Endencia and Jugo v. David, G.R. No. L-6355-56, August 31, 1953
Ponente: MONTEMAYOR, J.
A joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
Summary: CFI Manila declared section 13 of RA 950 as unconstitutional, and ordered David to refund taxes collected from Endencia and David. On appeal from David, SC affirmed the decision, citing that collection of taxes is considered a diminution of the salaries of judicial persons.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts:
In a previous case, Perfecto v Meer , the Supreme Court held that “taxing the salary of a judicial officer in the Philippines is a diminution of such salary and so violates the Constitution .” To counteract the Court’s ruling, Congress enacted RA 590, with special reference to Sec. 13 as its own interpretation of the aforementioned provision.
Pursuant to RA 590, the defendant-appellant in this case, Saturnino David, as Collector of Internal Revenue, ordered the collection of income tax from the salary of the petitioners Justice Pastor M. Endencia and Justice Fernando Jugo, amounting to P1,744.45 and P2,345.46 respectively.
Endencia’s income tax was from his salary as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1951
David’s income tax was from his salary as Presiding Justice of the CA (Jan 1 - Oct 19, 1950) and as Associate Justice of the SC (Oct 20 - Dec 31, 1950)
It also ordered David to refund to the petitioners the income tax collected from their salaries, since this was a diminution of their salaries and was therefore in violation of the Constitution.
Hence this appeal by the CIR and David.
1 of 2: WON Congress can declare the collection of income tax on the salary of a public official (through sec 13 of RA 590), specifically a judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, even after the Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise.
Held: No.
By the design of our system of government, the Legislature has the task and power to make and enact laws. However, the interpretation and application of said laws, especially the Constitution, is the exclusive task of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is also the final arbiter and interpreter of laws. And according to its decision, Sec 13 of RA 590 is a clear example of the Legislature interpreting the Constitution, specifically Sec 9, Art. VIII. It is also worth noting that Congress enacted RA 950 notwithstanding knowledge of the court’s earlier ruling in Perfecto v Meer, that the collection of income taxes from judicial persons is unconstitutional. If the Legislature were permitted to interpret the law or Constitution, especially after a ruling has already been made by the judiciary, there would be confusion and instability in judicial processes and court decisions, and also a clear violation of the concept of separation of powers.
2 of 2: WON judicial officers’ salaries are exempt from taxation.
Held: Yes.
The collection of income taxes from the judges and justices is considered as a reduction of their salaries. The exemption of judicial officers from taxes was not for their benefit, but was essential for their independence. It is a privilege attached to the position to secure and preserve his independence of judicial thought and action .
-----------------------------------------
SC reiterated the doctrine held in Perfecto v Meer that the collection of income tax from the salary of the judicial officer is considered a diminution thereof, and thus violates the Constitution. Also, it held that interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statues is exclusive to the Judiciary. Legislature may not interpret the law and the Constitution, especially when it runs counter to a previous ruling given by the final arbiter/highest court in the land.
Comments
Post a Comment