judge Gacott from an RTC in Puerto Princesa, o Dispositive portion with regard to respondent judge:
Palawan, issued an order dismissing a criminal case in his court, for which he was alleged to Order dismissing the criminal case annulled and set aside
have acted with grave abuse of discretion, for having failed to check the citations of the Aforesaid criminal case is reinstated
prosecution. The SCs Second Division ruled that his error was not a simple error in judgment Respondent judge is reprimanded and fined in the amount of Php10,000
but one amounting to gross ignorance of the law. He filed a motion for reconsideration to
plead with bended knees, averring to his good conduct as a person and judge, pinning the SC said that the arguments of respondent judge demonstrative not only of his
blame on the public prosecutor, and questioning the propriety of a mere Division of the SC to adjudicatory error but also of judicial incompetence, and advised him to check out
handle his case, which, he said, is contrary to what Sec. 11, Art. VIII provides. SC en banc, some cases decided by the SC.
however, said that Sec. 11, Art. VIII actually envisages two circumstances: (1) the grant of the Averments of respondent judge in the MR:
disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof, and (2) o "(T)he only purpose of (h)is motion is to plead with bended knees and with all
the order of dismissal. Relying, with the Courts approval, on the ponentes recollection of a humility for the kind reconsideration," especially the finding that he is grossly
conversation with former CJ Concepcion, who was the Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary ignorant of the law and ought to be reprimanded and fined, and that the
of the 1986 Commission, the Court ruled that a decision en banc is needed only when the aforesaid decision is to be spread on his personal records.
penalty to be imposed is dismissal of a judge, disbarment of a lawyer, suspension of either for o his good conduct as a person and as a judge
more than one year , or a fine exceeding Php10,000. o error primarily stemmed from the shortcomings of the public prosecutor
o I am again begging with humility that the spreading of the aforesaid Decision on
FACTS my personal records be reconsidered because doing so will foreclose any chance

nd
The 2 Division of the SC, speaking through J. Bidin, annulled respondent Judge for me to aspire for promotion in the judiciary in the future. This is very painful. I
Gacotts order dismissing a criminal case, complemented with a reprimand and a fine will agonize up to my last day and my last breath in life."
of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. ISSUE:
He filed an MR, of which separate copies were furnished to the CJ, JBC, SolGen, Bar WN a Division of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the disciplinary action against Judge
Confidant, IBP, Court Administrator, SOJ, and Ombudsman. Gacott YES
nd
Pertinent portions from the 2 Division ruling:
o The error committed by respondent judge in dismissing the case is quite obvious HELD: WHEREFORE, the basic and supplemental motions for reconsideration of the judgment
in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275 aforementioned; the intent in the case at bar are hereby DENIED. This resolution is immediately final and executory.
to abolish the Anti-Dummy Board could not have been expressed more clearly.
o Even assuming that the City Fiscal failed to cite P.D. No. 1 in his opposition to the RATIO:
Motion to Quash, a mere perusal of the text of LOI No. 2 would have immediately

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 9 of 16
Not so important stuff Respondent judge no longer questioned this but J. Regalado went to explain further
The Court assures respondent judge that it has taken all the aforesaid matters into that:
consideration and is not insensitive thereto, including his argumentum ad o J. Bidin has retired
misericordiam. o The date of when his replacement could act upon his unfinished cases is
The spreading of the decision on the personal record of a respondent is an official uncertain
procedure and requirement. o the Court en banc, after due deliberation on respondent judge's successive
His argument that such will not only open criticisms on my private qualifications as a motions, decided to assign the preparation of this resolution to the present
minister in the temple of justice but will open more comments on my official acts, writer thereof, he having been and still is with the Second Division.
competence and credibility as a judge that might undermine the people's faith in the o Respondent judge, with all his claim of magisterial experience, should have first
judicial system in the Province of Palawan, in Puerto Princesa City and in the entire checked the facts.
country because it is always difficult to disassociate my private credential from that of
nd
my public qualifications was seen by the Court as a mite too exaggerated and a tad MOST IMPT. Re: competence of the 2 Division to administratively discipline him
too melodramatic. A mere allegatio nudus does not create a constitutional issue as to require the referral
It is for respondent judge, by subsequently demonstrating his true worth through of this case, or at least the disciplinary aspect thereof, to the Court en banc.
observance of judicial standards, to vindicate himself from a misjudgment which is the The disposition of that matter merely involves a clarification of the misconception of
heritage of the heedless and to rise to higher levels which is the destiny of the respondent judge thereon, presumably because of his unfamiliarity with circulars
deserving. adopted and followed by this Court, some of them being on internal procedure.
Curious fact: Be that as it may, since all the members of this Court are aware of the submissions of
o He argues for the confidentiality of his case respondent judge on this point through the copies of the motions which he furnished
o He sent copies to the persons mentioned above (see facts), when it is elementary them, and he insistently harps on constitutional grounds therein, the Court en
that copies of such motions are merely filed with the court and furnished only to banc resolved to accept this aspect of the case from the Second Division.
the adverse party Sec. 11, Art. VIII is an expansion of and was taken from the second sentence of Section
2
7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution.
