Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC (1) G.R. No.

L-28790 April 29, 1968

ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS, as Commissioner of Land Registration, petitioner, vs. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, as Secretary of Justice, and RAFAEL M. SALAS, as Executive Secretary,respondents. Leandro Sevilla, Ramon C. Aquino and Lino M. Patajo for petitioner. Claudio Teehankee for and in his own behalf as respondent. REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.: Petition for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Secretary of Justice from investigating the official actuations of the Commissioner of Land Registration, and to declare inoperative his suspension by the Executive Secretary pending investigation. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner Antonio H. Noblejas is the duly appointed, confirmed and qualified Commissioner of Land Registration, a position created by Republic Act No. 1151. By the terms of section 2 of said Act, the said Commissioner is declared "entitled to the same compensation, emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance." The appropriation laws (Rep. Acts 4642, 4856 and 5170) in the item setting forth the salary of said officer, use the following expression: 1. One Land Registration Commissioner with the rank and privileges of district judge P19,000.00. On March 7, 1968, respondent Secretary of Justice coursed to the petitioner a letter requiring him to explain in writing not later than March 9, 1968 why no disciplinary action should be taken against petitioner for "approving or recommending approval of subdivision, consolidation and consolidated-subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles." Noblejas answered and apprised the Secretary of Justice that, as he enjoyed the rank, privileges, emoluments and compensation of a Judge of the Court of First Instance, he could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as a Judge of the Courts of First Instance, and, therefore, the papers relative to his case should be submitted to the Supreme Court, for action thereon conformably to section 67 of the Judiciary Act (R. A. No. 296) and Revised Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. On March 17, 1968, petitioner Noblejas received a communication signed by the Executive Secretary, "by authority of the President", whereby, based on "finding that a prima facie case exists against you for gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the public interest", petitioner was "hereby suspended, upon receipt hereof, pending investigation of the above charges." On March 18, 1968, petitioner applied to this Court, reiterating the contentions advanced in his letter to the Secretary of Justice, claiming lack of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion, and praying for restraining writs. In their answer respondents admit the facts but denied that petitioner, as Land Registration Commissioner, exercises judicial functions, or that the petitioner may be considered a Judge of First Instance within the purview of the Judiciary Act and Revised Rules of Court 140; that the function of investigating charges against public officers is administrative or executive in nature; that the Legislature may not charge the judiciary with non-judicial functions or duties except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties, as it would be in violation of the principle of the separation of powers. Thus, the stark issue before this Court is whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the conferment upon him by the Statutes heretofore mentioned (Rep. Act 1151 and Appropriation Laws) of the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.

First to militate against petitioner's stand is the fact that section 67 of the Judiciary Act providing for investigation, suspension or removal of Judges, specifically recites that "No District Judge shall be separated or removed from office by the President of the Philippines unless sufficient cause shall exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court . . ." and it is nowhere claimed, much less shown, that the Commissioner of Land Registration is a District Judge, or in fact a member of the Judiciary at all. In the second place, petitioner's theory that the grant of "privileges of a Judge of First Instance" includes by implication the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon its recommendation, would necessarily result in the same right being possessed by a variety of executive officials upon whom the Legislature had indiscriminately conferred the same privileges. These favoured officers include (a) the Judicial Superintendent of the Department of Justice (Judiciary Act, sec. 42); (b) the Assistant Solicitors General, seven in number (Rep. Act No. 4360); (c) the City Fiscal of Quezon City (R.A. No. 4495); (d) the City Fiscal of Manila (R. A. No. 4631) and (e) the Securities and Exchange Commissioner (R. A. No. 5050, s. 2). To adopt petitioner's theory, therefore, would mean placing upon the Supreme Court the duty of investigating and disciplining all these officials, whose functions are plainly executive, and the consequent curtailment by mere implication from the Legislative grant, of the President's power to discipline and remove administrative officials who are presidential appointees, and which the Constitution expressly placed under the President's supervision and control (Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 10[i]). Incidentally, petitioner's stand would also lead to the conclusion that the Solicitor General, another appointee of the President, could not be removed by the latter, since the Appropriation Acts confer upon the Solicitor General the rank and privileges of a Justice of the Court of Appeals, and these Justices are only removable by the Legislature, through the process of impeachment (Judiciary Act, sec. 24, par. 2). In our opinion, such unusual corollaries could not have been intended by the Legislature when it granted these executive officials the rank and privileges of Judges of First Instance. This conclusion gains strength when account is taken of the fact that in the case of the Judges of the Court of Agrarian Relations and those of the Court of Tax Appeals, the organic statutes of said bodies (Republic Act 1267, as amended by Act 1409; Rep. Act No. 1125) expressly provide that they are to be removed from office for the same causes and in the same manner provided by law for Judges of First Instance", or "members of the judiciary of appellate rank". The same is true of Judges of the Court of Agrarian Relations (Comm. Act No. 103) and of the Commissioner of Public Service (Public Service Act, Sec. 3). It is thereby shown that where the legislative design is to make the suspension or removal procedure prescribed for Judges of First Instance applicable to other officers, provision to that effect is made in plain and unequivocal language. But the more fundamental objection to the stand of petitioner Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really intended to include in the general grant of "privileges" or "rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance" the right to be investigated by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon recommendation of that Court, then such grant of privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by charging this court with the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief Executive over such officials. Justice Cardozo ruled in In re Richardson et al., Connolly vs. Scudder (247 N. Y. 401, 160 N. E. 655), saying: There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislature to charge the judiciary with administrative functions except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties. The United States Supreme Court said in Federal Radio Commission vs. General Electric Co., et al., 281 U.S. 469, 74 Law. Ed., 972, But this court cannot be invested with jurisdiction of that character, whether for purposes of review or otherwise. It was brought into being by the judiciary article of the Constitution, is invested with judicial power only and can have no jurisdiction other than of cases and controversies falling within the classes enumerated in that article. It cannot give decisions which are merely advisory; nor can it exercise or participate in the exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or administrative. Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., supra (261 U.S. 444, 67 L. ed. 736, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445) and cases cited; Postum Cereal Co. vs. California Fig Nut Co. supra (272 U.S. 700, 701, 71 L. ed. 481, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Grannis, 273 U.S. 70, 74, 71 L. ed. 541, 544, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282; Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Asso. 277 U.S. 274, 289, 72 L. ed. 880, 884, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Ex parte Bakelite Corp. 279 U.S. 438, 449, 73 L. ed. 789, 793, 49 Sup. Ct. Rep. 411. (Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Company, 281 U.S. 469, 74 L. ed. 972.) (Emphasis supplied.)

