Case Summary (G.R. No. 46267)
Appointment History of the Petitioner
Petitioner’s original appointment (June 2, 1936) covered only the Fifth Branch, CFI Manila. After the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 145 (Nov. 7, 1936), he accepted an ad interim appointment to the newly created Fourth Judicial District, with authority over both the Fifth Branch, Manila, and the entire province of Palawan. A second ad interim appointment followed on Nov. 22, 1937.
Performance of Judicial and Administrative Functions
Acting as executive judge under his Fourth District appointment, petitioner:
• Designated an administrative officer for Palawan affairs
• Appointed a notary public for Palawan
• Authorized justices of the peace in Palawan to defend cases or grant leaves of absence
Disapproval of Petitioner’s Appointment and Respondent’s Installation
On May 19, 1938, the Commission on Appointments disapproved petitioner’s ad interim appointment, effective upon notice on May 20. On Aug. 1, 1938, the President appointed and the Commission confirmed respondent as Judge of First Instance, Fourth Judicial District (Fifth Branch, Manila, and Palawan), followed by issuance of a final appointment the same day.
Estoppel as a Bar to Constitutional Challenge
Respondent asserted that petitioner is estopped from questioning Commonwealth Act No. 145’s constitutionality because petitioner voluntarily accepted the new appointment, qualified by oath, and discharged its duties. The Court first addressed this procedural defense.
Doctrine of Incompatibility and Abandonment of Office
The Court found the two appointments incompatible: the later Fourth District appointment expanded jurisdiction to Palawan and absorbed the prior office. By accepting the newer appointment, taking the oath, performing judicial and administrative acts, and receiving compensation, petitioner abandoned his original office.
Application of Equitable Estoppel
Under established equity and jurisprudence, a public officer who accepts an incompatible office created by statute—and enters upon its duties—abandons the former office and cannot attack the statute’s constitutionality. Exceptions (public interest or compulsion) did not apply: petitioner was free to refuse or accept with reservation. Having acted with full knowledge of possible disapproval, he may not now reclaim his former office or challenge the law’s validity.
Conclusion of the Majority
Because petitioner is estopped from questioning Commonwealth Act No. 145 and has ipso jure ceased exercising both offices after disapproval, the quo warranto petition was denied and dismissed, with costs against petitioner.
Concurring Opinion by Justice Laurel
Justice Laurel declined to apply estoppel. He argue
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 46267)
Procedural Posture
- Quo warranto petition filed by Hon. Francisco Zandueta against Hon. Sixto de la Costa
- Relief sought: declaration that respondent is illegally occupying the Judgeship of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ouster of respondent, and reinstatement of petitioner
- Underlying law: Commonwealth Act No. 145 (Judicial Reorganization Law)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner originally appointed ad interim Judge of First Instance, Ninth Judicial District (City of Manila, Fifth Branch) on June 2, 1936
- Appointment confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on September 8, 1936
- Commonwealth Act No. 145 took effect November 7, 1936, reorganizing judicial districts
Petitioner’s Appointment History
- November 7, 1936: Received new ad interim appointment as Judge of First Instance, Fourth Judicial District (Manila and Palawan) under Commonwealth Act No. 145
- Qualified under that appointment by taking office immediately
- November 22, 1937: Took a new oath after another ad interim appointment, since the National Assembly’s Commission on Appointments had not yet acted
Executive Acts by the Petitioner
- As Executive Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, petitioner:
- Designated the assistant clerk of CI Manila, Ladislao Pasicolan, as administrative officer for Palawan matters (Exhibit 2)
- Appointed Rufo M. San Juan as Notary Public for Palawan until December 31, 1938 (Exhibit 3)
- Authorized Justice of the Peace Inigo R. Peña to defend a criminal case in Coron, Palawan (Exhibit 5)
- Granted leaves of absence to Justices of the Peace Abordo (Puerto Princesa, Palawan) and Coron (Exhibits 8,9)
Commission on Appointments’ Actions
- May 19, 1938: National Assembly Commission on Appointments disapproved petitioner’s November 7, 1936 ad interim appointment
- May 20, 1938: Secretary of Justice advised petitioner of disapproval
Respondent’s Appointment and Assumption of Office
- August 1, 1938: President appointed Hon. Sixto de la Costa as Judge of First Instance, Fourth Judicial District (Fifth