Re: raffling of the case The writer of this resolution, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Bacgkround story: 1986 Constitutional Commission, had the opportunity to take up that precise matter
rd
o It was the 3 Division that first asked respondent judge to comment on the case with the committee chairman, retired Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion.
against him. o insofar as the power to discipline is concerned, the qualification (of en banc) was
o He goes on to express his confusion: the supposition is that a valid raffle of said not intended to make a difference, as a reference to the Court by itself
case to that Division had already been made. That was my thinking and necessarily means the Court en banc
impression for, why would the case go to that Division except thru a valid raffle. o only decided to state "en banc" there because all internal procedural and
nd
o But the case was transferred to the 2 Division. administrative matters, as well as ceremonial functions, are always decided by or
o Thus: I am now in quandary, however, as to why all of a sudden, G.R. No. 116049 conducted in the Court en banc
was transferred to the Second Division of the Supreme Court without us or any o J. Regalado admits that there were no records to support his recollection.
party being informed by the Honorable Supreme Court about it. In our level at the o However, he said that to require more would contravene the desire of the
Regional Trial Court in Palawan, we observe the raffle of cases with solemnity and Constitution for a speedy disposition of cases, which is one of the purposes for
abide by the result of the raffle faithfully. allowing the Court to rule in divisions.
o SC is pissed off, lol: we assure His Honor that the Supreme Court also conducts Two situations envisaged in Sec. 11, Art. VIII
"a valid raffle," observes such raffle of its cases "with solemnity," and abides by (1) The first clause which states that "the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power
the result thereof "faithfully." to discipline judges of lower courts," is a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary
rd
Case was validly and solemnly raffled to J. Bidin who was, at the time, with the 3 power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by, the
Division. Court en banc.
nd
He was later on transferred to the 2 Division as Chairman and served there until his not intendeded that all intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should
retirement. be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity
Based on the Courts internal rules, case stayed with him despite the transfer and he (2) The second clause, which refers to the second situation contemplated therein and is
accordingly penned the decision therein. intentionally separated from the first by a comma, declares on the other hand that
There is no rule in the Court that the parties be informed that a case has been the Court en banc can "order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
transferred to another division
To do so would easily be revelatory of the identity of the ponente. 2
"The Supreme Court shall have the power to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight
Members, order their dismissal."

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 10 of 16
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted 3/28/1958: Air France, through its authorized agent, PAL, issued to Carrascoso a "first
therein." class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome.
administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself. From Manila to Bangkok, Carrascoso travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the
Bar Matter No. 209. In the Matter of the Amendment and/or Clarification of Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the "first class" seat that he was
Various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto Cuento, there was a "white
o Issued pursuant to the first clause man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat.
o where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, he refused, and told the Manager that his
of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and, according to
for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00, or both. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they
one of the enumerated instances considered as en banc cases. found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man
Thus, for a disciplinary action short of dismissal, as in his case, and considering that the [manager], they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified him to give his seat to
fine does not exceed Php10,000 (its exactly Php10,000), the administrative matter may the white man"
be decided in division. Reluctantly, Carrascoso gave his "first class" seat in the plane.
On a final note, SC said that Circular No. 2-89 must not be overlooked: A decision or
resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred in by a majority of its members ISSUE: whether the findings of fact of the CA support its judgment YES, the findings support
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, the judgment
and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is a decision
or resolution of the Supreme Court (Section 4[3], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). HELD: On balance, we say that the judgment of the Court of Appeals does not suffer from
A word to respondent judge: deal with situations like the one subject of this resolution reversible error. We accordingly vote to affirm the same. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.
with more perspicacity and circumspection.
RATIO:
1. Thrust of relief of Air France: SC review ALL findings of the CA.
Sec. 14 o Coming into focus is the constitutional mandate that "No decision shall be rendered
1. Air France v. Carrascoso (KF) by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
Petitioner: Air France and the law on which it is based". This is echoed in the statutory demand that a
Respondents: Rafael Carrascoso and CA judgment determining the merits of the case shall state "clearly and distinctly the
G.R. No. L-21438 | September 28, 1966 | Sanchez, J. facts and the law on which it is based"; and that "Every decision of the CA shall
contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it".