In this spirit, it has been held that the Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial functions; and a law requiring the Supreme Court to arbitrate disputes between public utilities was pronounced void in Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay Transportation Co. (57 Phil. 600).
1wph1.t

Petitioner Noblejas seeks to differentiate his case from that of other executive officials by claiming that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1151, he is endowed with judicial functions. The section invoked runs as follows: Sec. 4. Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of Land Registration. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by the records certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That, when a party in interest disagrees with the ruling or resolution of the Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law, said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days from and after receipt of the notice thereof. Serious doubt may well be entertained as to whether the resolution of a consulta by a Register of Deeds is a judicial function, as contrasted with administrative process. It will be noted that by specific provision of the section, the decision of the Land Registration Commissioner "shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds" alone, and not upon other parties. This limitation1 in effect identifies the resolutions of the Land Registration Commissioner with those of any other bureau director, whose resolutions or orders bind his subordinates alone. That the Commissioner's resolutions are appealable does not prove that they are not administrative; any bureau director's ruling is likewise appealable to the corresponding department head. But even granting that the resolution of consultas by the Register of Deeds should constitute a judicial (or more properly quasi judicial) function, analysis of the powers and duties of the Land Registration Commissioner under Republic Act No. 1151, sections 3 and 4, will show that the resolution of consultas are but a minimal portion of his administrative or executive functions and merely incidental to the latter. Conformably to the well-known principle of statutory construction that statutes should be given, whenever possible, a meaning that will not bring them in conflict with the Constitution,2 We are constrained to rule that the grant by Republic Act 1151 to the Commissioner of Land Registration of the "same privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance" did not include, and was not intended to include, the right to demand investigation by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon that Court's recommendation; for otherwise, the said grant of privileges would be violative of the Constitution and be null and void. Consequently, the investigation and suspension of the aforenamed Commissioner pursuant to sections 32 and 34 of the Civil Service Law (R. A. 2260) are neither abuses of discretion nor acts in excess of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the writs of prohibition and injunction applied for are denied, and the petition is ordered dismissed. No costs. Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.
1w ph1.t

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

A.M. No. 198-J May 31, 1971 PAZ M. GARCIA, complainant, vs. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., respondent. RESOLUTION

BARREDO, J.: Administrative complaint filed by one Paz M. Garcia against the Honorable Catalino Macaraig, Jr., formerly Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch VI, now Undersecretary of Justice, in his former capacity as judge, for alleged "dishonesty, violation of his oath of office as judge ... gross incompetence, violation of Republic Act 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, (particularly) Sections 5, 55 and 58 thereof, committed (allegedly) as follows: 2. That from July 1, 1970 up to February 28, 1971 inclusive, as such incumbent Judge, respondent herein, has not submitted his monthly reports containing the number of cases filed, disposed of, decided and/or resolved, the number of cases pending decisions for one month, two months to over three months, together with the title, number, number of hours of court session held a day, etc., as evidenced by the certificate issued by Hon. Eulalio D. Pichay, Judicial Superintendent, Dept. of Justice, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A", Item No. 1, in violation of Circular No. 10 of the Dept. of Justice dated February 6, 1952, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "B"; 3. That he has not submitted his certificate of service (New Judicial Form No. 86, Revised 1966) from July to December, 1970 and from January to February, 1971 inclusive as evidenced by the certificate issued by Judge Pichay, Judicial Superintendent, Dept. of Justice Annex "A", Item No. 2 thereof; 4. That as incumbent Judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo and knowing fully well that he has never performed his official duties or discharged the duties appertaining to his office, he has collected and was paid his salaries from July to December, 1970 and from January to February 1971 as evidenced by the certificate issued by the cashier Mrs. Santos of the Department of Justice hereto attached as Annex "C" and the certificate of Mr. Pichay Annex "A", last paragraph thereof, aggravated by his repeated failure to submit the certificate of service in flagrant violation of action 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which provides as follows: ... District judges, judges of City Courts, and municipal Judges shall certify on their application for leave, and upon salary vouchers presented by them for payment, or upon the payrolls upon which their salaries are paid, that all special proceedings, applications, petitions, motions, and all civil and criminal cases which have been under submission for decision or determination for a period of ninety days or more have been determined and decided on or before the date of making the certificate and ... no salary shall be paid without such certificate' (Emphasis supplied). 5. That his deliberate failure to submit the monthly reports from July to December, 1970 and from January, 1971 to February, 1971 stating therein the number of hours of session that the Court

holds daily, the accomplishments of the Court constitutes a clear violation of Sections 55 and 58 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. 6. That by his deliberate violation of his Oath of Office as a District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo, Branch VI he has manifested such moral bankruptcy as to deny his fitness to perform or discharge official duties in the administration of justice. 7. That on June 29, 1970, respondent Judge wrote to the Honorable Secretary of Justice informing him that he was entering upon the performance of his duties, which letter of his reads in full: 'I have the honor to inform you that I am entering upon the performance of the duties of the office of Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City (Branch VI) today, June 29, 1970.' That such actuation of deliberately telling a deliberate falsehood aggravates his moral bankruptcy incompatible to the requirements of the highest degree of honesty, integrity and good moral character appertaining to holding the position of Judge in the administration of justice. Upon being so required, in due time, respondent filed an answer alleging pertinently that: THE FACTS Respondent took his oath as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City with station at Calamba on June 29, 1970. The court, being one of the 112 newly created CFI branches, had to be organized from scratch. After consultations with the officials of the province of Laguna, the municipality of Calamba and the Department of Justice, respondent decided to accept the offer of the Calamba Municipal Government to supply the space for the courtroom and offices of the court; to utilize the financial assistance promised by the Laguna provincial government for the purchase of the necessary supplies and materials; and to rely on the national government for the equipment needed by the court (Under Section 190 of the Revised Administrative Code, all these items must be furnished by the provincial government. The provincial officials of Laguna, however, informed the respondent that the province was not in a position to do so). As to the space requirements of the court, the Municipal Mayor of Calamba assured the respondent that the court could be accommodated in the west wing of the Calamba municipal building as soon as the office of the municipal treasurer and his personnel are transferred to another location. When the projected transfer of the municipal treasurer's office was about to be effected, the treasurer and several municipal councilors objected. The municipal mayor then requested the respondent to look over some of the office spaces for rent in Calamba, with the commitment that the municipal government will shoulder the payment of the rentals. Respondent's first choice was the second floor of the Republic Bank branch in Calamba, but the negotiations failed when the owner of the building refused to reduce the rent to P300 a month. The next suitable space selected by respondent was the second floor of the Laguna Development Bank. After a month's negotiations, the municipality finally signed a lease agreement with the owner on October 26, 1970. Another month passed before the municipal government could release the amount necessary for the improvements to convert the space that was rented, which was a big hall without partitions, into a courtroom and offices for the personnel of the court and for the assistant provincial fiscal. Thereafter, upon respondent's representations, the provincial government appropriated the amount of P5,000 for the purchase of the supplies and materials needed by the court. Early in December, 1970 respondent also placed his order for the necessary equipment with the Property Officer of the Department of Justice but, unfortunately, the appropriation for the equipment of courts of first instance was released only on December 23, 1970 and the procurement of the equipment chargeable against this allotment is still under way (please see enclosed certification of the Financial Officer of the Department of Justice marked Annex "A"). "When respondent realized that it would be sometime before he could actually preside over his court, he applied for an extended leave (during the 16 years he had worked in the Department of Justice, respondent had, due to pressure of duties, never gone on extended leave, resulting in his forfeiting all the leave benefits he had earned beyond the maximum ten months allowed by the law). The Secretary of Justice, however, prevailed upon

