Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886)
Facts:
In the case of Vicente Segovia vs. Pedro Noel, the petitioner Vicente Segovia was appointed as the justice of the peace for Dumanjug, Cebu, on January 21, 1907. He held this position until he was ordered to vacate the office upon reaching the age of sixty-five on July 1, 1924, by the Secretary of Justice. Consequently, Pedro Noel, the auxiliary justice of the peace, began occupying the position. In an attempt to reclaim his office and avoid any public disturbance or confrontation, Segovia initiated quo warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, challenging Noel’s right to the position and seeking his own reinstatement. In response, Pedro Noel filed a demurrer, arguing that the petition did not present sufficient facts for a cause of action, asserting the constitutionality of Act No. 3107, which mandated that justices of the peace and auxiliary justices be appointed until they reached the age of sixty-five. The case was presided over by Honorable Adolph Wislize
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886)
Facts:
- Background of Appointment and Service
- Vicente Segovia was appointed as justice of the peace of Dumanjug, Cebu, on January 21, 1907.
- He continuously occupied the position until he reached the age of sixty-five.
- During his incumbency, he served under older laws governing the tenure of justices of the peace, which granted service "during good behavior" or for a fixed term as amended over time by various Acts.
- Legislative Changes Affecting the Office
- Act No. 3107 amended section 203 of the Administrative Code, adding a proviso that justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years.
- The existing provision under section 206 of the Administrative Code, which allowed justices to hold office during good behavior, was left unchanged by Act No. 3107.
- The new amendment did not include any explicit indication that the age limitation should be applied retroactively to those already in office.
- Events Leading to the Legal Controversy
- On July 1, 1924, the Secretary of Justice ordered Segovia to vacate his post upon reaching the age limit prescribed by the recent legislative amendment.
- Pedro Noel, who was the auxiliary justice of the peace, subsequently assumed the office for the municipality of Dumanjug.
- To avoid a public scandal and potential physical resistance regarding the occupancy of the office by the auxiliary justice, Segovia initiated a friendly quo warranto proceeding.
- The proceeding sought to inquire into the right of Pedro Noel to occupy the office.
- Segovia demanded the ouster of Pedro Noel and reinstatement of himself as the justice of the peace.
- Proceedings in the Lower Court
- Pedro Noel interposed a demurrer arguing that Segovia’s complaint did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.
- His argument rested on the constitutionality of Act No. 3107 and on the notion that Segovia had automatically ceased to be justice of the peace upon reaching sixty-five.
- The trial court, after considering the stipulated facts and the demurrer, rendered judgment in favor of Segovia by overruling the demurrer.
Issues:
- Main Question Presented
- Whether the portion of Act No. 3107 providing that justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until reaching the age of sixty-five should be given retroactive or prospective effect.
- Subsidiary Considerations
- Whether the legislative amendment intended to disturb the existing rights of incumbents, particularly those already holding office under previous provisions that allowed service during good behavior.
- Whether the absence of explicit language indicating retroactivity in Act No. 3107 implies a prospective application of the age limitation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)