[ADMIN LAW]

MARCELINO VS CRUZ

FACTS:
 Petitioner was charged with rape before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch XII, and
his case was conducted and concluded on August 04, 1975.

 On the same date, counsels for the accused (petitioner) and complainant People of the
Philippines in the rape case filed before the CFI of Rizal, moved for time within which to submit
their respective memoranda.

 Trial court granted both counsels’ motion and gave them thirty (30) days to submit their
memoranda. (30 days from August 04, 1975 concludes on September 03, 1975)

 Petitioner, through counsel, filed his memorandum in due time, but no memorandum was filed
by the People.

 On November 28, 1975, respondent judge filed with the Deputy Clerk of Court his decision in
said for promulgation. The decision was also dated November 28, 1975.

 On the date set for promulgation of the decision, counsel for the accused moved for
postponement, citing the loss of jurisdiction of the trial court for failure to decide the case
within 90 days from submission thereof of decision, respondent judge granted the counsel’s
request and reset the promulgation to January 19, 1976.

 On January 19, 1976, counsel for the accused moved anew for the resetting of the promulgation
of the decision, and respondent judge granted the same and moved anew the promulgation on
January 26, 1976.

 On January 12, 1976, counsel for the accused filed before the Supreme Court this petition
(Petition for prohibition and writ of habeas corpus to enjoin respondent judge from
promulgating his decision above mentioned). Supreme Court issued an Order temporarily
restraining respondent judge from promulgating said decision.

 Petitioner avers that the three-month period prescribed by Section 11 of Article x of the 1973
Constitution, being a constitutional directive, is mandatory in character and that non-
observance thereof results in the loss of jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved case.

*Section 11, Article X of the 1973 Constitution states that:

“Upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period within which a case or matter shall be
decided or resolved from the date of its submission, shall be eighteen months for the Supreme court,
and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts, and three
months for all other inferior courts.”

kei
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent judge failed to comply with the provisions of Section II, Article X of the
1973 Constitution, in filing the decision within the given period of three (3) months, equivalent to ninety
(90) days.

2. Whether or not Section II, Article X of the 1973 Constitution is mandatory in character or merely
directory.

3. Whether or not jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved criminal case was lost due to non-
compliance by respondent judge with the above mentioned provision.

RULING:
1. On November 28, 1973, or eighty five (85) days from September 4, 1975, the date the case was
deemed submitted for decision, respondent judge filed with the deputy clerk of court the decision in the
above mentioned criminal case. Thus, respondent judge was able to render his decision within the
three-month period prescribed by the Constitution.

2. The established rule is that “constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory, UNLESS by
express provision or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest. Supreme Court believed
that the above mentioned provision falls within the exception rather than the general rule, citing the
case of Albemarel Oil & Gase Co. v. Morris, which declares that constitutional provisions are directory,
and not mandatory, where they refer to matters merely PROCEDURAL.

3. Exceeded or not, a decision rendered by an inferior court outside of the 90-day period is not void
for loss of jurisdiction. To hold that non-compliance by the courts with the aforesaid provision would
result in loss of jurisdiction, would make the courts, through

which conflicts are resolved, the very instruments to foster unresolved cases by reason merely of having
failed to render a decision within the allotted term.

4. The petition was DISMISSED and the Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is lifted however,
since respondent judge is already deceased, his successor is ordered to decide the Criminal Case on the
basis of the record thereof within 90 days from the time the case is raffled to him.

kei