Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6355-56)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6355-56)
Facts:
Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo v. Saturnino David, G.R. Nos. L-6355-56, August 31, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiffs-appellees, Justice Pastor M. Endencia and Justice Fernando Jugo, sued Saturnino David, in his capacity as Collector of Internal Revenue (defendant-appellant), seeking refund of income taxes withheld from their judicial salaries. Endencia sought refund of P1,744.45 representing income tax collected on his 1951 salary as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Jugo sought refund of P2,345.46 representing income tax collected for the period January 1–October 19, 1950 (as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) and October 20–December 31, 1950 (as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court).
Because the legal question was identical, the two suits were consolidated and tried together before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Higinio B. Macadaeg presiding. The trial court, applying this Court’s prior decision in Perfecto v. Meer (85 Phil. 552), held that income tax collection on judicial salaries constituted a diminution of compensation prohibited by Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution, declared Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional as applied, and ordered the Collector to refund the withheld amounts to the plaintiffs (no special pronouncement as to costs).
The Collector appealed the CFI decision to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, appearing for the Collector, urged that Congress, reacting to Perfecto v. Meer, enacted Republic Act No. 590 and in particular its Section 13 to declare that no public officer’s salary is exempt from income tax and that such payment “is not a diminution” of constitutionally fixed compensation. The Supreme Court En Banc took up the appeal.
Issues:
- May the Legislature, by statute, validly declare that collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is “not a diminution” of compensation within the meaning of Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution (i.e., may Congress by statute override or bind the judicial interpretation of the Constitution)?
- Does the collection of income tax, particularly under a system of withholding at the source, on the salaries of judicial officers constitute a diminution of their compensation in violation of Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)