SUMMARY: o A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. It is open to direct
Carrascoso was issued a first class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a stop-over in attack. The law, however, solely insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate
Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the "first class" seat that he was facts" upon which the court's conclusion is drawn. A court of justice is not
occupying because there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to hidebound to write in its decision every bit and piece of evidence presented by one
the seat. Carrascoso protested but upon advise of other Filipinos on board, Carrascoso party and the other upon the issues raised. Neither is it to be burdened with the
reluctantly gave up his seat and was transferred to the planes tourist class. obligation "to specify in the sentence the facts "which a party "considered as
ISSUE: WON the findings of fact of the CA support its judgment proved". This is but a part of the mental process from which the Court draws the
SC: There are facts upon which the CA predicated the finding that Carrascoso had a first class essential ultimate facts.
ticket and was entitled to a first class seat at Bangkok, which is a stopover in the Saigon to o A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion,
Beirut leg of the flight. Facts include: the ticket paid by Carrascoso is a first class ticket, Air may result. So long as the decision of the CA contains the necessary facts to
France received a corresponding amount in payment of first-class tickets, the fact that warrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold therefrom "any
Carrascoso was ousted from his seat was corroborated by the entry made by the purser of the specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense". Because as
plane in his notebook and by the testimony of an eye-witness, Cuento, who was a co- this Court well observed, "There is no law that so requires".
passenger, and there was no evidence if the white man has prior reservation. All these facts o Indeed, "the mere failure to specify the contentions of the appellant and the
are present in the decision of the CA. reasons for refusing to believe them is NOT sufficient to hold the same contrary to
the requirements of the provisions of law and the Constitution". It is in this setting
FACTS: that in Manigque, it was held that the mere fact that the findings "were based
Carrascoso is a civil engineer and a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left entirely on the evidence for the prosecution without taking into consideration or
Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958 even mentioning the appellant's side in the controversy as shown by his own
testimony", would not vitiate the judgment. If the court did not recite in the

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 11 of 16
decision the testimony of each witness for, or each item of evidence presented by, against the appellant". So also, the judgment affirmed "must be regarded as free
the defeated party, it does not mean that the court has overlooked such testimony from all error". We reached this policy construction because nothing in the
or such item of evidence. decision of the CA on this point would suggest that its findings of fact are in any
o Legal presumptions: official duty has been performed and all issues were laid way at war with those of the TC. Nor was said affirmance by the CA upon a ground
before the court or grounds different from those which were made the basis of the conclusions of
o Findings of facts maybe defined as "the written statement of the ultimate facts as the TC.
found by the court ... and essential to support the decision and judgment rendered o If a first-class-ticket holder is not entitled to a first class seat, notwithstanding the
thereon". They consist of the court's "conclusions" with respect to the fact that seat availability in specific flights is confirmed, then an air passenger is
determinative facts in issue". A question of law, upon the other hand, has been placed in the hollow of the hands of an airline. What security then can a passenger
declared as "one which does not call for an examination of the probative value of have? It will always be an easy matter for an airline aided by its employees, to
the evidence presented by the parties." strike out the very stipulations in the ticket, and say that there was a verbal
2. By statute, "only questions of law may be raised" in an appeal by certiorari from a agreement to the contrary.
judgment of the CA. That judgment is conclusive as to the facts. It is not o The foregoing are the considerations which point to the conclusion that there are
appropriately the business of this Court to alter the facts or to review the questions facts upon which the CA predicated the finding that Carrascoso had a first class
of fact. ticket and was entitled to a first class seat at Bangkok, which is a stopover in the
3. Was Carrascoso entitled to first class seat? Saigon to Beirut leg of the flight. We perceive no "welter of distortions by the CA of
o It is conceded that on 3/28/1958, Carrascoso paid to and received from Air France a Air France's statement of its position", as charged by Air France. Nor do we
first class ticket. But Air France asserts that the ticket did not represent the true subscribe to its accusation that Carrascoso "surreptitiously took a first class seat to
and complete intent and agreement of the parties; that Carrascoso knew that he provoke an issue".
did not have confirmed reservations for first class on any specific flight, although he 4. Air France assails the award of MORAL DAMAGES. Air France claim is that the claim
had tourist class protection; that the issuance of a first class ticket was no of Carrascoso is planted upon breach of contract; that to award moral damages,
guarantee that he would have a first class ride, but that such would depend upon there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith; decision of CA has no finding of bad
the availability of first class seats. faith.
o CA disposed of this contention: Defendant seems to capitalize on the argument o The foregoing substantially aver: First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff
that the issuance of a first-class ticket was no guarantee that the passenger to a first class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg; Second,
whom the same had been issued, would be accommodated in the first-class That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class
compartment, for as in the case of plaintiff he had yet to make arrangements upon transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was bad faith when Air France's
arrival at every station for the necessary first-class reservation. We are not employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth "after
impressed by such a reasoning. We cannot understand how a reputable firm like he was already, seated" and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which
defendant airplane company could have the indiscretion to give out tickets it never he suffered inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him
meant to honor at all. It received the corresponding amount in payment of first- mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting
class tickets and yet it allowed the passenger to be at the mercy of its employees. It in moral damages. It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad
is more in keeping with the ordinary course of business that the company should faith in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is there, it may be drawn from
know whether or riot the tickets it issues are to be honored or not. the facts and circumstances set forth therein.
