8/10/2019 3 Cases Judicial Ethics
1/5
G.R. No. L-10144ANASTASIA PAMINTUAN, ET AL., petitioners,
stalkervs.JULIO LLORENTE, Judge of First Instance, and CLEMENTE
A!RIT, respondents.Pedro Abad Santos and Aurelio Pineda for
petitioners. William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for
respondents.PER CURIAM"This is an applicant for the writ of
mandamus. Its purpose is to copel the !onora"le #ulio Llorente to
continue with the trial of a cause coenced in the $ourt of%irst
Instance of the &rovince of &apan'a, while he was (et )ud'e
of said court. The iportant facts alle'ed in the coplaint are as
follows*%irst. That on the +d da( of u'ust, 110, the defendant
$leente /a(rit coenced an action in the $ourt of %irst Instance of
the &rovince of &apan'aa'ainst the plaintiffs in this
action. aid action was nu"ered 203.econd. That at the tie of the
coenceent of said action the +d of u'ust, 110, the said !onora"le
#ulio Llorente was )ud'e of the $ourt of %irst Instance
of said province.Third. That on the 1st da( of #ul(, 114, the
!onora"le #ulio Llorente ceased to "e )ud'e of said court and "ecae
)ud'e, on said date, of the %ifth #udicial /istrict,in accordance
with the provisions ofct No. +43.%ourth. That soetie "etween the +d
da( of u'ust, 110, and the 1st da( of #ul(, 114, the said )ud'e had
entered upon the trial of said cause5 that thedeclarations of soe
of the witnesses had "een taken5 that he had seen and heard said
witnesses5 that he had ade an ocular inspection of the propert(
in6uestion in said cause No. 203.%ifth. That on the 1st da( of
#ul(, 114, the trial of said cause was still pendin'.7i8th. That
after the 1st da( of #ul(, 114, and after the !onora"le #ulio
Llorente had ceased to "e )ud'e of the $ourt of %irst Instance of
the &rovince of&apan'a and had "ecoe )ud'e of the %ifth
#udicial /istrict, he refused to continue with the trial of said
cause, No. 203, for the reason that he claied that he
was incopetent to tr( the sae.The plaintiffs, upon the fore'oin'
facts, pra(ed that a writ of andaus should "e issued "( this court,
directin', re6uirin', and copellin' the said !onora"le#ulio
Llorente to continue the trial of said cause No. 203 until its
conclusion.To said petition, the defendants or respondent presented
a deurrer, alle'in' that the facts stated were not sufficient to
constitute a cause of action5 that the factsstated in said coplaint
showed that the !onora"le #ulio Llorente had "een )ud'e of the
%ifth #udicial /istrict fro the 1st da( of #ul(, 114, and was,
therefore,incopetent to continue the trial of said cause No. 203
pendin' in the $ourt of %irst Instance of the &rovince of
&apan'a, the eventh #udicial /istrict.9pon the issue thus
presented the cause was su"itted to this court.The siple 6uestion
presented "( the petition and the deurrer is, whether or not, under
the provisions of ct No. +43,a )ud'e who had coenced the trial ofa
cause and who had ceased to "e the )ud'e of the particular court in
which said cause was pendin', "efore the terination of the sae, a(
"e copelled "(andaus to continue with the trial of the sae. The
petitioners in the present cause rel( upon the provisions of
section 4 of said ct No. +43.aid section 4provides*ll criinal or
civil cases, and all )udicial proceedin's of a like nature,pending
decision or sentence, or pending continuance of the evidencein the
present $ourtsof %irst Instance, at the tie when this ct takes
effect, shall reain under the )urisdiction of said courts, until
their final decision5 and all civil or criinal cases, andall
)udicial proceedin's of a like nature that have "een filed or
initiated and are pendin' trial or a hearin' in said courts shall
"e transferred to their successors fortrial and sentence, and all
pending decision or decree, or continuance of the evidence in the
Court of Land egistration at the date on !hich this Act ta"es
effect,shall continue until their final decisionunder the
#urisdictionof the )ud'es of said court to who such cases were
assi'ned, and all cases filed or "e'un, "utpendin' trial or a
hearin' in the $ourt of Land Re'istration, shall "e transferred to
the )ud'es of the $ourt of %irst Instance of the provinces where
said lands adethe o")ect of said cases are situate.The particular
part of said section upon which the petitioners rel( is the
followin'*ll criinal or civil cases . . . pendin' decision or
sentence in the present $ourts of %irst Instance at the tie when
this ct takes effect, shall reain under the
)urisdiction of said courts, until their final decision.If the
6uoted provision of said section 4 was the onl( provision of saidct
No. +43, there i'ht "e "ut little difficult( in ascertainin' the
purpose of theLe'islature. :e find, however, another section which
"ears an iportant relation to the interpretation of said section 4.