respondent to forego his leave and instead to assist him, without being extended a formal detail, whenever respondent was not busy attending to the needs of his court. "Charges Have No Basis -- . "Complainant has charged respondent with dishonesty, violation of his oath of office, grave incompetence and violation of Sections 5, 55 and 58 of the Judiciary Act. "It is respectfully submitted that -- . "A. Respondent's inability to perform his judicial duties under the circumstances mentioned above does not constitute incompetence. Respondent was like every lawyer who gets his first appointment to the bench, eager to assume his judicial duties and rid himself of the stigma of being 'a judge without a sala', but forces and circumstances beyond his control prevented him from discharging his judicial duties. "B. Respondent's collection of salaries as judge does not constitute dishonesty because aside from the time, effort and money he spent in organizing the CFI at Calamba, he worked in the Department of Justice (please see enclosed certification of Undersecretary of Justice Guillermo S. Santos marked Annex 'B'). Indeed, even if respondent did no more than exert efforts to organize his court, he could, as other judges have done, have collected his salaries as judge without being guilty of dishonesty. "Incidentally, when respondent took his oath as CFI judge which position then carried a salary of P19,000 per annum, he automatically ceased to be Chief of the Technical Staff of the Department of Justice and Member of the Board of Pardons and Parole, positions from which he was receiving P16,200 and P8,000 per annum, respectively. Also, in anticipation of the judicial duties which he was about to assume, respondent took a leave of absence from his professorial lecturer's duties in the U.P. College of Law where he was receiving approximately P600 a month. "C. Sections 5, 55 and 58 of the Judiciary Act and Circular No. 10 dated February 6, 1952 of the Department of Justice are not applicable to a Judge not actually discharging his judicial duties. "The Department of Justice has never required judges who have not actually started, to perform their judicial duties to comply with the abovementioned statutory-provisions and circular (please see enclosed certification of Judge Eulalio D. Pichay, Judicial Superintendent, marked Annex 'C'). "Moreover, a reading of these sections and circular makes evident the folly of requiring a judge who has not entered into the Performance of his judicial duties to comply with them. Taking Section 5, how could a judge who has not started to discharge his judicial duties certify that 'all special proceedings, applications, petitions, motions, and all civil and criminal cases, which have been under submission for decision or determination for a period of ninety days or more have been determined and decided on or before the date of making the certificate.' And bow could such a judge hold court in his place of permanent station as required by Section 55; observe the hours of daily sessions of the court as prescribed by Section 58; and render the reports required by Circular No. 10 when his court is not yet in physical existence Clearly, therefore, Sections 5, 55 and 58 of the Judiciary Act and Circular No. 10 cannot apply to such a judge." . In view of the nature of the allegations of complainant and respondent in their respective complaint and answer and considering, in the light thereof, that the material facts are more or less undisputed, the Court feels that this case can be disposed of without any further proceeding. After mature study and deliberation, the Court is convinced that the complaint must be dismissed. To begin with, We cannot discern any tinge of dishonesty in the actuations for the respondent complained of. As We see it, the situation is not exactly as complainant has attempted to portray it. Complainant's theory is that respondent collected or received salaries as judge when in fact he has never acted as such, since the date he took his oath up to the filing of the complaint. In the sense that respondent has not yet performed any judicial function, it may be admitted that respondent has not really performed the duties of judge. What is lost sight of, however, is that after taking his oath and formally assuming this position as judge, respondent had a perfect right to earn the salary of a judge even in the extreme supposition that he did not perform any judicial function for he could, while preparing himself for his new job or for any good reason, take a leave, as in fact, he had planned to do, were it not for the request of the Secretary of Justice for him to forego the idea and, instead, help the Department in whatever way possible which would not, it must be presumed, impair his position as a judge. This is more so, when, as in this case, the government officials or officers in duty bound to furnish him the necessary place and facilities for his court and the performance of his functions have failed to provide him therewith without any fault

on his part. That respondent took it upon himself to personally work for early action on the part of the corresponding officials in this direction and, in his spare time, made himself available to the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary, what with his vast experience, having worked therein for sixteen years, is, far from being dishonesty, to his credit. In the circumstances, it was certainly not improper that he rendered some kind of service to the government, since he was receiving salaries, while being unable to perform his regular duties as judge without any fault on, his part. As to whether or not in doing so he, placed in jeopardy the independence of the judiciary and failed to act according to the correct norm of conduct which a judge should observe vis-a-vis service to the other departments of the government will be discussed a non. At this juncture, the only point We settle is that complainant's theory of dishonesty cannot hold water. Admittedly respondent has not prepared and submitted any of the reports of accomplishments and status of cases in his sala which are usually required of judges under existing laws as well as the corresponding circulars of the Department of Justice. The reason is simple. He has not yet started performing any judicial functions. None of those laws and circulars apply to him for all of them contemplate judges who are actually holding trials and hearings and making decisions and others. On the other hand, respondent Could not be blamed for taking his oath as he did, for he had a valid confirmed appointment in his favor. In other words, he simply made himself available for the purpose for which he was appointed. That he could not actually hold office in the court to which he was appointed was not of his making. The other officials in charge of providing him therewith seem to have been caught unprepared and have not had enough time to have it read. Conceivably, under the law, with the permission of this Court, respondent could have been assigned to another court pending all these preparations, but that is something within the initiative control of the Secretary of Justice and nor of the respondent. Of course, none of these is to be taken as meaning that this Court looks with favor at the practice of long standing to be sure, of judges being detailed in the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts. The line between what a judge may do and what he may not do in collaborating or working with other offices or officers under the other great departments of the government must always be kept clear and jealously observed, least the principle of separation of powers on which our government rests by mandate of the people thru the Constitution be gradually eroded by practices purportedly motivated by good intentions in the interest of the public service. The fundamental advantages and the necessity of the independence of said three departments from each other, limited only by the specific constitutional precepts a check and balance between and among them, have long been acknowledged as more paramount than the serving of any temporary or passing governmental conveniences or exigencies. It is thus of grave importance to the judiciary under our present constitutional scheme of government that no judge or even the lowest court in this Republic should place himself in a position where his actuations on matters submitted to him for action or resolution would be subject to review and prior approval and, worst still, reversal, before they can have legal effect, by any authority other than the Court of Appeals or this Supreme Court, as the case may be. Needless to say, this Court feels very strongly that, it is best that this practice is discontinued. WHEREFORE, the herein administrative complaint is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Secretary of Justice.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-37878 November 25, 1932

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL., respondents. Ross, Lawrence & Selph for petitioner. Rivera & Francisco for respondent Pasay Transportation Co. P. A. Remigio for respondent E. B. Gutierrez. A. M. Zarate for respondent Raymundo Transportation Co. Vicente Ampil for respondent J. Ampil.

MALCOLM, J.: The preliminary and basic question presented by the petition of the Manila Electric Company, requesting the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms upon which certain transportation companies shall be permitted to use the Pasig bridge of the Manila Electric Company and the compensation to be paid to the Manila Electric Company by such transportation companies, relates to the validity of section 11 of Act No. 1446 and to the legal right of the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, to act on the petition. Act No. 1446 above referred to is entitled. "An Act granting a franchise to Charles M. Swift to construct, maintain, and operate an electric railway, and to construct, maintain, and operate an electric light, heat, and power system from a point in the City of Manila in an easterly direction to the town of Pasig, in the Province of Rizal." Section 11 of the Act provides: "Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on which said other person or corporation shall use such right of way, and the compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final." When the petition of the Manila Electric Company was filed in this court, it was ordered that the petitioner be required to serve copies on the Attorney-General and the transportation companies affected by the petition. Thereafter, the Attorney-General disclaimed any interest in the proceedings, and opposition was entered to the petition by a number of public utility operators. On the submission of memoranda after an oral hearing, the petition was made ready for resolution. Examining the statutory provision which is here invoked, it is first noted that power is attempted to be granted to the members of the Supreme Court sitting as a board of arbitrators and to the Supreme Court as an entity. It is next seen that the decision of a majority of the members of the Supreme Court is made final. And it is finally observed that the franchise granted the Manila Electric Company by the Government of the Philippine Islands, although only a contract between the parties to it, is now made to effect the rights of persons not signatories to the covenant. The law calls for arbitration which represents a method of the parties' own choice. A submission to arbitration is a contract. The parties to an arbitration agreement may not oust the courts of jurisdiction of the matters submitted to arbitration. These are familiar rules which find support in articles 1820 and 1821 of the Civil Code. Citation of authority is hardly necessary, except that it should be recalled that in the Philippines, and in the United States for that matter, it has been held that a clause in a contract, providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitrators and to them alone, is contrary to public policy and cannot oust the courts of jurisdiction (Wahl and Wahl vs. Donaldson, Sims & Co. [1903], 2 Phil., 301; Puentebella vs. Negros Coal Co. [1927], 50 Phil., 69; Vega vs. San Carlos Milling Co. [1924], 51 Phil., 908; District of Columbia vs. Bailey [1897], 171 U. S., 161.) We would not be understood as extending the principles governing arbitration and award too far. Unless the arbitration agreement is such as absolutely to close the doors of the courts against the parties, the courts should look with favor upon such amicable arrangements. We can also perceive a distinction between a private

