Case Summary (G.R. No. 196426)
Narrowing of Issues and Positions of the Parties
Segovia abandoned any contention that section 1 of Act No. 3107 was unconstitutional for impairing a contractual right to office, acknowledging the settled principle that a public office is not private property or a contract. The appeal focused on whether the age limitation in Act No. 3107 applied to incumbents already in office when the Act took effect—the sole remaining contested issue.
Statutory and Historical Framework Governing Tenure
The opinion traces the statutory evolution of tenure for justices of the peace: originally section 67 of Act No. 136 placed them at the pleasure of the Commission; Act No. 1450 made the term two years; Act No. 1627 changed the tenure to "during good behavior" and provided that incumbents would continue; subsequent amendments (Acts Nos. 2041 and 2617) culminated in codification in the Administrative Code. Section 203 (appointment) and section 206 (tenure during good behavior) of the Administrative Code are central: Act No. 3107 amended section 203 by adding a proviso that justices and auxiliary justices “shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years,” while leaving section 206 (tenure during good behavior) unchanged.
Legal Principle on Retroactivity of Statutes
The court applies the well-established canon that statutes operate prospectively only unless the legislature clearly manifests an intention for retroactive application either expressly or by necessary implication. The decision cites Civil Code article 3—law is not retroactive unless expressly provided—and adopts authorities (both U.S. and Philippine) that demand clear, imperative language to justify retroactive effect. The court emphasizes the principle that no court will give a statute retroactive effect absent unmistakable legislative intent.
Precedents and Analogous Decisions
The opinion references authorities illustrating the presumption against retroactivity, and cases applying that rule to public offices: although incumbents have no absolute vested property right in office, there is a recognized expectation that statutory changes affecting tenure should be clearly stated. The court distinguishes the present case from Chanco v. Imperial, where the statute expressly stated that present judges vacate and new appointments would be made — a clear legislative directive to affect incumbents.
Distinguishing Chanco v. Imperial
In Chanco, Act No. 2347 not only set an age limit for judges but expressly provided that existing judges vacate immediately and that new appointments be made — manifesting clear legislative intent to displace incumbents. By contrast, Act No. 3107 merely tacked a proviso onto section 203 without similar explicit language and left section 206, the “during good behavior” tenure clause, intact. The decision holds that this difference is decisive: Chanco involved an express legislative command to vacate; Act No. 3107 does not.
Application of the Rule to the Facts
Applying the presumption against retroactivity and examining the statutory text and legislative intent, the court finds no express or necessarily implied intention that Act No. 3107 should apply to justices already in office. T
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196426)
Citation, Court, and Authorship
- Reported at 47 Phil. 543; G.R. No. 23226; decided March 4, 1925.
- Decision authored by Malcolm, J.
- Judgment of the Court of First Instance reviewed; Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, Judge of First Instance, rendered the trial judgment.
- Final disposition: Judgment affirmed, without costs. "It is so ordered."
Parties and Roles
- Vicente Segovia: Petitioner and appellee; formerly appointed justice of the peace of Dumanjug, Cebu (appointed January 21, 1907).
- Pedro Noel: Respondent and appellant; auxiliary justice of the peace who acted as justice of the peace for Dumanjug after Segovia was ordered to vacate.
- The provincial fiscal of Cebu argued the principal error on appeal for the appellant.
- Secretary of Justice: issued the order on July 1, 1924, directing Segovia to vacate the office.
Facts
- Vicente Segovia was appointed justice of the peace of Dumanjug, Cebu, on January 21, 1907.
- Segovia continuously occupied the position until he reached the age of sixty-five.
- On July 1, 1924, the Secretary of Justice ordered Segovia to vacate the office because he had passed sixty-five.
- Since that date, auxiliary justice Pedro Noel acted as justice of the peace for the municipality of Dumanjug.
- Segovia instituted friendly quo warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to inquire into Pedro Noel's right to occupy the office, to oust him, and to procure reinstatement for Segovia.
- Pedro Noel interposed a demurrer, alleging the complaint did not state facts sufficient for a cause of action because Act No. 3107 was constitutional and Segovia, being sixty-five, had automatically ceased to be justice of the peace.
- On stipulated facts, the trial judge overruled the demurrer and entered judgment in favor of Segovia and against Noel.
Procedural Posture and Issues Presented
- Primary legal question on appeal: Whether that portion of Act No. 3107 providing that justices of the peace and auxiliary justices "shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years" should be given retroactive or prospective effect.
- Appellant assigned three errors to this court; first two preliminary errors were ultimately renounced so the court could decide the main issue authoritatively.
- The principal error argued by the provincial fiscal: that the trial judge erred in declaring the age limitation of section 1 of Act No. 3107 inapplicable to justices and auxiliary justices appointed and acting before enactment.
Parties’ Positions and Concessions
- Petitioner Segovia abandoned the contention (asserted in part of his complaint) that section 1 of Act No. 3107 was unconstitutional because it impaired his contractual right to an office.
- Court restated the fundamental principle relied upon by petitioner: a public office is not property of the incumbent and an office is not a contract.
- Respondent Noel’s demurrer: maintained Act No. 3107 was constitutiona