ection 3 of said ct, aon' other thin's,provides*Thepresent)ud'es of
$ourts of %irst Instance, )ud'es at lar'e, and )ud'es of the $ourt
of Land Re'istration vacate their positions on the takin' effect of
this ct.This ct took effect on the 1st da( of #ul(, 114.It will "e
noted that section 3, in effect, provides that the present )ud'es
those appointed prior to #ul( 1, 114 shall vacate their positions
on the 1st da( of #ul(,114. The lan'ua'e used in the phrase ;shall
vacate their positions; is ver( stron' lan'ua'e. The Le'islature
could hardl( have used stron'er lan'ua'e if its realpurpose was to
terinate the )udicial authorit( of the ;present )ud'es.; The word
;vacate; eans, accordin' to :e"ster, ;To ake vacant5 to leave ept(5
to ceasefro fillin' or occup(in'5 to annul5 to deprive of force5 to
ake of no authorit( or validit(5 to defeat5 to put an end to.;The
tandard /ictionar( also defines the word ;vacate; as follows* ;To
ake vacant5 ept(5 to surrender possession of "( reoval5 to put an
end to5 'ive up5 6uit5leave.;
8/10/2019 3 Cases Judicial Ethics
3/5
These four cases were )ointl( tried "( #ud'e ndres ta. =aria of
,directed the proul'ation of the decision of #ud'e ta. =aria, for
u'ust , 1>. !owever, on u'ust +, 1>, respondent #ud'e ntonio
&. &aredes wasappointed to the vacant position of =unicipal
#ud'e. In his order of even date, #ud'e &aredes also scheduled
the proul'ation of the decision of #ud'e ta.=aria. This was done
with respect to appellants, the accused in $riinal $ases Nos.
%-0+C43 and %-0+C4C0, "ut not with re'ard to $harlie %un' and , the
$ourt of %irst Instance of =anila #ud'e #ose N. Leuterio presidin'
'ranted the writ, on the 'round that since #ud'eta. =aria was no
lon'er a )ud'e of the =unicipal $ourt, the decision written "( hi
could no lon'er "e validl( proul'ated, 9pon the decision of #ud'e
Leuterio"ecoin' final, #ud'e ntonio &aredes of the =unicipal
$ourt ordered a retrial of the four criinal cases Nos. %-0+C433,
%-0+C43C, %0+C43, and %-0+C4C0,
which was set for =arch 14, 1>+. !erein appellants now in
turn went to the $ourt of %irst Instance of =anila and applied for
a writ to restrain the =unicipal #ud'efro retr(in' the four cases.
Elt was alle'ed that, as the decision ac6uittin' the had alread(
"een proul'ated with respect to the, a retrial of the cases
wouldsu")ect the to dou"le )eopard( for the sae offenses.
@n #une 0, 1>+, the $ourt of %irst Instance of =anila #ud'e
rsenio antos, presidin' disissed the petition, for the reason that
the decision of #ud'eta. =aria "ein' invalid "ecause its
proul'ation was effected when the )ud'e had alread( ceased to "e a
unicipal )ud'e, the sae cannot place the defendantstwice in
)eopard( for the sae offense. This is the decision that is the
su")ect of the present appeal.The appellants in effect contend that
since the decision of #ud'e ta. =aria was si'ned "( hi while he was
still the )ud'e of the =unicipal $ourt of =anila wherethe( were
tried, its proul'ation, althou'h ade in his a"sence, was valid. In
support of this contention, the( cite ection > of Rule 11>
now Rule 10 of theRules of $ourt, which reads*FB$. >.
