Supreme Court Hears Judges' Case.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: The above pl,oto, a Journal exclusive, shows the Supreme Court~ during the hearing of the "Judg~s' case" (Felicisimo Ocampo, et al. vs. The Secretary of Justice, ct al., G. R. No. L-7910) . At issue is the constitutionality of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1186 which abolished the positions of judges-at-large and cadastral judges. l'en judges-at-Ia1·ge and cadastral judges who were eased out of the judiciary in virtue of this provision alleged violation of the constitutional guarantee of judicial tenure, Shown standing at the extreme right is former Senator Vicente J. F1·ancisco, chief c,ounsel for the ten judges, as he pleaded the cause of judicial independence and the inviolability of judicial tenure. The former senator contended that the office of judgesat-large and cadastral judges is the exercise vf jurisdiction in Courts of First Instance throughout t.he country. Since, he argued, REpublic Act No. 1186 maintalned all the Courts of First Instance established under the Judiciary Act of 1948, the office of judges-at. large and cadastral judges still exists and consequently, the ouster of the ten judges amounted to their removal from office, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of tenure of judicial office. Other lawyers who appeared for the judges were former Ambassador Proceso Sebastian who maintained that Republic Act No. 1186 ''virtually convicted the ten judges before the bar of pu})lic 2) The Rank can not invoke the provision that the payor "may only recover from the debtor insofar as the payment has been beneficial to him," when made igainst his express will. This is a defense that may be availed of by the debtor, not by the Bank, for its affects solely the rights of the former. At any rate, in order that the rights of the pa.yer may be subject to said liMitation, the debtor must oppose the payments before or at the time the same were made, not subsequently thereto. "Entendemos como evident.e, que los preceptos de! art. 1158 que comentamos, y las distintas hipOtesis que establece, giran sobre la base de que la oposici&n del deudor al po;go ha de mos. trarse con anteriorida.d a la realizaci6n de cste pues de ser aqui!lla posterior, no cabe estimar verdadera y eficaz oposiciOn de buena fe, ya que en el caso de que antes hubiera conocido el proyecto de 'pago, habrla en RU silencio una aproba.ciOn tilcita que ahtorizaria incluso la subrogacion del tercero, y si lo habta ignorado antes de realizarse, se cstari"a en la .;itua.cion distinta prevista y regulada en los dos primeros p3rrafos del articulo 1158 yen el i159." <8 Manresa, 4th ed., pp. 248-249.> SUPREME COURT HEARS "JUDGES' CASE" opinion without due process," and Professor Amado G. Salazar of the Francisco College Law Faculty who stressed the limitations on the power of Cong:·css to abolish judicial offices. Congressmen Ferdinand Marcos, Diosdado Macapagal and Cornelio Villareal, as amici curiae, deplored the political motives which they alleged brought about the enactment of the controversial Act. On the other hand, Solicitvr General Ambrosio Padilla who appeared in behalf of the respondents, upheld the constitutionality of the law, invoking the right of Congress to abolish courts as corollary to its power of creating the same. He argued that the Act in question was intended to put an ~nd to "rigocion de jueces," or the practice of arbitrary assignments of judges from one province to another. Other members of the bar who argued before the Court were ex-Justice of the Court of Appeals Mariano de la Rosa and Attorneys Mariano Nicomedes and Abelardo Subido. • LA'h to R ii:hl: Justic1; Ilautiota Ani:telo, Justice Alex Reyes. Ju1tice Sabino Padilla. Ju•tice Guillermo F. P;1.blo, Chief Justice Ricardo Paras, Justice Cesar Bengzon, J ustice Marcelino Montemayor, Justice }'ernando Jul!"o, Ju s~ice Al~io Labrador an<! Juatice J. B. L. Reye.. Not seen in th.e picture is Just1c" Roberto Concepcion. Indeed, it is only fair that '.;he effects of said payment be determined at the time it was made, and that the rights then acquired by tht payor be not dependent ·upon, or subje:t to modification by, st:bsequent unil11teral acts or omissions of t'he debtor. At any rate, the theory that Anduiza had. not been benefited by the payments in ·question is predicated solely upon his original refusal t'o acknowledge thC" validity of said payments. Obviously, howevt?r, the question whether the same were beneficial or not to Anduiza, depends upon the law, not upon his will. Moreover, if his former enimosity towards Madrid sufficed to negate the beneficial effects of the payments under consideration, the subsequent change of front of Anduiza, would constil'ute an admission and proof of said beneficial effects. Being in confo;mity with Jaw, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, therefore, in toto. Paras, Pablo, BITTtgzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, J.J., concur. Mr. Justice Padilla. did not ta.lee part. Mr. Justice Labrador did not take part. 124 ,\\ THE LAWYERS .JOURNAL August 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights