G.R. No. 203834 - Heirs of Mendoza vs. Department of Public Works and Highways

Felipe Regalado qualified for the office of justice of the peace of Malinao, Albay, on April 12, 1906.
Regalado reached the age of sixty-five on September 13, 1934, a fact central to the controversy.

Section 203 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3899, set the retirement age for justices and auxiliary justices of the peace at sixty-five years.
The statute was originally enacted in Spanish and later translated into English; notable differences include:

The absence of the word “automáticamente” in the Spanish version, present as “automatically” in English.
An omission in the compiled Administrative Code wherein the word “office” is absent following the word “hold.”

The Spanish text contains the phrase “al tiempo de la vigencia de esta ley” (“at the time this Act takes effect”) and sets a specific removal date of “el primero de enero de mil novecientos treinta y tres” for justices who had already reached sixty-five by that point.

Following Regalado's attainment of the age of sixty-five, the judge of first instance of Albay, following instructions from the Secretary of Justice, designated Esteban T. Villar as the acting justice of the peace of Malinao, Albay.
Regalado was compelled to surrender his office to Villar under protest.
Villar subsequently qualified and assumed office on December 17, 1934.

Previous legislation, such as Act No. 2347, established age limits for judges of first instance, with similar provisions for vacating the office upon reaching sixty-five.
Section 203 had been amended by Act No. 3107 to prescribe that justices serve until attaining sixty-five, applying prospectively as held in Segovia vs. Noel.
During the legislative process of Act No. 3899, debates and alternate drafts revealed a shifting intent regarding whether the age limit should be applied retroactively.
The Solicitor-General’s interpretation argued for a broad application whereby all justices, regardless of appointment date, would cease to hold office upon reaching sixty-five.

Whether a justice of the peace appointed prior to Act No. 3899 should cease to hold office upon attaining the age of sixty-five if that milestone was reached after the Act took effect.
The interpretation revolves around the phrases “al tiempo de la vigencia de esta ley” (at the time this Act takes effect) and “hayan completado sesenta y cinco años de edad” (have completed sixty-five years of age).

Whether the statutory removal date of January 1, 1933, applies to all justices or exclusively to those who had reached the age limit by the Act’s approval date.
The contrasting interpretations:

The petitioner contends that only those justices who were already sixty-five at the time the Act took effect (November 16, 1931) should be removed.
The Solicitor-General asserts that the law mandates cessation of office upon attaining sixty-five, regardless of the date of appointment.