o TC on this contention of Air France: On the fact that plaintiff paid for, and was o CA on the question of bad faith: That the plaintiff was forced out of his seat in the
issued a "First class" ticket, there can be no question. Apart from his testimony, see first class compartment of the plane belonging to the defendant Air France while at
plaintiff's Exhibits "A", "A-1", "B", "B-1," "B-2", "C" and "C-1", and defendant's own Bangkok, and was transferred to the tourist class not only without his consent but
witness, Altonaga, confirmed plaintiff's testimony. Defendant tried to prove by the against his will, has been sufficiently established by plaintiff in his testimony before
testimony of its witnesses Zaldariaga and Altonaga that although plaintiff paid for, the court, corroborated by the corresponding entry made by the purser of the
and was issued a "first class" airplane ticket, the ticket was subject to confirmation plane in his notebook and by the testimony of an eye-witness, Cuento, who was a
in Hongkong. The court cannot give credit to the testimony of said witnesses. Oral co-passenger.
evidence cannot prevail over written evidence. Neither is there evidence as to whether or not a prior reservation was made
o SC: We have heretofore adverted to the fact that except for a slight difference of a by the white man. Hence, if the employees of the defendant at Bangkok
few pesos in the amount refunded on Carrascoso's ticket, the decision of the CFI sold a first-class ticket to him when all the seats had already been taken,
was affirmed by the CA in all other respects. We hold the view that such a surely the plaintiff should not have been picked out as the one to suffer the
judgment of affirmance has merged the judgment of the lower court. Implicit in consequences and to be subjected to the humiliation and indignity of being
that affirmance is a determination by the CA that the proceeding in the CFI was free ejected from his seat in the presence of others. Instead of explaining to the
from prejudicial error and "all questions raised by the assignments of error and all white man the improvidence committed by defendant's employees, the
questions that might have been raised are to be regarded as finally adjudicated

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 12 of 16
manager adopted the more drastic step of ousting the plaintiff who was Summary: The petitioner here assails the decision promulgated by the appellate court because
then safely ensconsced in his rightful seat. it merely used a memorandum affirming the trial court decision and by incorporating
o In the judgment of the CFI, there is express finding of bad faith. reference. The memorandum is valid. Where a memorandum decision is used, the decision
5. The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not be adopted by reference must be attached to the Memorandum for easy reference Nonetheless,
essayed. It is well settled in law. For the willful malevolent act of Air France's the Memorandum decision should be sparingly used and used only where the facts as in the
manager, his employer (Air France), must answer (Article 21 of the CC). main are accepted by both parties and in simple litigations only. However, this ruling is not to
o We applied the foregoing legal precept; and, we held that upon the provisions of be applied retroactively to the case at bar.
Article 2219 (10), Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable.
6. A contract to transport passengers is quite different in kind and degree from any FACTS
other contractual relation. And this, because of the relation which an air-carrier The question squarely presented to the Court is the validity of the memorandum
sustains with the public. Its business is mainly with the travelling public. It invites
decision authorized under Section 40 of B.P. Blg. 129 in the light of Article VIII,
people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers. The contract of air carriage,
therefore, generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance Section 14 of the Constitution.
of the carrier's employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages. Antecedent Facts. The petitioner leased his apartment in Makati to the private
o Air France's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of respondent for a period of one year for the stipulated rental of P3,000.00 a month.
Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a Pursuant to the lease contract, the private respondent deposited with the petitioner
violation of public duty by air carrier a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper. the amount of P9,000.00 to answer for unpaid rentals or any damage to the leased
7. RES GESTAE. Air France charges that the finding of the CA that the purser made an
premises except when caused by reasonable wear and tear. The private respondent
entry in his notebook reading "First class passenger was forced to go to the tourist
vacated the property. He thereafter requested the refund of his deposit minus the
class against his will, and that the captain refused to intervene" is predicated upon
evidence [Carrascoso's testimony above] which is incompetent. We do not think so. sum of P1,000.00, representing the rental for the additional ten days of his
The subject of inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident. Testimony on the occupancy after the expiration of the lease. The petitioner rejected this request. He
entry does not come within the proscription of the best evidence rule. Such said the lessee still owed him for other charges, including the electricity and water
testimony is admissible. bills and the sum of P2,500.00 for repainting of the leased premises to restore them
o Besides, from a reading of the transcript just quoted, when the dialogue happened, to their original condition.
the impact of the startling occurrence was still fresh and continued to be felt. The
The private respondent sued in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati. After the
excitement had not as yet died down. Statements then, in this environment, are
admissible as part of the res gestae. For, they grow "out of the nervous excitement submission of position papers by the parties, a summary judgment was rendered on
and mental and physical condition of the declarant". October 11, 1985, sustaining the complainant and holding that the repainting was
8. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES are well awarded. The CC gives the court ample power to not chargeable to him. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of
grant exemplary damages in contracts and quasi- contracts. The only condition is P7,750.00, representing the balance of the deposit after deducting the water and
that defendant should have "acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or electricity charges. The plaintiff was also awarded the sum of P1,250.00 as attorney's
malevolent manner." The manner of ejectment of respondent Carrascoso from his fees, plus the Costs.
first class seat fits into this legal precept. And this, in addition to moral damages.
