FERDINAND R.

VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA

VALLEY PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Respondent. | Digest by Marishifra Luna
RECIT READY
 Petitioner applied for a position as a judge in a second level court but JBC did not include his name in the list of applicants
since he failed to qualify.
 This is because the JBC put priority to incumbent judges who served their position for at least five years and petitioner here
only served as judged for more than a year.
 The petitioner assailed, inter alia, the authority of the JBC to add another qualification (5-year-qualitification) because the
said qualification was already prescribed
 The Supreme Court ruled that the internal process of choosing people who would qualify done by the JBC was valid since
under Sect. 8 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution gave the JBC principal function of recommending appointees to the judiciary
FACTS:
Herein petitioner, Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva was a presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Compostela-
New Bataas, Poblacion, Compostela Valley Province, Region XI, which is a first-level court. He applied on second-level courts such
as Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad, Adusan Del Sur.
The Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) Office of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner through a
letter that we failed to qualify for the said position he applied on. On the same day, petitioner sent a letter (electronic mail). He seeks
reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the list of the considered applicants. He also protested the inclusion of applicants who failed
the prejudicature examination
Through a letter, the JBC Executive officer informed him that his protest and reconsideration was duly noted by the JBC en
banc. Still the non-inclusion of his name in the list of applicants was upheld. The reason was, the JBS’s long standing policy of giving
priority to incumbent judges that served their current position for at least five years. Since the petitioner only served as a judged for
more than a year only, his name was not included in the list.
Petitioner argues that: 1.) Qualifications was already prescribed so the JBC could add no more, 2.) The five-year-
requirement violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution, 3.) The same requirement violates the
constitutional provision on Social Justice and Human Rights for Equal Opportunity of employment, and 4.) The requirement of
passing the prejudicature exam should be mandatory.
Respondents argue that 1.) The writ of certiorari and prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its
principal function under the constitution to recommend appointees to the judiciary because the JBC is not a tribunal
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function, 2.) Remedy of mandamus and declaratory relief will not lie because petitioner does
not have any legal right that need to be protected, 3.) Legal protection clause is not violated because the 5-year-requirement is
performance and experience based, and 4.) No violation of due process since the policy is merely internal in nature.

Issue:
W/N the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-
level courts is constitutional – YES

Held:
The said added 5-year-qualification being assailed by the petitioner is constitutional since as stated in the Sect. 8 (5), Art.
VIII, the JBC is mandated to recommend appointees to the judiciary. Consequently, it was also stated in the said provision that
only the persons nominated by the JBC is transmitted to the president that will choose whom to nominate as judge in the
judiciary.