Facts:

The case at hand is Alberto Julian vs. El Honorable Juez Jose Gutierrez David del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manila, G.R. No. L-960, decided on December 9, 1946. The petitioner, Alberto Julian, contested the authority of Dr. Gregorio T. Lantin, who was appointed by the Secretary of Justice to assist the City Fiscal of Manila. Dr. Lantin, a medical doctor and attorney, was designated under Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 144. The controversy arose when the authority of Dr. Lantin to sign informations was challenged, similar to previous cases (G.R. Nos. L-831, L-876, and L-878) where the same issue was raised. The lower court had to determine whether Dr. Lantin, as an appointed counsel, had the legal capacity to perform such functions typically reserved for the City Fiscal.

Issue:

1. Does the Secretary of Justice have the authority to appoint a lawyer to assist the Cit...

Facts:

Parties and Appointment

• Alberto Julian, the petitioner, challenges the actions of the City Fiscal of Manila.
• Dr. Gregorio T. Lantin, a doctor of medicine and attorney-at-law, was appointed by the Secretary of Justice to assist the City Fiscal under Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 144.

Nature of the Controversy

• The controversy centers on whether Dr. Lantin, by virtue of his appointment to assist the fiscal, is authorized to sign informations, conduct investigations, and prosecute criminal cases.
• The issue is linked to the broader question of whether the general language of the law confers upon appointees all necessary powers to carry out the fiscal’s duties.

Historical and Statutory Background

• The statutory basis originates from Section 45 of Act No. 136, which originally empowered the Attorney-General to assist provincial fiscals.
• Subsequent legislation, including amendments by Act No. 30, Act No. 325, Act No. 867, and later codifications in the Administrative Code (Sections 1661 and 1686), expanded and clarified the appointment and functions of additional counsel assisting fiscal officers.
• The Revised Administrative Code, as amended by the Commonwealth Act No. 144, reiterated that such appointees would have “the same authority therein as might be exercised by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General.”

Judicial and Practical Precedents

• The question was previously considered in related cases (G.R. Nos. L-831, L-876, and L-878), where similar issues regarding the authority of the appointed lawyer were raised.
• Judicial notice was taken of the long-standing practice wherein the Attorney-General himself, while assisting provincial fiscals, signed informations without an express legislative directive.

Divergence of Opinions

• The majority opinion holds that the appointment inherently includes the authority to sign informations, based on the broad interpretation of the statute and legislative intent.
• A concurring and dissenting opinion (Feria, J.) agrees with the result but contends that the delegation of powers, particularly a quasi-judicial one like signing informations, must come from an express statutory mandate rather than solely from an “assistance” role.

Issue:

Scope of Appointee’s Authority

• Does the appointment of a lawyer to assist a fiscal under Section 1686 inherently include the authority to sign informations, make investigations, and prosecute criminal cases?
• Is the general language of “assisting” the fiscal sufficient to confer all the necessary functions traditionally exercised by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General?

Validity of Delegation of Quasi-Judicial Functions

• Can the power to sign informations—a quasi-judicial function—be delegated to an appointee without express statutory authorization?
• Does the historical practice of the Attorney-General signing informations imply the same delegation to assistants under the current statutory framework?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)