9. The right to ATTORNEY'S FEES is fully established. The grant of exemplary damages This decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Makati and was affirmed
justifies a similar judgment for attorneys' fees. The least that can be said is that the by Judge Jose C. de la Rama on January 14, 1987. This was done in a memorandum
courts below felt that it is but just and equitable that attorneys' fees be given. decision reading in full as follows:
10. Questioned as excessive are the amounts decreed by both the TC and the CA. The
task of fixing these amounts is primarily with the TC. The CA did not interfere with the MEMORANDUM DECISION
same. The dictates of good sense suggest that we give our imprimatur thereto.
Because, the facts and circumstances point to the reasonableness thereof.
After a careful and thorough perusal, evaluation and study of the records of
this case, this Court hereby adopts by reference the findings of fact and
2. Francisco v. Permskul (CP) conclusions of law contained in the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court
VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO, petitioner, of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 63 and finds that there is no cogent
vs. reason to disturb the same.
WINAI PERMSKUL and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 81006 | May 12, 1989 | CRUZ | EN BANC
WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 13 of 16
The petitioner asks that the case be remanded to the regional trial court for a full reviewing the decision of the metropolitan trial court, the Court of Appeals was
blown hearing on the merits, to be followed by a decision stating therein clearly and actually reviewing the decision of the regional trial court, which had incorporated by
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. reference the earlier decision rendered by Judge Balita.

ISSUE: Whether the memorandum decision was properly promulgated YES (see incorporation Incorporation by reference
by reference)
To be fair, let it be said that when Judge dela Rama availed himself of the
RULING 4
convenience offered by Section 40 of B.P. Blg. 129 , he was only acting in
accordance with the ruling announced in Romero permitting the use of the
There is no question that the purpose of the law in authorizing the memorandum memorandum decision. It must also be observed that even if the respondent court
decision is to expedite the termination of litigations for the benefit of the parties as appeared to be partial to the reservation rather than the rule in the said case, it
well as the courts themselves. nevertheless had the duty which it discharged to abide by the doctrine
announced therein by the highest tribunal of the land.
The courts of justice are really hard put at coping with the tremendous number of
cases in their dockets which, to make matters worse, continues to grow by the day The law does not define the memorandum decision and simply suggests that the
despite the efforts being taken to reduce it. In the Supreme Court alone, an average court may adopt by reference the findings of fact and the conclusions of law stated in
of 400 cases is received every month as against the average of 300 cases disposed of the decision, order or resolution on appeal before it. No particular form is prescribed;
during the same month, leaving a difference of 100 cases monthly that is added to the conditions for its use are not indicated. In fact, B.P. Blg. 129 does not even
some 5,000 still unresolved cases that have accumulated during the last two decades employ the term "memorandum decision" in Section 40 or elsewhere in the rest of
or so. At this rate, the backlog will increase by 1,200 cases every year on top of the the statute. This phrase appears to have been introduced in this jurisdiction not by
earlier balance, much of which, despite its age, is still viable and have still to be that law but by Section 24 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, reading as follows:
resolved. Considering that the Court spends four days of the week for studying and
deliberating on these cases in its en banc and division sessions, one can appreciate Sec. 24. Memorandum decisions. -The judgment or final resolution of a court in
the limited time allowed its members for the actual writing of its decisions. (This appealed cases may adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law
particular decision, while extended, happens fortunately to be less complicated than contained in the decision or final order appealed from.
many of the other cases submitted to it, which require more time to write, not to
mention the antecedent research that may have to be made.)
It is clear that where the decision of the appellate court actually reproduces the
Viewed in the light of these practical considerations, the memorandum decision can findings of fact or the conclusions of law of the court below, it is not a memorandum
be welcomed indeed as an acceptable method of dealing expeditiously with the case decision as envisioned in the above provision. The distinctive features of the
load of the courts of justice, But expediency alone, no matter how compelling, memorandum decision are, first, it is rendered by an appellate court, and second, it
cannot excuse non-compliance with the Constitution. incorporates by reference the findings of fact or the conclusions of law contained in
The judgment was made by the metropolitan trial court in compliance with the rule the decision, order or ruling under review.
on summary procedure.
From book [gist of the things mentioned in the case, J. Cruz writes with a lot of words and
The decision consisted of three typewritten pages, single space, and stated adjectives etc.] : Where a memorandum decision is used, the decision adopted by reference
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it was based. It was a must be attached to the Memorandum for easy reference Nonetheless, the Memorandum
concise and well-written decision, and a correct one to boot, for which decision should be sparingly used and used only where the facts as in the main are accepted by
Judge Paciano B. Balita is to be commended. both parties and in simple litigations only. However, this ruling is not to be applied
retroactively to the case at bar.
It is not really correct to say that the Court of Appeals did not review the
memorandum decision of the regional trial court which was the subject of the
petition for review. A reading of its own decision will show that it dealt extensively
with the memorandum decision and discussed it at some length in the light of the however, That if the decision or order be an affirmance in toto of the dispositive conclusion of the judgment appealed
3 from, then the Court of Appeals may, instead of rendering an extended opinion, indicate clearly the trial court's findings of
observations and reservations of this Court in the Romero case. Moreover, in
fact and pronouncements of law which have been adopted as basis for the affirmance.
4
Sec. 40. Form of decision in appealed cases. Every decision or final resolution of a court in appealed cases shall clearly
and distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based which may be contained in the
3
All cases of the Court of Agrarian Relations now pending before the Court of Appeals shall remain in the Division to which decision or final resolution itself, or adopted by reference from those set forth in the decision, order or resolution
they have been assigned, and shall be decided within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Decree; Provided, appealed from.

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 14 of 16
22,562,851.17), Philippine currency, representing the erroneously paid BPRT for 2002 and prior
3. Deutsche Bank v. CIR (QN) taxable years.
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. CIR
August 19, 2013 G.R. No. 18850 Sereno, CJ. SO ORDERED.

Summary: Deutsche Bank applied for a tax refund on the ground that it mistakenly paid the
wrong branch profit remittance tax rate of 15%. It claimed that it is covered by the preferential Ratio:
tax rate of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax Treaty. The CTA held that petitioner is not entitled CONTENTS OF THE RP-GERMANY TAX TREATY
to the tax refund because it did not comply with the 15-day mandatory period of application Paragraph 6, Article 10 of the RP-Germany Tax Treaty provides that where a resident
with the ITAD which was held in Mirant v. CIR to be mandatory. The SC held that Deutsche of the Federal Republic of Germany has a branch in the Philippines, this branch may
Bank is entitled to the tax refund. We are bound to comply with the treaty because of pacta be subjected to the BPRT in accordance with Philippine law but shall not exceed 10%
sunt servanda. More importantly, Mirant v. CIR does not create a binding precedent because it of the gross amount of the profits remitted to the head office.
is just a minute resolution, not a decision of the SC. (Please see ratio for the distinctions [DOCTRINE] A MINUTE RESOLUTION IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENT
between decisions and minute resolutions.) The minute resolution in Mirant v. CIR is not a binding precedent.
As held in Philippine Health Care Providers v. CIR, the effect of a minute resolution to
Facts: the case is that it constitutes res judicata. When a minute resolution denies or
On October 21, 2003, petitioner withheld and remitted Php67,688,553.51 to the BIR dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements,
which represented the 15% branch profit remittance tax (BPRT) mandated by Section the challenged decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions are
28(A)(5) of the NIRC. deemed sustained. However, if other parties or another subject matter is involved,
Believing that it made an overpayment, petitioner filed a claim for refund or issuance the minute resolution is not a binding precedent.
of a tax credit certificate on October 4, 2005 for the amount of Php22,562,851.17. It [DOCTRINE] There are substantial, not simply formal, distinctions between a minute
based its claim on the RP-Germany Tax Treaty which provided for a lower 10% resolution and a decision. The constitutional requirement under the first paragraph
preferential tax rate. On the same day, it requested a ruling from the International of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution that the facts and the law on which the
Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) of the BIR for the confirmation of its entitlement to the judgment is based must be expressed clearly and distinctly applies only to decisions,
preferential treatment. not to minute resolutions.
On October 18, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA alleging o A minute resolution is signed only by the clerk of court by authority of the
inaction on the part of the BIR for its administrative claim. justices, unlike a decision. It does not require the certification of the Chief
The CTA Second Division found that petitioner had indeed paid amounts representing Justice.
15% of the BPRT for 2002 and previous years. The claim for refund was however o Moreover, unlike decisions, minute resolutions are not published in the
denied on the ground that the ITAD ruling was not requested for and given prior to Philippine Reports.
its availment of the preferential tax rate. o Finally, the proviso of Section 4(3) of Article VIII speaks of a decision.
nd
The CTA 2 Division held that petitioner violated the 15-day mandatory period Indeed, as a rule, this Court lays down doctrines or principles of law which
nd constitute binding precedent in a decision duly signed by the members of
required under RMO No. 1-2000. The CTA 2 Division also relied on Mirant v. CIR
where the CTA en banc ruled that before the benefits of a tax treaty may be the Court and certified by the Chief Justice.
extended to a foreign corporation, it should first invoke the provisions of the tax TAX TREATY V. RMO NO. 1-2000
treaty and prove that they indeed apply to the corporation. Pacta sunt servanda demands the performance in good faith of treaty obligation on
o Mirant v. CIR was affirmed by a minute resolution of the Supreme Court. the part of the states that enter into the agreement. Treaties have the force and
nd
The CTA en banc affirmed the ruling of the CTA 2 Division. It also relied on the said effect of law in this jurisdiction.
case of Mirant v. CIR. Tax treaties are entered into to eliminate international juridical double taxation
which is defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more states on the
Issue: Whether or not the failure to strictly comply with RMO No. 1-2000 will deprive persons same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods. The
or corporations of the benefit of a tax treaty. - NO rationale for doing away with double taxation is to promote the free flow of goods
and services.
