G.R. No. 46267; November 28, 1938
FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, petitioner, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Zandueta was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Ninth Judicial District) under a confirmed ad interim appointment. Upon the effectivity of Commonwealth Act No. 145 (Judicial Reorganization Law), he received a new ad interim appointment as judge of the Fourth Judicial District, with authority over Manila and Palawan. He accepted, took his oath, and performed judicial and administrative acts under this new appointment. Later, the Commission on Appointments disapproved his ad interim appointment. Subsequently, respondent Sixto de la Costa was appointed, confirmed, and assumed the same judgeship. Zandueta filed a quo warranto proceeding, seeking to be declared the rightful occupant of the office and to oust De la Costa, implicitly challenging the constitutionality of the reorganization law as it affected his tenure.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Zandueta is estopped from questioning the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act No. 145 after having accepted the new appointment and discharged the office under said law.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is estopped. By voluntarily accepting the new appointment under the reorganized judiciary, taking the oath, and performing the duties of the new office (which was incompatible with and absorbed his former office), Zandueta abandoned his prior appointment. The rule of equity holds that a public official who accepts an appointment to a newly created or reorganized office, qualifies for it, and performs its duties, cannot thereafter question the constitutionality of the law authorizing that appointment. The Court found Commonwealth Act No. 145, which reorganized judicial districts, to be a valid exercise of legislative power. The petition was dismissed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.