People of the Philippines vs.

Jabinal
FACTS: Jose Jabinal, the accused, kept in his possession, custody and direct
control a revolver with ammunition without frst securing the necessary
permit or license to possess the same. The accused admitted that he was in
possession of such weapon however, he claimed to be entitled to
exoneration because he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the
rovincial !overnor of "atangas and an appointment as #onfdential Agent
from the # rovincial #ommander. The said appointments expressly carried
with them to be authority to possess and carry the frearm in $uestion.
ISSUE: %hether the &acarandang and 'ucero doctrines are applicable in the
present case.
HELD: (es, the &acarandang and 'ucero doctrines are applicable in the
present case. The interpretation upon a law by this #ourt constitutes a part
of the law as of the date that law originally passed, since the #ourt)s
construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent thus
construed intends to e*ectuate. At the time appellant was found in
possession of the frearm in $uestion and when he arraigned by the trial
court., the doctrine enunciated in &acarandang and 'ucero, under which no
criminal liability is attached to the accused, prevailed.
PERFECTO S. !EER
FACT: +n April ,-./ the #ollector of +nternal 0evenue re$uired &r. Justice
!regorio erfecto to pay income tax upon his salary as member of the #ourt
during the year ,-.1. After paying the amount, he instituted an action in
&anila #ourt of 2irst +nstance contending that the assessment was illegal, his
salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon
would reduce it in violation of the #onstitution. +t provides in its Article 3+++,
Section - that the members of the Supreme #ourt and all 4udges of inferior
courts 5shall receive such compensation as may be fxed by law, which shall
not be diminished during their continuance in o6ce.
ISSUE: %hether or not the imposition of an income tax upon this salary in
,-.1 amount to a diminution.
HELD: (es, the imposition of the income tax upon the salary of Justice
erfecto amount to a diminution thereof. The prohibition is general, contains
no excepting words, and appears to be directed against all diminution,
whether for one purpose or another. The fathers of the #onstitution intended
to prohibit diminution by taxation as well as otherwise, that they regarded
the independence of the 4udges as of far greater importance than any
revenue that could come from taxing their salaries. Thus, taxing the salary of
a 4udge as a part of his income is a violation of the #onstitution.
E"DE"CIA S. DAID
FACTS: This is a 4oint appeal from the decision of the #ourt of 2irst +nstance in
&anila declaring section ,7 of 0A 8o. 9-: unconstitutional and ordering the
appellant Saturnino ;avid as #ollector of +nternal 0evenue to refund to Justice
astor <ndencia and to Justice 2ernando Jugo the income tax collected on their
salary. %hen the S# held in the erfecto case that 4udicial o6cers exempt from
salary tax because the collection thereof was a decrease or diminution of their
salaries which is prohibited by the #onstitution, the #ongress thereafter
promulgated 0A 8o. 9-:, authori=ing and legali=ing the collection of income tax on
the salaries of 4udicial o6cers.
ISSUE: %hether or not Section ,7 of 0A 9-: is constitutional
HELD: %hen it is clear that a statute transgresses the authority vested in the
legislature by the #onstitution, it is the duly of the courts to declare the act
unconstitutional. Section ,7, 0A 8o. 9-: is a clear example of interpretation or
ascertainment of the meaning of the phrase found in section -, Art. 3+++ of the
#onstitution which refers to the salaries of 4udicial o6cers. This act interpreting the
#onstitution or any part thereof by the 'egislature is an invasion of the well>defned
and established province and 4urisdiction of the Judiciary. The 'egislature may not
legally provide therein that a statue be interpreted in such a way that it may not
violate a #onstitutional prohibition, thus the unconstitutionality of Section ,7 of 0A
8o. 9-:.
"ITAFA" S. CO!!ISSIO"ER OF I"TER"AL REE"UE
FACTS: etitioners, the duly appointed and $ualifed Judges ;avid 8itafan,
%enceslaus olo and &aximo Savellano, Jr. , seek to prohibit and?or
perpetually en4oin respondents., the #ommissioner of +nternal 0evenue and
the 2inancial @6cer of the Supreme #ourt, from making any deduction of
withholding taxes from their salaries. They submit that 5any tax withheld
from their emoluments or compensation as 4udicial o6cers constitutes a
decrease or diminution of their salaries contrary to the provision of Section
,:, Article 3+++ of the ,-A/ #onstitution mandating that 5during their
continuance in o6ce, their salary shall not be decreased.
ISSUE: %hether or not the imposition of taxes in the compensation of
Judicial o6cers is contrary to the ,-A/ #onstitution.
