Zandueta v. De La Costa

Zandueta v. De La Costa

G.R. No. L-46267 November 28, 1938

Villareal, J.

Facts:

Prior to the promulgation of Commonwealth Act No. 145, the petitioner, the Honorable Francisco Zandueta was discharging the office of judge of first instance, Ninth Judicial District, comprising solely the City of Manila, and was presiding over the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of said city, by virtue of an ad interim appointment issued by the President of the Philippines in his favor on June 2, 1936, and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly on September 8th of the same year.

On November 7, 1936, the date on which of first instance, this time of the Fourth Judicial District, with authority to preside over Commonwealth Act No. 145, otherwise known as the Judicial Reorganization Law, took effect, the petitioner received from the President of the Commonwealth a new ad interim appointment as judge the Courts of First Instance of Manila and Palawan, issued in accordance with said Act. As the National Assembly adjourned on November 20, 1937, without its Commission on Appointments having acted on said ad interim appointment, another ad interim appointment to the same office was issued in favor of said petitioner, pursuant to which he took a new oath on November 22, 1937, before discharging the duties thereof. After his appointment and qualification as judge of first instance of the Fourth Judicial District, the petitioner, acting as executive judge, performed several executive acts, some of which consist in the designation of the assistant clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Ladislao Pasicolan, as administrative officer, under the orders of the petitioner, as executive judge of said court, to take charge of all matters pertaining to the Court of First Instance of Palawan, which are handled by said execute judge in Manila; in the appointment of attorney Rufo M. San Juan as notary public for the Province of Palawan, said appointment to expire on December 31, 1938 (Exhibit 3); in having authorized justice of the peace Iñigo R. Peña to defend a criminal case the hearing of which had begun during the past sessions in Coron, Palawan; in having granted a leave of absence of ten days to justice of the peace Abordo (of Puerto Princesa), Palawan; and in having granted a leave of absence of thirteen days to the justice of the peace of Coron, Palawan.

On May 19, 1938, the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly disapproved the aforesaid ad interim appointment of said petitioner, who was advised thereof by the Secretary of Justice on the 20th of said month and year.

Issue:

                whether or not the petitioner may proceed to question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which the new ad interim appointment of judge of first instance of the Fourth Judicial District, to preside over the Courts of First Instance of Manila and Palawan, was issued in his favor

Held:

                No. the petitioner was free to accept or not the ad interim appointment issued by the President of the Commonwealth in his favor, in accordance with said Commonwealth Act No. 145. Nothing or nobody compelled him to do so. While the office of judge of first instance of public interest, being one of the means employed by the Government to carry out one of its purposes, which is the administration of justice, considering the organization of the courts of justice in the Philippines and the creation of the positions of judges-at-large or substitutes, the temporary disability of a judge may be immediately remedied without detriment to the smooth running of the judicial machinery. If the petitioner believed, as he now seems to believe, that Commonwealth Act No. 145 is unconstitutional, he should have refused to accept the appointment offered him or, at least, he should have accepted it with reservation, had he believed that his duty of obedience to the laws compelled him to do so, and afterwards resort to the power entrusted with the final determination of the question whether a law is unconstitutional or not. The petitioner, being aware of his constitutional and legal rights and obligations, by implied order of the law (art. 2, Civil Code), accepted the office of judge of first instance of the Fourth Judicial District, with authority to preside over the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the Court of First Instance of Palawan and entered into the performance of the duties inherent therein, after taking the necessary oath, thereby acting with full knowledge that if he voluntarily accepted the office to which he was appointed, he would later be estopped from questioning the validity of said appointment by alleging that the law, by virtue of which his appointment was issued, is unconstitutional. He likewise knew, or at least he should know, that his ad interim appointment was subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly and that if said commission were to disapprove the same, it would become ineffective and he would cease discharging the office.

When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over the same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition to another court of the same category, both of which belong to a new judicial district formed by the addition of another Court of First Instance to the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be to repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.