ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 11315   March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL<br /><br />034 Phil 329

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11315. March 22, 1916. ]

    DIONISION CHANCO, Petitioner, v. CARLOS IMPERIAL, Appellees.

    Delgado & Delgado for Petitioner.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. STATUTES; VALIDITY OF ACT NO. 2347; QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGES. — Section 7 of Act No. 2347 which fixes the qualifications of judges of Court of First Instance in the Philippine Islands and especially that portion thereof which provides that every judge of the Court of First Instance shall cease to be such on the completion of the sixty-fifth year of his age is valid and does no contravene the act of any superior power.

    2. PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE; JURISDICTION AND POWERS. — The Philippine Legislature has the same powers in the Philippine Islands within the sphere in which it may operate as the Congress of the United States.

    3. STATUTES; VALIDITY OF ACTS OF THE PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE; APPROVAL BY CONGRESS. — An Act of the Legislative authority of the Philippine Government which has not been expressly disapproved by Congress is valid, unless its subject-matter has been covered by congressional legislation or its enactment for bidden by some provision of the Organic Law;; and the reservation by Congress in the Act of July 1, 1902, of the power to suspend valid Acts of the Philippine Legislature does not operate to suspend such Acts until approve by Congress, or when approved, make them laws of Congress. They are valid Acts of the Government of the Philippine Islands until annulled.

    4. JUDGES; QUALIFICATIONS; CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. — Congress has not legislated on the question of the qualifications of judges of the Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands to such an extend as to exclude the Philippine Legislature from that field.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is an action to test the title to the office of judge of the Court of First Instance of the Eighth Judicial District, comprising the Provinces of Bataan and Zambales. The complainant alleges that on or about the 1st day of July, 1914, he was duly named and appointed judge of the Court of First Instance of the Eighth Judicial District of Philippine Islands, comprising the Provinces of Bataan and Zambales, by the Governor-General, by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission; that he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties thereof on the said 1st day of July, 1914, in conformity with Act No. 2347 under which he was named; that the defendant has usurped, intruded into and taken possession of the said office of judge of the Court of First Instance of the Eighth Judicial District and is now exercising the functions of said office; that the plaintiff has not resigned his office, nor has he been removed therefrom.

    The answer denies several of the allegations of the complaint and alleges as a special defense that the plaintiff on or before the 9th of October, 1915, completed his sixty-fifth year and that, by reason of section 7 of Act No. 2347, which provides that no person shall be capable of holding the office of judge of the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands after he has completed his sixty-fifth year, the said plaintiff, on the said 9th of October 1915, ipso facto ceased to be judge of the Court of First Instance of that district and that the office thereupon became vacant. The answer further alleges that the defendant was duly named and appointed judge of the Court of First Instance of the said Eighth Judicial District on the 19th day of October, 1915, by the Governor-General, by and with the advise and consent of the Philippine commission, in place and stead of the said plaintiff; and that the defendant duly qualified as such judge and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office and still continues therein.

    The plaintiff demurred to the answer on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, the reason alleged therefor being that said section 7 of Act No. 2347 is incompatible with, and contrary to, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, and act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, and is, therefore, null and void.

    The only question presented to this court is that of whether or not section 7 of Act No. 2347 is in violation of, or contrary to, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. The claim that it is also in violation of Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission is urged on the theory that the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, ratified and made a part thereof Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission; and that, therefore, any Act of the Philippine Legislature repugnant to Act No. 136 is as null and void as though it were repugnant to the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, itself.

    We do not believe the contention of the plaintiff can be sustained. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Philippine Legislature has the same powers in the Philippine Islands, within the sphere in which it may operate, as Congress itself (Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S., 549); and it has strongly intimated that when an Act of the Philippine Legislature is reported to Congress and has not been annulled by that body it is a lawfully and valid Act. By this it is not meant to say, as we understand it, that the Philippine Legislature can pass a valid law which is in violation of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, or of any other Act of Congress; or that it can legislate in a field which Congress has already occupied by appropriate legislation (U.S. v. Bull, 15 Phil. Rep., 7). In the Bull case we held that an Act of the legislative authority of the Philippine Government which has not been expressly disapproved by Congress is valid, unless its subject-matter has been covered by congressional legislation or its enactment forbidden by some provision of the Organic Law; and that the reservation by Congress (Act of July 1, 1902) of the power to suspend valid Acts of the Philippine Commission and Legislature does not operate to suspend such Acts until approve by Congress, or when approved, make them laws of Congress. They are valid Acts of the Government of the Philippine Islands until annulled.