HELD: (es. The clear intent of the #onstitutional #ommission was to delete
the proposed expressed grant of exemption from payment of income tax to
members of the Judiciary, so as to 5give substance to e$uality among the
three branches of !overnmentB. +t was further expressly made clear that the
salaries of members of the Judiciary would be sub4ect to the general income
tax applied to all tax payers. %ith the foregoing pretation, the rulling that
5the imposition of income tax upon the salary of the 4udges is a diminution
thereof, and so violates the #onstitutionB in erfecto vs. &eer, as a6rmed in
<ndencia vs. ;avid must be declared discarded.
PRI!ACIAS S. !U"ICIPALIT# OF URDA"ETA
FACTS: Juan Augusta rimacias was his car within the 4urisdiction of
Crdaneta when a member of Crdaneta)s &unicipal olice asked him to stop.
De was told, upon stopping, that he had violated &unicipal @rdinance 8o. 7,
Series of ,-1.. ;ue to the institution of the criminal case, plainti* rimacias
initiated an action for the annulment of said ordinance
ISSUE: %hether or not &unicipal @rdinance 8o. 7, Series of ,-1. is valid.
HELD: 8o, the ordinance in $uestion is not valid. A local legislative body
intending to control tra6c in public highways is supposed to classify frst,
and then mark them with proper signs, all to be approved by the 'and
Transportation #ommissioner. There is no showing that the marking of the
streets and areas falling under the ordinance was done with the approval of
the 'and Transportation #ommissioner. +t lacks the re$uirement imposed by
the 'and Transportation and Tra6c #ode from 5enacting or enforcing any
ordinance or resolution + conEict with the provisions of this ActB, thus invalid.
TESTATE ESTATE OF FATHER RI$OR S. RI$OR
FACTS: 2ather 0igor, the parish priest of ulilan, "ulacan, left a will
executed and was probated by the #ourt of 2irst +nstance of Tarlac in its order
of ;ecember 9, ,-79. 8amed as devisees in the will were the testators
nearest relatives, his three sisters. +n addition, the will provided that it be
ad4udicated in favor of the legacy purported to be given to the nearest male
relative who shall take the priesthood.
ISSUE: %hether or not the be$uest in $uestion be declared inoperative.
HELD: +n the law of contracts and statutory construction, the primary issue
is the determination of the testatorFs intention which is the law of the case.
%hat is no clear is on how long after the testatorFs death would it be
determined that he had a nephew who would pursue an ecclesiastical
vocation. The S# held that the said be$uest refers to the testatorFs nearest
male relative living at the time of his death and not to any indefnite time
thereafter. G+n order to be capacitated to inherit, the heir, devisee or legatee
must be living at the moment the succession opens, except in case of
representation, when it is properG HArt. ,:I9, #ivil #odeJ. +nasmuch as the
testator was not survived by any nephew who became a priest, the
unavoidable conclusion is that the be$uest in $uestion was ine*ectual or
inoperative. Therefore, the administration of the ricelands by the parish
priest of 3ictoria, as envisaged in the wilt was likewise inoperative.
CO"TE S COA
FACTS: etitioners Avelina ". #onte and 'eticia "oiser>alma were former
employees of the Social Security System HSSSJ who retired from government
service. They availed of compulsory retirement benefts under 0epublic Act
8o. 11:. +n addition, petitioners also claimed benefts granted under SSS
0esolution 8o. 91, series of ,-/, that provides fnancial incentive and
inducement to SSS employees $ualifed to retire to avail of retirement
benefts under 0A 11: as amended, rather than the retirement benefts
under 0A ,1,1 as amended, by giving them 5fnancial assistanceB e$uivalent
in amount to the di*erence between what a retiree would have received
under 0A ,1,1, less what he was entitled to under 0A 11:. Thereafter, #@A
issued a ruling disallowing in audit 5all such claims for fnancial assistance
under SSS 0esolution 8o. 91B for the reason that it results in the increase of
benefts beyond what is allowed under existing retirement laws.
ISSUES:
,. %hether or not public respondent abused its discretion when it
disallowed in audit petitioners) claims for benefts under SSS 0es. 91.
I. %hether or not SSS 0esolution 8o. 91 is valid.
HELD:
1. 8o. The #ommission bears stress that the fnancial assistance
contemplated under SSS 0esolution 8o. 91 is granted to SSS
employees who opt to retire under 0.A. 8o. 11:. +t is clear that
petitioners applied for benefts under 0A 11: only because of the
incentives o*ered by 0es. 91, and that absent such incentives, they
would have without fail availed of 0A ,1,1 instead. The petition is
dismissed for lack of merit, there having been no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of respondent #ommission.
2. 8o. The said fnancial assistance partakes of the nature of a retirement
beneft that has the e*ect of modifying existing retirement laws
particularly 0.A. 8o. 11:. +t is simply beyond dispute that the SSS had
no authority to maintain and implement such retirement plan and in
the guise of rule>making, legislate or amend laws or worse, render
them nugatory. Dence, SSS 0esolution 8o. 91 is hereby illegal, void and
no e*ect.