Held: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Laws and issuances must ensure that the reliefs granted under tax treaties are
Court of Tax Appeals En Banc Decision dated 29 May 2009 and Resolution dated 1 July 2009 are accorded to the parties entitled to it. The BIR must not impose additional
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby entered ordering respondent Commissioner of requirements which would negate the application of such treaties. More importantly,
Internal Revenue to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner Deutsche Bank the RP-Germany Tax Treaty does not provide for any prerequisite for the availment
AG Manila Branch the amount of TWENTY TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO of the benefits under it.
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY ONE PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (PHP

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 15 of 16
There is nothing in RMO No. 1-2000 which would indicate a deprivation to a tax
treaty relief for failure to comply with the 15-day period. The CTAs outright denial of Facts:
a tax treaty relief for failure to comply with the period is not in harmony with the By Complaint dated November 10, 2004, Doroteo M. Salazar (complainant) charged
objectives of the treaty. Judge Antonio D. Marigomen (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 61, Regional
The denial of the availment of tax relief for failure to comply with the period would Trial Court, Bogo, Cebu, with gross ignorance of the law, bias, conduct prejudicial to
impair the value of the tax treaty. the interest of the service and rendering a decision violative of the Commission on
The obligation to comply with a tax treaty must take precedence over the objective Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure and the Constitution in connection with
of RMO No. 1-2000. Election SPC Case No. BOGO-00789.
PRIOR APPLICATION V. CLAIM FOR REFUND Zenaida F. Salazar, wife of complainant, and a mayoralty candidate in the
RMO No. 1-2000 was implemented to obviate any erroneous interpretation or Municipality of Madridejos, Cebu in the May 2001 elections, filed on July 4, 2001 an
application of the provisions of the tax treaty. However, noncompliance with the election protest against the proclaimed winner Lety Mancio (Mancio) before the RTC.
period for prior application should not operate to automatically divest entitled to the Initially, the case was handled by another judge (dela Pea), who order that the
tax treaty relief. ballots be revised; but he was replaced (why it was not mentioned) by Marigomen.
Petitioner should not be faulted for not complying with RMO No. 1-2000 prior to the Marigomen in turn dismissed the protest and declared Mancio the mayor.
transaction. It could not have applied for a tax treaty relief within the period On appeal, the COMELEC First Division, by Resolution of March 25, 2004, reversed
prescribed, or 15 days prior to the payment of its BPRT, precisely because it and set aside the August 8, 2003 Decision of respondent and declared complainants
erroneously paid the BPRT not on the basis of the preferential tax rate under the tax wife Zenaida Salazar as the duly elected mayor.
treaty, but on the regular rate as prescribed by the NIRC. Hence, prior application By complainants claim, respondent admitted in evidence uncertified photocopies of
requirement becomes illogical. (verbatim yan ah) the contested ballots, the original copies of which were in the custody of the HRET,
5
The fact that petitioner invoked the provisions of the tax treaty should be deemed contrary to Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides that it should be
substantial compliance with the RMO. certified copies and respondent considered the uncertified photocopies-exhibits for
The outright denial of the on the sole ground of noncompliance with the RMO would Mancio in deciding the case. Hence, the charge of gross ignorance of the law.
defeat the purpose of Section 229 of the NIRC which provides reliefs for refunds. Respondent was also partial. For instance, he (1) ignored the objections to the
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND evidence. Complainant further claims that respondent was (2) acting as if he were
There was substantial compliance with the RMO. the counsel for the protestee, demonstrated during the testimony of the Clerk of
The CTA Second Division also found that petitioner indeed paid 15% remittance tax Court when protestees counsel had difficulty explaining the nature of the clerks
even if it was only required to pay 10% because it enjoys the benefits of the tax testimony and respondent laid the basis thereof. Furthermore, complainant claims
treaty. that (3) despite the parties agreement to follow the Memorandum on Policy
Petitioner is therefore entitled to a refund. Guidelines dated March 12, 2002 executed between the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) allowing the
submission of affidavits of witnesses in lieu of their testifying in court, subject to
cross examination, respondent allowed protestee to present witnesses to give oral
4. Salazar v Marigomen (RC) testimonies. Finally, complainant claims that respondent (4) violated the COMELEC
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2004 | October 19, 2007 | Carpio-Morales Rules of Procedure as well as the Constitution for not clearly and distinctly stating the
Petitioner: Doroteo M. Salazar facts and the law on which his decision was based.
Respondent: Judge Antonio Marigomen, RTC, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu
Issue: W/N Judge was ignorant of the law? manifestly biased? YES
Doctrine: Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Courts power to discipline judges.;
W/N decision of Judge was based on factual and legal bases and these were shown in the
Court had instructed judges to exert effort to ensure the decisions would present a
decision? NO
comprehensive analysis or account of the factual and legal findings that would substantially
address the issues raised by the parties.