    It is maintained by plaintiff, however, that Congress has already legislated on the question of the qualifications of judges of the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands, and that the Philippine Legislature is, therefore acting beyond its authority in dealing with the same subject matter. that provision of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, on which plaintiff relies is the latter part of section 9. It provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . The judges of the Court of First Instance shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission: . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Plaintiff argues that, at the time this Act went into effect, Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission was on existence, which defined the qualifications which a person must have in order to be eligible to the office of judge of the Court of First Instance; that that portion of Act No. 136 must be held to have been impliedly adopted by Congress, inasmuch as it must be considered that it acted in view of the conditions existent at that time. This appears to us to be going a long way. It seems to have been the intention of Congress to leave that question untouched and open. This is apparent from the wording of the section itself, as it is entirely devoid of any word or phrase from which such an inference can be drawn; and it may also be inferred from the fact that Congress, in the Act referred to, in dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine Islands, made express reference to the jurisdiction they then had under existing laws, and established that jurisdiction so that it could not thereafter be changed except by way of enlargement. If Congress had intended by the Act of July 1, 1902, to fix the qualifications of judges of the Court of First Instance it would undoubtedly have taken the same course to do so that it did with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts, namely, by express reference to existing laws which fixed the qualification which the candidate must posses. Congress did not do so; and we are unable to find any basis upon which we can hold that it intended to do so. Moreover, prescribing the method of appointment does not involve necessarily or even remotely the qualifications of the judge. It is true that the power of appointment is closely connected with the qualifications of the person to be appointed; but they are no so closely connected that it may be said that when Congress enters one field it thereby excludes the Philippine Legislature from the other. we believe that the two question are so separate, both by nature and by form, that the fact that Congress has legislated with regard to the one does not thereby prohibit the Philippine Legislature from legislating as to the other.

    Although the question is not raised or argued, we have not overlooked the importance of the fact that the Governor-General in a sense the direct representative of the American Government in the Philippine Islands, that his appointment comes from the President of the United Stated, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that some of his powers have been fixed by Congress; and that accordingly, the Philippine Legislature is approaching a situation of some delicacy when it seeks to legislate with respect to his office or his powers and functions. We do not believe, however, that the case before us presents such features as would necessitate a discussion of the various questions which might arise in connection with legislation of that character.

    It must be held therefore, that the plaintiff on having completed his sixty-fifth year ceased to be judge of the Court of First Instance of that district by virtue of the provisions of section 7 of Act No. 2347 heretofore referred to, which is set out in full in the footnote; 1 that the defendant was duly appointed Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Eighth Judicial District; that he duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office and now continues therein; and that he is entitled to retain said office as against plaintiff.

    The demurrer to the answer is, therefore, overruled and the cause will proceed as provided by law. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres and Trent, JJ., concur.

    Johnson, J., reserves his vote.

    Araullo, J., dissents.

    Endnotes:



    1. Sec. 7. Of the appointment of the judge and auxiliary judges of Courts of First Instance. — The district judges and auxiliary judges of Courts of First Instance shall be appointed by the Governor-General, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission to serve, subject to the provisions of sections eight and nine hereof until they have reached the age of sixty-five years: Provided, That no person shall be appointed to said positions unless he has practiced law in these Islands or in the United States for a period of not less than five years or has held during a like period, within the Philippine Islands or within the United States an office requiring a lawyer’s diploma as an indispensable requisite: Provided further, That before assuming such judicial office he shall qualify as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands if he has not already done so: And provided, further, That the present judges of Courts of First Instance, judges at large, and judges of the Court of Land Registration vacate their positions on the taking effect of this Act; and the Governor-General, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, shall make new appointments of judges of the Courts of First Instance and auxiliary judges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, taking into account, in making said appointments, the services rendered by the present judges.)

    G.R. No. 11315   March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL<br /><br />034 Phil 329




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED