1965 / Aug

G.R. No. L-23476 - AUGUST 1965 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-23476August 31, 1965 Aristotle Tuason vs. Calixto O. Zaldivar, et al. G.R. No. L-22425August 31, 1965 Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Nicolas L. Cuenca, et al. G.R. No. L-22221August 31, 1965 Parke, Davis and Company vs. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-21186August 31, 1965 Zosimo Arroyo vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. G.R. No. L-20998August 31, 1965 Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Demetria Oqueria, et al. G.R. No. L-20901August 31, 1965 Ciriaca Santos vs. Teodorica Duata, et al. G.R. No. L-20685August 31, 1965 Catalina Vda. de Vismanos, et al. vs. Municipality of Tagum, et al. G.R. No. L-20630August 31, 1965 C.N. Hodges, et al. vs. Jose Manuel Lezama, et al. G.R. No. L-20612August 31, 1965 Felix A. Yuboco, et al. vs. Jose L. Matias, et al. G.R. No. L-20491August 31, 1965 Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette vs. National Admin of Regional Office No.2, et al. G.R. No. L-20482August 31, 1965 In re: Saturnino Dy vs. Republic G.R. No. L-20469August 31, 1965 Pedro C. Pastoral vs. Mutual Security Insurance Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-20290August 31, 1965 In re: Pantaleon Sia Pantaleon Sia vs. Republic G.R. No. L-19922August 31, 1965 Ernesto Cloma, et al. vs. Aguinaldo Industries Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-19766August 31, 1965 Fermin de la Victoria, et al. vs. Levy Hermanos, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-19445August 31, 1965 Commissioner Of INternal Revenue vs. Bishop of the Missionary District G.R. No. L-19382August 31, 1965 Filomena Abellana de Bacayo vs. Gaudencia Ferraris de Borromeo, et al. G.R. No. L-19207August 31, 1965 Marsman and Co., Inc., et al. vs. Leopoldo Syquia, et al. G.R. No. L-18786August 31, 1965 Roman F. Dionisio vs. Socorro Francisco Vda. de Dionisio G.R. No. L-18404August 31, 1965 Cesar Ledesma, et al. vs. Concepcion vda. de Opinion, et al. G.R. No. L-18156August 31, 1965 Maximo Baquiran vs. Wenceslao Ortega G.R. No. L-18087August 31, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo A. Consigna, et al. G.R. No. L-17517August 31, 1965 Estefina Pisalbon, et al. vs. Enrique Balmoja, et al. G.R. No. L-16903August 31, 1965 Manila Pencil Company, Inc., et al vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-21506August 14, 1965 Felicisima Manubay vs. Pedro de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-21014August 14, 1965 Phil. Farming Corp., Ltd., et al. vs. Alejandro Llanos, et al. G.R. No. L-20986August 14, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente N. Cusi Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-20844August 14, 1965 Angelita F. Rivera vs. Loreto Luciano G.R. No. L-20806-07August 14, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Dayday, et al. G.R. No. L-20735August 14, 1965 Glicera C. Liwanag vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20124August 14, 1965 Nelita Moreno Vda. de Bacaling vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. G.R. No. L-19944August 14, 1965 Sando Lampacan, et al. vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. G.R. No. L-19943August 14, 1965 Maglia Cayapa vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. G.R. No. L-19942August 14, 1965 Nabos Valenciano vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. G.R. No. L-19941August 14, 1965 Waldo Kidpalos vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. G.R. No. L-19940August 14, 1965 Fernandez Kidpalos vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. G.R. No. L-19598August 14, 1965 Iluminada Santiago, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-19072August 14, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Alvarez G.R. No. L-18833August 14, 1965 Honesto Alvarez, et al. vs. Pedro K. Espiritu G.R. No. L-17022August 14, 1965 Solis and YariSantos vs. Liberator Salvador, et al. G.R. No. L-20170August 10, 1965 Bert R. Bagano vs. Director of Patents, et al. G.R. No. L-19807August 10, 1965 Agustin O. Caseñas vs. Dionisio Cabiguen G.R. No. L-24012-40August 9, 1965 Antonio J. Villegas vs. Abelardo Subido The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Aristotle Tuason vs. Calixto O. Zaldivar, et al. Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. Nicolas L. Cuenca, et al. Parke, Davis and Company vs. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Zosimo Arroyo vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. Aboitiz Shipping Corp. vs. Demetria Oqueria, et al. Ciriaca Santos vs. Teodorica Duata, et al. Catalina Vda. de Vismanos, et al. vs. Municipality of Tagum, et al. C.N. Hodges, et al. vs. Jose Manuel Lezama, et al. Felix A. Yuboco, et al. vs. Jose L. Matias, et al. Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette vs. National Admin of Regional Office No.2, et al. In re: Saturnino Dy vs. Republic Pedro C. Pastoral vs. Mutual Security Insurance Corp., et al. In re: Pantaleon Sia Pantaleon Sia vs. Republic Ernesto Cloma, et al. vs. Aguinaldo Industries Corp., et al. Fermin de la Victoria, et al. vs. Levy Hermanos, Inc., et al. Commissioner Of INternal Revenue vs. Bishop of the Missionary District Filomena Abellana de Bacayo vs. Gaudencia Ferraris de Borromeo, et al. Marsman and Co., Inc., et al. vs. Leopoldo Syquia, et al. Roman F. Dionisio vs. Socorro Francisco Vda. de Dionisio Cesar Ledesma, et al. vs. Concepcion vda. de Opinion, et al. Maximo Baquiran vs. Wenceslao Ortega People of the Philippines vs. Pablo A. Consigna, et al. Estefina Pisalbon, et al. vs. Enrique Balmoja, et al. Manila Pencil Company, Inc., et al vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Felicisima Manubay vs. Pedro de Guzman, et al. Phil. Farming Corp., Ltd., et al. vs. Alejandro Llanos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Vicente N. Cusi Jr., et al. Angelita F. Rivera vs. Loreto Luciano People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Dayday, et al. Glicera C. Liwanag vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Nelita Moreno Vda. de Bacaling vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al. Sando Lampacan, et al. vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. Maglia Cayapa vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. Nabos Valenciano vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. Waldo Kidpalos vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. Fernandez Kidpalos vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co. Iluminada Santiago, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Alvarez Honesto Alvarez, et al. vs. Pedro K. Espiritu Solis and YariSantos vs. Liberator Salvador, et al. Bert R. Bagano vs. Director of Patents, et al. Agustin O. Caseñas vs. Dionisio Cabiguen Antonio J. Villegas vs. Abelardo Subido The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23476 August 31, 1965

ARISTOTLE TUASON,petitioner,
vs.
HON. CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR, in his capacity as Actg. Executive Secretary,
HON. SALVADOR MARIÑO, in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, and HON. EULALIO PICHAY, in his capacity as Judicial Superintendent, Department of Justice,respondents.

Crispin D. Baizas and Associates, Raymundo A. Armovit and Constante P. Pimentel for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

CONCEPCION,J.:

This is an original action forcertiorariand prohibition to annul an Administrative Order separating petitioner Aristotle Tuason from the service as Municipal Judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and to restrain the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice and the Judicial Superintendent of the Department of Justice from enforcing said administrative order and from interferring with petitioner's alleged right to continue discharging his duties as such Municipal Judge.

Tuason was municipal Judge of San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur, from July 17, 1957 to October 8, 1960, when he assumed the office of Municipal Judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, to which he had been appointedad interimon October 4, 1960. On March 10, 1961, Francisco Ante, the auxiliary Municipal Judge of Vigan, filed with the Commission on Appointments some administrative charges against Tuason. This notwithstanding Tuason'sad interimappointment was confirmed by said Commission on May 5, 1961.

Prior thereto, or on April 26, 1961, Ante had filed with the Department of Justice a complaint reproducing said charges, which were referred for investigation, report and recommendation, to Hon. Angelino C. Salanga, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. Tuason moved to dismiss, these charges on June 20, 1961. Under date of June 11, 1962, Ante filed additional charges, which were likewise referred to Judge Salanga. On August 8, 1962, Tuason filed a motion to dismiss said additional charges. Both motions to dismiss having been denied by Judge Salanga on September 27, 1962, Tuason filed his answer to the charges against him, on January 21, 1963. After due investigation, Judge Salanga submitted a report dated March 11, 1964, finding Tuason guilty of some of the acts and omissions with which he is charged, and recommending his separation from the service, and that he be "privately advised and requested to resign, to allow his remuneration and retirement benefits ..., without prejudice to his reinstatement to the other branches of the government." Under date of August 31, 1964 the President of the Philippines issued Administrative Order No. 108, in effect concurring in the finding made by Judge Balanga. The dispositive part of said Administrative Order reads:

Respondent's (Tuason's) proven mistakes and indiscretion reflect adversely on his capacity and preparedness for the important office of municipal judge warranting his separation therefrom. Wherefore, Mr. Aristotle A. Tuason is hereby considered resigned and separated as municipal judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, without prejudice to reinstatement in another branch of the government service.

