Title
Regalado vs. Yulo
Case
G.R. No. 42935
Decision Date
Feb 15, 1935
Felipe Regalado, justice of the peace, contested removal at age 65 under Act No. 3899. Supreme Court ruled law applied only to those 65+ at enactment, reinstating Regalado.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 42935)

Applicable Law

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 203 of the Administrative Code, modified by Act No. 3899. The relevant provision stipulates that justices of the peace shall serve until they reach the age of sixty-five years and that those who completed sixty-five years of age at the time the Act took effect would cease to hold office.

Facts of the Case

Regalado qualified for the position of justice of the peace on April 12, 1906. On September 13, 1934, he reached sixty-five years of age. Following this, the Judge of First Instance of Albay, under the directive of the Secretary of Justice, appointed Villar to take over the position. Regalado transferred the office to Villar reluctantly. Villar qualified to occupy the office on December 17, 1934.

Legal Interpretation and Argumentation

Regalado asserts that the law's wording is explicit, suggesting that only those who had completed sixty-five years of age before November 16, 1931—when Act No. 3899 became effective—would be affected by the provision. Conversely, the Solicitor-General, representing the respondents, contends that the intention of the law was that all justices of the peace who reached that age, regardless of when they were appointed, would cease office upon reaching sixty-five years.

Language and Legislative Intent

Both parties acknowledge that the Spanish version of the law is authoritative, with the English version serving merely as a guide. The Solicitor-General emphasizes that the historical context and legislative debates indicate a desire to make the age limit retroactive. Despite the omission of the term "automatically" in the final version of the Act, the intention to enforce a universal age limitation for justices of the peace is argued to be clear.

Judicial Authority and Interpretation Limits

The court acknowledges that the interpretation of laws by the executive department, responsible for its enforcement, carries considerable weight. Nevertheless, the judiciary maintains independence from such interpretations when the language of the law is clear. The court cannot amend statutory language to inject interpretations that are not explicitly stated.

Conclusion on Legislative Intent

Upon analysis, the court determines that at the time the law took effect,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.