Held: WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent, JUDGE ANTONIO D. MARIGOMEN, GUILTY of
1) gross ignorance of the law or procedure and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Five
Summary:
Thousand (P25,000) Pesos, and 2) manifest bias and dishonesty amounting to grave
There was an election contest involving the wife of Salazar. Judge penned a decision saying
misconduct and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000) Pesos.
that Mancio (other candidate) was the winner. Salazar challenged this decision (among other
violations, see Ratio) saying that it wasnt written with factual or legal bases. SC upheld the
decision of the Office of the Court Administrator which found that the decision was indeed
5
without factual and legal bases. Further, Judge was ignorant of the law and manifestly biased SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original of a document is in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the
towards Salazar. public officer in custody thereof. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied);

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy
Political Law Review A-2015 | Dean SedfreyCandelaria | Case Digest Compilation 4.3 Article VIII, Sections 6-14 Page 16 of 16
Ratio: requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to bring
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR DECISION the original ballots to the court. Despite that manifestation, respondent judge
This is the decision the SC cited and basically agreed with it only lessened the fine of the allowed Atty. Caayon to affirm the veracity of the photocopies in his possession
Judge. But otherwise, followed what the OCA said. Respondent judges bias for Mancio was further shown by respondent judge when he
Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Courts power to discipline allowed one of the counsels for Mancio, Atty. Reinerio Roiles, to testify despite the
judges. It is undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, that is, to vigorous objection of Salazar through his counsel, as the testimony was in violation of
maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government. Thus, unlike in Rule 12.08, Canon 12 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. The Rule prohibits
ordinary cases, there is no private offended party in administrative proceedings who a lawyer from testifying in behalf of his client, except on formal matters such as the
may be entitled to judicial relief. The complainant need not be a real party in mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, or on substantial matters, in
interest, as anyone may file an administrative complaint against a judge, the only cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice.
requirement being that the complaint be verified and it be in writing and shall state
clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of ON DECISIONS BASED ON FACT & LAW
conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial There is also merit in the complaint that respondent judge failed to abide by the
Conduct. express mandate of the COMELEC Rules and Procedure and the Constitution to state
The admission of the uncertified or plain photocopies of the contested ballots by clearly and distinctly in every decision the facts and the law on which it is based.
respondent Judge in favor of Mancio betrays his ignorance of Section 7, Rule 130 of The questioned decision dismissing for lack of merit the election protest filed by
the Rules of Court. The Rule, otherwise known as the Best Evidence Rule, simply Salazar against Mancio, and declaring the latter to be the duly elected municipal
provides that as long as the original evidence can be had, the court should not mayor of Madridejos, Cebu, with a total votes of 5,214 as against the 5,144 votes
receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in garnered by Salazar, or a difference of 70 votes. The final tabulation of votes came
the absence of any clear showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed about after the respondent judge declared on the penultimate page of the 22-page
or cannot be produced in court. In this case, the original copies of the contested decision, thus:
ballots have neither been lost nor destroyed. They are in the custody of the HRET, After reviewing or re-appreciating the ballots of the contested precincts, the Court
and had respondent judge wanted to examine them, he could have easily ordered invalidated ninety (90) votes of the protestant and has not validated stray votes in
the transfer of their custody to the court. her favor as she has not formally offered the claimed stray votes or ballots. The
His invocation of Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to justify his admission of court shall only consider ballots which are presented and formally offered.
the plain copies of the contested ballots is misplaced. The Rule allows the admission After a thorough examination of the questioned decision, it became obvious
of secondary evidence when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or that the invalidation of the 90 votes against Salazar was made without indicating in
cannot be found. However, the offeror is burdened to prove the predicates the decision the factual and legal bases therefor. Expectedly, the COMELEC First
thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original was without bad faith on the part Division, in its Resolution promulgated on March 25, 2004, reversed and set aside the
of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine August 8, 2003 Decision of respondent judge, and declared Salazar as the duly
practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair elected mayor of Madridejos, Cebu.
preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or Time and again, the Court had instructed judges to exert effort to ensure the
destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona decisions would present a comprehensive analysis or account of the factual and
fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or legal findings that would substantially address the issues raised by the
places. parties. Respondent failed in this respect.
Verily, as the original copies of the contested ballots are in the custody of the HRET,
which fact was known to respondent judge, there was no occasion to apply Section 5,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. When the law is so elementary, not to know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent judge took special interest in the presentation of Atty. Caayon as a
witness for Mancio. The purpose of Atty. Caayons testimony was to show that the
photocopies of the ballots were the same as the original ballots in the custody of the
HRET. When the counsel for Salazar, Atty. Manuel S. Paradela, refused to stipulate on
the faithful reproduction of the original ballots, the counsel for Mancio declared that
they could request HRET to bring the original ballots to the court for
comparison. Respondent judge, however, ignored the manifestation, and proceeded
to ask Atty. Paradela if the latter was represented during the photocopying of the
original ballots. Nonetheless, the counsel for Mancio, Atty. Nathaniel Clarus,

Bautista Caguioa Chavez Cupin David Dulay Enguio Feble Galon Gammad Gan Gerona Giltendez Gonzales Lambino Lukban Macabulos Magbanua Nitura Oducado Pabilane Quintos Ramos Remollo Rivera Santos Tan Taylo Uy