Tanada vs. Yulo

Facts:

Juan Tanada v. Jose Yulo, G.R. No. 43575. May 31, 1935, the Supreme Court En Banc, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Juan Tanada was appointed Justice of the Peace of Alabat, Tayabas by the Governor-General with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission on December 4, 1911. He served continuously until September 8, 1934, when, at his own request and "pursuant to the provisions of section 206 of the Revised Administrative Code," he was transferred by the Governor-General to the position of Justice of the Peace for Perez, Tayabas.

Tanada attained the age of sixty-five on October 5, 1934. Because Act No. 3899 (which amended the Administrative Code) had been approved on November 16, 1931 and its proviso to section 203 provided that justices of the peace "who shall, at the time this Act takes effect, have completed sixty-five years of age, shall cease to hold office on January first, nineteen hundred and thirty-three," the Department of Justice instructed the Judge of First Instance of Tayabas to direct Tanada to cease acting as Justice of the Peace of Perez. Acting on that instruction, the Judge of First Instance ordered Tanada to stop performing the duties of his new office. Tanada surrendered the office under protest and then instituted an original action in quo warranto to recover possession.

The Solicitor-General interposed two principal defenses: (1) that Act No. 3899 applies to all justices of the peace who reach sixty-five years of age (including those who reached sixty-five after January 1, 1933), and (2) that Tanada’s acceptance of a transfer constituted a new appointment that placed him within the Act’s operation. The Court noted a prior Division decision in Felipe Regalado v. Jose Yulo which held that Act No. 3899 did not apply to justices appointed before the Act who reached sixty-five...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does Act No. 3899 apply to a justice of the peace appointed prior to the Act’s approval who completed sixty‑five years of age after January 1, 1933?
• Does a transfer of a justice of the peace from one municipality to another amount to a new appointment so as to bring the transferee within the ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)