contract for submission to arbitration and agreements to arbitrate falling within the terms of a statute enacted for such purpose and affecting others than the parties to a particular franchise. Here, however, whatever else may be said in extenuation, it remains true that the decision of the board of arbitrators is made final, which if literally enforced would leave a public utility, not a party to the contract authorized by Act No. 1446, without recourse to the courts for a judicial determination of the question in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner rely principally on the case of Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co. vs. Commissioner's Court[1908], 158 Ala., 263. It was there held that an Act of a state legislature authorizing the commissioners' court of a certain county to regulate and fix the rate of toll to be charged by the owners of a bridge is not unconstitutional as delegating legislative power to the courts. But that is not the question before us. Here the question is not one of whether or not there has been a delegation of legislative authority to a court. More precisely, the issue concerns the legal right of the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act in that capacity. We run counter to this dilemma. Either the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise judicial functions, or the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as board of arbitrators, exercise administrative or quasi judicial functions. The first case would appear not to fall within the jurisdiction granted the Supreme Court. Even conceding that it does, it would presuppose the right to bring the matter in dispute before the courts, for any other construction would tend to oust the courts of jurisdiction and render the award a nullity. But if this be the proper construction, we would then have the anomaly of a decision by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, taken therefrom to the courts and eventually coming before the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court would review the decision of its members acting as arbitrators. Or in the second case, if the functions performed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, be considered as administrative or quasi judicial in nature, that would result in the performance of duties which the members of the Supreme Court could not lawfully take it upon themselves to perform. The present petition also furnishes an apt illustration of another anomaly, for we find the Supreme Court as a court asked to determine if the members of the court may be constituted a board of arbitrators, which is not a court at all.
lawphil.net

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law (sec. 26). When the Organic Act speaks of the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it could not only mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court acting as a court, and could hardly mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators. There is an important distinction between the Supreme Court as an entity and the members of the Supreme Court. A board of arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper sense of the term, and possesses none of the jurisdiction which the Organic Act contemplates shall be exercised by the Supreme Court.
lawph!l.net

In the last judicial paper from the pen of Chief Justice Taney, it was said: The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other duty. . . . The award of execution is a part, and an essential part of every judgment passed by a court exercising judicial power. It is no judgment, in the legal sense of the term, without it. Without such an award the judgment would be inoperative and nugatory, leaving the aggrieved party without a remedy. It would be merely an opinion, which would remain a dead letter, and without any operation upon the rights of the parties, unless Congress should at some future time sanction it, and pass a law authorizing the court to carry its opinion into effect. Such is not the judicial power confided to this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; yet it is the whole power that the court is allowed to exercise under this act of Congress. . . . And while it executes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising any power that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution. . . . (Gordon vs. United States [1864], 2 Wall., 561; 117 U. S., 697 Appendix.)

Confirming the decision to the basic question at issue, the Supreme Court holds that section 11 of Act No. 1446 contravenes the maxims which guide the operation of a democratic government constitutionally established, and that it would be improper and illegal for the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final, to act on the petition of the Manila Electric Company. As a result, the members of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the matter. Avancea, C.J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, Imperial and Butte, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-51122 March 25, 1982 EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. REYES, ANTONIO G. PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. RECTO and REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL, petitioners, vs. HON. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Associate Commissioner of the Securities & Exchange Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C. ACERO, R. G. VILDZIUS, ENRIQUE M. BELO, MANUEL G. ABELLO, SERVILLANO DOLINA, JUANITO MERCADO and ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ, respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction is poised against the Order of respondent Associate Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granting Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747. A question of novel import is in issue. For its resolution, the following dates and allegations are being given and made: a) May 14,1979. An election for the eleven Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) a private corporation, was held. Those in charge ruled that the following were elected as Directors: Eugenio J. Puyat Eustaquio T.C. Acero Erwin L. Chiongbian R. G. Vildzius Edgardo P. Reyes Enrique M. Belo Antonio G. Puyat Servillano Dolina Jaime R. Blanco Juanito Mercado Rafael R. Recto Those named on the left list may be called the Puyat Group; those on the right, the Acero Group. Thus, the Puyat Group would be in control of the Board and of the management of IPI. b) May 25, 1979. The Acero Group instituted at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quo warrantoproceedings, docketed as Case No. 1747 (the SEC Case), questioning the election of May 14, 1979. The Acero Group claimed that the stockholders' votes were not properly counted.