Promulgation of #udgment.The )ud'ent is proul'ated "( readin' the
)ud'ent or sentence in the presence of the defendant and an* #ugde
of thecourt in !hich it !as rendered.The defendant ust "e
personall( present if the conviction is for a 'rave offense5 if for
a li'ht offense, the )ud'ent a( "epronounced in the presence of his
attorne( or representative. nd !hen the #udge is absent or outside
of the province or cit*, his presence is not necessar( andthe
)ud'ent a( "e proul'ated or read to the defendant "( the clerk of
court. 8 8 8.H Italics supplied.&ursuant to the a"ove-6uoted
provisions, the petitionersappellants ar'ue, the decision of #ud'e
ta. =aria was proul'ated in the presence of #ud'e
&aredes,another )ud'e of the =unicipal $ourt. The( clai that
the a"sence of #ud'e ta. =aria durin' the proul'ation does not
render the decision he penned prior to hisappointent to the
position of )ud'e of the court of first instance null and void.
Thus, it is alle'ed, the proul'ation thereof, upon order of #ud'e
&aredes, wasvalid and could "e the "asis of the defense of
dou"le )eopard(.
The a"ove-6uoted ection > of Rule 11> now Rule 10 of the
Rules of $ourt, allowin' the dispensa"ilit( of the presence of the
)ud'e in the readin' of asentence refers onl( to the ph(sical
a"sence of the )ud'e, and not to his ina"ilit( to "e present durin'
the proul'ation of the )ud'ent "ecause of the cessationof or his
reoval fro office. This is clear fro the use of the dis)unctive
clause Fa"sent or outside of the province or cit(H in the
provision. In other words, thedecision of the )ud'e a( "e
proul'ated even without his presence, as lon' as he is still a
)ud'e of that court.1
In the present case, what we have is not erel( ph(sical a"sence
of the )ud'e who penned the decision, "ut the cessation or
terination of his incu"enc( assuch )ud'e. In the case of People v.
$onifacio So * +rtega,this $ourt ruled*FIt is well-settled that, to
"e "indin' a )ud'ent ust "e dul( si'ned, and proul'ated durin' the
incu"enc( of the )ud'e who si'ned it.
FIn Lino Luna vs. Rodri'ueA, supra,#ud'e
8/10/2019 3 Cases Judicial Ethics
4/5
:herefore, findin' no error in the decision appealed fro, the
sae is here"( affired, with costs a'ainst the appellants. o
ordered.Chief %ustice Concepcionand%ustices %.$.L. e*es, -i(on,
egala, 'a"alintal, %.P. $eng(on,/aldivarand Sanche(,concur.
-ecision affirmed.RORIUE1 2S TESORERO
o L-+024* &etitioner, as a ta8-pa(er, an elector, and
president of the Nacionalista &art(, applies for a writ of
prohi"ition to restrain the Treasurer of the&hilippines fro
dis"ursin' B.@. No. 2 appropriates funds for the operation of the
&hilippine Governent durin' the period fro #ul( 1, 14 to
#une+0, 120, and for other purposes
o L-+02>* petitioner, with reference to B@ No. >
appropriates &>= to defra( the e8penses in connection with,
and incidental to, the hold lu' of thenational elections to "e held
in Nov. 14, asks this $ourt to prevent ;the respondents fro
dis"ursin', spendin' or otherwise disposin' of that aountor an(
part of it.;
s petitioners fail to assailin' the constitutionall( of ct No.
>31 in their oral ar'uent and eorandu the( rest their case
chiefl( on the proposition that
the $ No. >31 has ceased to have an( force and effect,
constitutionalit( of said act will "e taken for 'ranted. ct No.
