Case Summary (G.R. No. 211833)
Inapplicability of Mandamus
Judge Villanueva’s demand that the JBC include him among nominees is non-ministerial. The JBC’s selection function is discretionary, and possession of constitutional qualifications does not create a judicially enforceable right to nomination.
Unsuitability of Declaratory Relief
An action for declaratory relief requires an affected interest under a statute or written instrument. No one has a vested right to JBC nomination, and this Court lacks original jurisdiction over declaratory actions, which belong to the RTC under B.P. Blg. 129 as amended.
Constitutional Mandate of the JBC
Under the 1987 Constitution, the JBC must recommend judicial appointees. While minimum qualifications are set by Constitution and law, the Council may adopt reasonable guidelines for screening, subject to supervisory review by the Supreme Court.
Authority to Establish Screening Criteria
The JBC’s functions of searching, screening, and selecting candidates are necessary and incidental to its constitutional mandate. It may define standards—such as experience thresholds—so long as they respect minimum constitutional qualifications.
Rational Basis for Five-Year Requirement
Classifying first-level judges by whether they have at least five years’ experience bears a rational relation to the legitimate end of ensuring proven competence, probity, integrity, and independence. The requirement is one factor among many and does not guarantee automatic nomination.
No Violation of Equal Protection
The five-year service classification is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; it applies uniformly to first-level judges and aligns with the JBC’s duty to assess performance and experience. It passes the rational-basis test under equal protection principles.
Procedural Due Process and Publication
Although the JBC policy need not be submitted to the University of the Philippines Law Center (ONAR), any rule affecting applicants must be published unless it is purely internal. The JBC’s failure to publish its five-year criterion did not prejudice petitioner’s rights but warrants corrective publication.
Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211833)
Facts
- Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed on September 18, 2012 as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Compostela-New Bataan (a first-level court).
- On September 27, 2013 he applied for vacant Presiding Judge positions in RTC Branch 31 (Tagum City), Branch 13 (Davao City), and Branch 6 (Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur).
- By letter dated December 18, 2013, the JBC’s Office of Recruitment notified him that he was not on the list of candidates.
- On the same date, Villanueva sought reconsideration and protested the inclusion of applicants who did not pass the prejudicature examination.
- By letter dated February 3, 2014, the JBC en banc upheld his exclusion, invoking its long-standing policy that incumbent first-level judges must have at least five years of service before applying to second-level courts.
- Villanueva, having served only for a year, filed a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari under Rule 65, and for Declaratory Relief under Rule 63, praying for a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Constitution alone prescribes qualifications for RTC judges; the JBC cannot add further requirements.
- The five‐year service rule violates the equal protection and due process clauses.
- The rule contravenes the constitutional provision on Social Justice and Human Rights for equal opportunity of employment.
- Section 10 of R.A. No. 8557 requires full implementation of the Prejudicature Program, not a merely directory compliance.
- Villanueva alleges he meets all constitutional and statutory qualifications, including ten years of law practice.
Respondent’s (JBC & OSG) Arguments
- The petition is procedurally defective; certiorari and prohibition cannot issue against the JBC because it does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- Mandamus and declaratory relief will not lie: Villanueva has no clear legal right to inclusion in the candidate list.
- The five-year requirement is a reasonable classification based on performance and experience, consistent with equal protection.
- No due process violation: the policy is internal an