c) May 25-31, 1979. The Puyat Group claims that at conferences of the parties with respondent SEC Commissioner de Guzman, Justice Estanislao A. Fernandez, then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, orally entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero to which the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds. Section 11, Article VIII, of the 1973 Constitution, then in force, provided that no Assemblyman could "appear as counsel before ... any administrative body", and SEC was an administrative body. Incidentally, the same prohibition was maintained by the April 7, 1981 plebiscite. The cited Constitutional prohibition being clear, Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his appearance for respondent Acero. d) May 31, 1979. When the SEC Case was called, it turned out that: (i) On May 15, 1979, Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez had purchased from Augusto A. Morales ten (10) shares of stock of IPI for P200.00 upon request of respondent Acero to qualify him to run for election as a Director. (ii) The deed of sale, however, was notarized only on May 30, 1979 and was sought to be registered on said date. (iii) On May 31, 1979, the day following the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez' purchase, the latter had filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the SEC Case as the owner of ten (10) IPI shares alleging legal interest in the matter in litigation. e) July 17, 1979. The SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis of Atty. Fernandez' ownership of the said ten shares. 1 It is this Order allowing intervention that precipitated the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. f) July 3, 1979. Edgardo P. Reyes instituted a case before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), Branch XXI, against N.V. Verenigde Bueinzenfabrieken Excelsior De Maas and respondent Eustaquio T. C. Acero and others, to annul the sale of Excelsior's shares in the IPI to respondent Acero (CC No. 33739). In that case, Assemblyman Fernandez appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior In L-51928, we ruled that Assemblyman Fernandez could not appear as counsel in a case originally filed with a Court of First Instance as in such situation the Court would be one "without appellate jurisdiction." On September 4, 1979, the Court en banc issued a temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent SEC Associate Commissioner from allowing the participation as an intervenor, of respondent Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez at the proceedings in the SEC Case. The Solicitor General, in his Comment for respondent Commissioner, supports the stand of the latter in allowing intervention. The Court en banc, on November 6, 1979, resolved to consider the Comment as an Answer to the Petition. The issue which will be resolved is whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC Case without violating Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution, which, as amended, now reads: SEC. 11. No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction. before any court in any civil case wherein the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or before any administrative body. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office.

He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he may be called to act on account of his office. (Emphasis supplied) What really has to be resolved is whether or not, in intervening in the SEC Case, Assemblyman Fernandez is, in effect, appearing as counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body in contravention of the Constitutional provision. Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as counsel. Ostensibly, he is not appearing on behalf of another, although he is joining the cause of the private respondents. His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI in respect of the matter in litigation and not for the protection of the petitioners nor respondents who have their respective capable and respected counsel. However, certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case. He had acquired a mere P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing ten shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares. He acquired them "after the fact" that is, on May 30, 1979, after the contested election of Directors on May 14, 1979, after the quo warranto suit had been filed on May 25, 1979 before SEC and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31, 1979. And what is more, before he moved to intervene, he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent Eustaquio T. C. Acero, 2 but which was objected to by petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of the objection, he decided, instead, to "intervene" on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. And it maybe noted that in the case filed before the Rizal Court of First Instance (L-51928), he appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior, codefendant of respondent Acero therein. Under those facts and circumstances, we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before ... an administrative body" and, in our opinion, that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. To believe the avowed purpose, that is, to enable him eventually to vote and to be elected as Director in the event of an unfavorable outcome of the SEC Case would be pure naivete. He would still appear as counsel indirectly. A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the constitutional provision ineffective. All an Assemblyman need do, if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire a minimal participation in the "interest" of the client and then "intervene" in the proceedings. That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited. 3 In brief, we hold that the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in SEC. No. 1747 falls within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution. Our resolution of this case should not be construed as, absent the question of the constitutional prohibition against members of the Batasan, allowing any stockholder, or any number of stockholders, in a corporation to intervene in any controversy before the SEC relating to intra-corporate matters. A resolution of that question is not necessary in this case. WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner's Order granting Atty. Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No. 1747 is hereby reversed and set aside. The temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 IN RE: DESIGNATION OF JUDGE RODOLFO U. MANZANO AS MEMBER OF THE ILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE.

