GR 43575; (May, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43575; May 31, 1935
JUAN TAÑADA, petitioner, vs. JOSE YULO, Secretary of Justice, EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of the Thirteenth Judicial District, and SANTIAGO TAÑADA, Justice of the Peace of Alabat, Tayabas, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan Tañada was appointed justice of the peace of Alabat, Tayabas, on December 4, 1911. On September 8, 1934, he was transferred, at his own request, to the same position in Perez, Tayabas, pursuant to section 206 of the Revised Administrative Code. He turned 65 years old on October 5, 1934. Subsequently, the Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, acting on instructions from the Department of Justice, directed him to cease acting as justice of the peace, citing Act No. 3899 , which provided that justices of the peace who had completed 65 years of age “at the time this Act takes effect” would cease to hold office on January 1, 1933. Tañada surrendered his office under protest and filed this quo warranto proceeding.
ISSUE
1. Whether Act No. 3899 applies to a justice of the peace appointed prior to its approval who reached 65 years of age after January 1, 1933.
2. Whether Tañada’s transfer to another municipality constituted a new appointment subjecting him to Act No. 3899 .
RULING
1. No. Act No. 3899 , by its clear language, only applied to justices of the peace who had already reached 65 years of age at the time the Act took effect (November 16, 1931) and required them to cease holding office on January 1, 1933. Since Tañada turned 65 only in 1934, he was not covered by the Act. The Court affirmed its ruling in Regalado v. Yulo, emphasizing that legislative intent must be determined from the statute’s plain language, and courts cannot insert missing terms to alter its meaning.
2. No. A transfer of a justice of the peace from one municipality to another, pursuant to section 206 of the Revised Administrative Code, does not constitute a new appointment requiring Senate confirmation. It is merely a change in jurisdiction or place of service grounded on the original appointment. The Court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Nicolas v. Alberto, which held that such a transfer is not an appointment but an administrative reassignment within the scope of the original appointment.
The writ of quo warranto was granted, and Juan Tañada was ordered reinstated to the office of justice of the peace of Perez, Tayabas.
AI Generated by Armztrong.