Soon, thereafter, or on September 6, 1964, Tuason commenced the present action, to annul said administrative order upon the ground that the causes for removal therein set forth are insufficient to warrant his separation from the service, and that said causes refer to acts performed and/or omissions committed while he held the office of Municipal Judge of San Ildefonso, which had already been passed upon and rejected when hisad interimappointment as Municipal Judge of Vigan was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 5, 1961.

The grounds for which petitioner was separated from the service are:

1. He imposed upon the accused in a criminal case in San Ildefonso, an indeterminate sentence of 2 months and 1 day to 3 months ofarresto menor, despite the fact that the Indeterminate Sentence Act is inapplicable when the penalty is less than one-year imprisonment. Petitioner alleges that his mistake is too insignificant to warrant his separation from the service.

2. He approved, in San Ildefonso, a guardian's bond executed in a form for criminal bail bond. Petitioner says that the proper form was not available in San Ildefonso, although, according to the administrative order complained of, he could have easily obtained said form in Vigan, which is near San Ildefonso.

3. He considered against one accused of slight physical injuries, who had entered a plea of guilty, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which was not alleged in the criminal complaint filed against him, and, consequently, added one (1) day imprisonment to the otherwise proper penalty.

4. He discharged the duties of municipal judge of San Ildefonso while he was municipal councilor of Vigan, and collected the emoluments for both offices.

5. He signed, as municipal councilor of Vigan, a resolution of the latter's council endorsing the candidacy of a given candidate for President of the Philippines in the 1957 presidential elections, at the time when he was discharging the duties of municipal judge of San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur.

6. When he went on leave on July 16 to 18, 1961, instead of having his auxiliary judge, complainant Ante, notified personally either in advance or on July 16, 1961, in order that there may be no hiatus in the performance of the functions of the office, Tuason caused a written notice to be mailed on July 17, so that Ante did not receive the notice until July 18, when petitioner was already about to resume his functions.

Although the first, second, third and sixth counts may singly be considered not serious enough to warrant petitioner's separation from the service, the collective effect of said proven counts may be such as to induce reasonably minded men to disagree honestly on the sufficiency thereof to justify the action taken against petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, the administrative order complained of may not be a annulled by this Court without encroaching upon the functions of a co-ordinate and co-equal department, which is supreme within its own sphere (Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87; U.S. vs. Bull, 16 Phil. 366; Forbes vs. Chuaco Tiaco & Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534; Prov. of Tarlac vs. Gale, 26 Phil. 338; Concepcion vs. Paredes, 42 Phil. 599; U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1; Abueva vs. Wood, 45 Phil. 612; Alejandro vs. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83; Gov't of P.I. vs. Springer, 50 Phil. 259). The necessity of respecting the conclusion reached in said administrative order becomes more apparent when we consider the fourth and sixth counts, involving the discharge by petitioner of the functions of municipal judge of San Ildefonso and municipal councilor of Vigan during the same period of time and the collection by him of the corresponding emoluments for the positions. Although petitioner claims that there had been no conflict in the time of his actual performance of the duties of said offices and that he later refunded the emoluments received by him as municipal councilor of Vigan during said time, the acts performed by him disclose a deficiency in the prudence, discretion and judgment that a member of the judiciary must exercise in the performance of his functions, if the bench is to command the respect due thereto.

Needless to say, neither the fact that most of the acts or omissions aforementioned took place before Tuason assumed the office of municipal judge of Vigan, nor the circumstance that the Commission on Appointments must have considered such acts or omissions when it confirmed hisad interimappointment as such municipal judge of Vigan, detracts from the adverse effect of his previous behaviour upon his fitness to continue in said office and the authority to discipline him therefor.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is denied and the petition dismissed, with costs against petitioner Aristotle Tuason. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.