PADILLA, J.: On 4 July 1988, Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano, Executive Judge, RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Branch 19, sent this Court a letter which reads: Hon. Marcelo Fernan Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Manila Thru channels: Hon. Leo Medialdea Court Administrator Supreme Court of the Philippines Sir: By Executive Order RF6-04 issued on June 21, 1988 by the Honorable Provincial Governor of Ilocos Norte, Hon. Rodolfo C. Farinas, I was designated as a member of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice created pursuant to Presidential Executive Order No. 856 of 12 December 1986, as amended by Executive Order No. 326 of June 1, 1988. In consonance with Executive Order RF6-04, the Honorable Provincial Governor of Ilocos Norte issued my appointment as a member of the Committee. For your ready reference, I am enclosing herewith machine copies of Executive Order RF6-04 and the appointment. Before I may accept the appointment and enter in the discharge of the powers and duties of the position as member of the Ilocos (Norte) Provincial Committee on Justice, may I have the honor to request for the issuance by the Honorable Supreme Court of a Resolution, as follows: (1) Authorizing me to accept the appointment and to as assume and discharge the powers and duties attached to the said position; (2) Considering my membership in the Committee as neither violative of the Independence of the Judiciary nor a violation of Section 12, Article VIII, or of the second paragraph of Section .7, Article IX (B), both of the Constitution, and will not in any way amount to an abandonment of my present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, and as a member of the Judiciary; and (3) Consider my membership in the said Committee as part of the primary functions of an Executive Judge. May I please be favored soon by your action on this request. Very respectfully yours, (Sgd) RODOLFO U. MANZANO Judge

An examination of Executive Order No. 856, as amended, reveals that Provincial/City Committees on Justice are created to insure the speedy disposition of cases of detainees, particularly those involving the poor and indigent ones, thus alleviating jail congestion and improving local jail conditions. Among the functions of the Committee are 3.3 Receive complaints against any apprehending officer, jail warden, final or judge who may be found to have committed abuses in the discharge of his duties and refer the same to proper authority for appropriate action; 3.5 Recommend revision of any law or regulation which is believed prejudicial to the proper administration of criminal justice. It is evident that such Provincial/City Committees on Justice perform administrative functions. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for; their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence (Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc., vs. Tapucar, SP-07599-R, 29 September 1978, Blacks Law Dictionary). Furthermore, under Executive Order No. 326 amending Executive Order No. 856, it is provided that Section 6. Supervision.The Provincial/City Committees on Justice shall be under the supervision of the Secretary of justice Quarterly accomplishment reports shall be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Justice. Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi- judicial or administrative functions (Section 12, Art. VIII, Constitution). Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in the Ilocos Norte Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges an administrative functions, will be in violation of the Constitution, the Court is constrained to deny his request. Former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in his concurring opinion in the case of Garcia vs. Macaraig (39 SCRA 106) ably sets forth: 2. While the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaire application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character. That is implicit in the principle. Otherwise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the trust reposed in him is to decide. Only a higher court, as was emphasized by Justice Barredo, can pass on his actuation. He is not a subordinate of an executive or legislative official, however eminent. It is indispensable that there be no exception to the rigidity of such a norm if he is, as expected, to be confined to the task of adjudication. Fidelity to his sworn responsibility no less than the maintenance of respect for the judiciary can be satisfied with nothing less. This declaration does not mean that RTC Judges should adopt an attitude of monastic insensibility or unbecoming indifference to Province/City Committee on Justice. As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As public officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the laudable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties. ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid request of Judge Rodolfo U. Manzano is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Macariola v. Asuncion
114 SCRA 77, May 31, 1982 (En Banc), J. Makasiar

Facts: When the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 rendered by respondent Hon. Judge Elias B. Asuncion of Court of First Instance of Leyte became final on June 8, 1863 for lack of an appeal, a project of partition was submitted to him which he later approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963. Among the parties thereto was complainant Bernardita R. Macariola. One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184. This lot according to the decision rendered by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. On July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon who later sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. Thereafter spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein Judge Asuncion was the president. Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9, 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge" alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the complaints against Judge Asuncion. After the investigation, report and recommendation conducted by Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, she recommended on her decision dated March 27, 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated.

Issue: Does Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals violated any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of Lot 1184-E which he previously decided in a Civil Case No. 3010 and his engagement in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as a judge of the CFI of Leyte constitute an "act unbecoming of a judge"?

Ruling: No. The respondent Judge Asuncion's actuation does not constitute of an "act unbecoming of a judge." But he is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities. SC ruled that the prohibition in Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to operate, the sale or assignment of the property during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Respondent judge purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6, 1965, the in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period. Hence, the lot in question was no longer subject to litigation. Furthermore, Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased Lot1184-E from the plaintiffs Reyes after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. SC stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from the US to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce, consequently, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent Judge Asuncion. Respondent Judge cannot also be held liable to par. H, Section 3 of R.A. 3019 because the business of the corporation in which respondent participated had obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. SC stated that respondent judge and his wife deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm 22 days after its incorporation realizing that their interest contravenes the Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.