>31, enacted "( the National sse"l(, is an act declarin' a state
of total eer'enc( as a result of war "etween the 9nited tates and
other countries
of Burope and sia, which involves the &hilippines and
authoriAin' the president to proul'ate rules and re'ulations to eet
such eer'enc(, pursuant to rt.KI, sec. >, of the $onstitution.
The pro"le is, $ No. >31 does not in ter fi8 the duration of its
effectiveness
Issue":@N $ No. >31 has ceased to have an( force and
effect
e)d and Ratio
B. rt. KI of the $onstitution provides that an( law passed "(
virtue thereof should "e ;for a liited period.; ;Liited period; as
used in the $onstitutioneans restrictive in duration. Ber'enc(, in
order to )ustif( the dele'ation of eer'enc( powers, ust "e teporar(
or it can not "e said to "e an eer'enc(.
It is to "e presued that $ No. >31 was approved with this
liitation in view as the opposite would ake the law repu'nant to
the $onstitution, and contrar(to the principle that the le'islature
is deeed to have full knowled'e of the constitutional scope of its
powers. The assertion that new le'islation is needed torepeal the
act would not "e in haron( with the $onstitution either.
=oreover, the fact that ec. 4, $ No. 431 which stipulates that
;the rules and re'ulations proul'ated thereunder shall "e in full
force and effect until the$on'ress of the &hilippines shall
otherwise provide; is silent re'ardin' the repeal of the authorit(
itself, in the face of the e8press provision for the repeal ofthe
rules and re'ulations issued in pursuance of it onl( eans that the
National sse"l( "elieved that there was no necessit( to provide for
a provisionre'ardin' the repeal of the authorit( itself. There
would "e no point in repealin' or annullin' the rules and
re'ulations proul'ated under a law if the law itself
was to reain in force, since, in that case, the &resident
could not onl( ake new rules and re'ulations "ut he could restore
the ones alread( annulled "( thele'islature.
It would anoalous to have two le'islative "odies Le'islative and
B8ecutive operatin' over the sae field, le'islatin' concurrentl(
and siultaneousl(,utuall( nullif(in' each others actions. Bven if
the eer'enc( powers of the &resident, as su''ested, "e
suspended while $on'ress was in session and "erevived after each
ad)ournent, the anoal( would not "e liited. $on'ress "( a J+ vote
could repeal e8ecutive orders proul'ated "( the &resident
durin'con'ressional recess, and the &resident in turn could
treat in the sae anner, "etween sessions of $on'ress, laws enacted
"( the latter.
side fro these anoalies, ec. +which provides that the
&resident shall as soon as practica"le upon the convenin' of
the $on'ress report thereto all therules and re'ulations proul'ated
"( hi under the powers herein 'rantediplies that there was to "e
onl( one eetin' of $on'ress at which the &resident
was to 'ive an account of his trusteeship. =oreover, &res.
MueAon, who called the National sse"l( to a special session, who
recoended the enactent of the Ber'enc( &owers ct, if indeed
he was not its author, and who was the ver( &resident to "e
entrusted with its e8ecution, stated in his auto"io'raph(, that $
No. >31 was onl( ;for a certainperiod; and ;would "ecoe invalid
unless reenacted.; These connote autoatic e8tinction of the law
upon the conclusion of a certain period. new le'islation
was necessar( to keep alive not to repeal the law after the
e8piration of that period. :hat then was the conteplated period?
&res. MueAon said he issued the call for a special session of
the National sse"l( ;when it "ecae evident that
we were copletel( helpless a'ainst air attack, and that it was
ost unlikel( the &hilippine Le'islature would hold its ne8t
re'ular session which was to openon #anuar( 1, 14.; %ro that, the
conferrin' of enorous powers upon the &resident was decided
upon with specific view to the ina"ilit( of the Nationalsse"l( to
eet, as no other factor than this ina"ilit( could have otivated the
dele'ation of powers so vast as to aount to an a"dication "( the
Nationalsse"l( of its authorit(.
H0L-)Thus, the $ourt held that the period conteplated fro the
fore'oin' was a period coe8tensive with the ina"ilit( of $on'ress
to function, a periodendin' with the convenin' of that "od(.
&articularl(, $ No. >31 "ecae inoperative when $on'ress et,
not in the first special session where the $on'ressa( ;consider
'eneral le'islation or onl( such as he &resident a( desi'nate.;
rt. KI, $onstitution "ut in re'ular session on =a( 2, 14> where
thepower $on'ress to le'islate is not circuscri"ed e8cept "( the
liitations iposed "( the or'anic law. The $ourt further held that
B@ Nos. >, 1, 2 and> were issued without authorit( of law
"ecause the( were issued when $ No. >31 was not in full force
and effect.
!avin' arrived at this conclusion, the $ourt need not decide the
6uestion as to which departent of 'overnent is authoriAed to
in6uire whether thecontin'enc( on which the law is predicated still
e8ists. The ri'ht of one or another departent to declare the
eer'enc( terinated is not in issue.
:hat the $ourt in this case did is to find out the will of
le'islature and, once found, to appl( it. @f course, the function
of interpretin' statutes in proper cases,
as in this, will not "e denied the courts as their
constitutional prero'ative and dut(. No le'al principle can "e
found to support the proposition that the $hief B8ecutive has the
e8clusive authorit( to sa( that war has not ended, and a( act
on
the stren'th of his opinion and findin's in contravention of the
law as the courts have construed it. nother pe' to the ratio
decidendi naks =ethod an' datin' !aha cts Nos. >00 and >0
even iparts "( e8press provision that the rules and re'ulations
to "e eventuall( ade in pursuance of cts Nos. >00 and >0,
were to "e 'ood onl( up to the correspondin' dates of ad)ournent of
the followin' sessions ofthe Le'islature, ;unless sooner aended or
repealed "( the National sse"l(.; %ro this the idea was fi8ed that
the cts theselves would lapse not latterthan the rules and
re'ulations. The desi'n to provide for the autoatic repeal of those
rules and re'ulations necessaril( was predicated on the
consciousnessof a prior or at "est siultaneous repeal of their
source.
The 6uestion whether war, in law or in fact, continues, is
irrelevant. If we were to that actual hostilities "etween the
ori'inal "elli'erents are still ra'in', theelusion would not "e
altered.
In the li'ht of the conditions surroundin' the approval of the
Ber'enc( &ower ct, we are of the opinion that the ;state of
total eer'enc( as a result of war;envisa'ed in the prea"le referred
to the ipendin' invasion and occupation of the &hilippines "(
the ene( and the conse6uent total disor'aniAation of theGovernent,
principall( the ipossi"ilit( for the National sse"l( to act. The
state of affairs was one which called for iediate action and with
which theNational sse"l( would not "e a"le to cope. The war itself
and its attendant chaos and calaities could not have necessitated
the dele'ation had the
National sse"l( "een in a position to operate. A Note on t/e
S*ste3 of Se-aration of Po4ers" The $onstitution has set up this
for of 'overnent, with all its defects and shortcoin's, in
preference to
the coin'lin' of powers in one an or 'roup of en. The %ilipino
people "( adoptin' parliaentar( 'overnent have 'iven notice that
the( share the faithof other deocrac(-lovin' people in this s(ste,
with all its faults, as the ideal. The point is, under this
fraework of 'overnent, le'islation is preserved for$on'ress all the
tie, not e8pectin' periods of crisis no atter how serious. The
truth is that under our concept of constitutional 'overnent, in
ties ofe8tree perils ore than in noral circustances ;the various
"ranches, e8ecutive, le'islative, and )udicial,; 'iven the a"ilit(
to act, are called upon ;to theduties and dischar'e the
responsi"ilities coitted to the respectivel(.; Thus, the
&resident should not retain his e8traordinar( powers as lon' as
turoiland other ills directl( or indirectl( tracea"le to the late
war harass the &hilippines
