DETAILS

Docket No.: G.R. No. L-6355-56 Case Title: Endencia v. David

Ponente: J. Montemayor Case Date: August 31, 1953
Topic: Characteristic of Construction
• Judicial Function

DOCTRINE

Judiciary has the power to interpret laws. If it has decided on a case regarding a constitutional provision,
the legislature cannot pass a law that runs counter to same provision.

FACTS
1. This is a joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila declaring section 13 of
Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional. They are also ordering the appellant Saturnino David, the then
Collector of Internal Revenue (CIR), to refund the income tax collected from Justice Pastor M. Endencia
and Justice Fernando Jugo amounting P1,744.45 and 2,345.46, respectively.

2. Prior to this case, the Supreme Court ruled in Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 Phil., 552 that judicial officer are
exempted from paying income tax because it is against Art. VIII Sec. 9 of the Constitution which
provides that judges “shall receive compensation…which shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office.”

3. This decision in Perfecto vs. Meer was not not received favorably by the Congress because immediately
after its promulgation, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590. Section 13 of the R.A. No. 590
counteract the ruling in that decision, and now authorize and legalize the collection of income
tax on the salaries of judicial officers.

4. The Solicitor General, arguing in behalf of the CIR, states that the decision in Perfecto vs Meer was
rendered ineffective when Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590.

HELD/RATIONALE
1. Whether or not the legislature can NO. The enactment of R.A. No. 590 is unconstitutional because it is a
lawfully declare the collection of violation of the separation of powers.
income tax on the salary of a public
official, specially a judicial officer, ➢ The fundamental principles regarding separation of powers,
not a decrease of his salary, after legislature is tasked to assigned the power to make and enact
the Supreme Court has found and laws; the executive department has the power to carry out or
decided otherwise? execute laws; and judiciary has the power to interpret and
apply the laws. Defining and interpreting the law is a
judicial function and the legislative branch may not limit
or restrict the power granted to the courts by the
Constitution.

Congress says that taxing the salary of a judicial officer is not a

decrease of compensation. This is a clear example of interpretation or
ascertainment of the meaning of the phrase "which shall not be
 diminished during their continuance in office," found in section 9,
Article VIII of the Constitution. This act of interpreting the
Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an invasion
of the well-defined and established province and jurisdiction of
the Judiciary.

If the Legislature may declare what a law means, or what a specific

portion of the Constitution means, especially after the courts have in
actual case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and applied it in a
decision, this would surely cause confusion and instability in judicial
processes and court decisions.

2. Whether or not R.A. No. 590 is NO. The Supreme Court believes that the collection of income tax on a
constitutional. salary is an actual and evident diminution thereof and so violates Art.
VIII, Sec. 9 of the Constitution. The exemption was not primarily
intended to benefit judicial officers, but was grounded on public policy.

When a judicial officer assumed office, he does not exactly ask for
exemption from payment of income tax on his salary, as a privilege . It
is already attached to his office, provided and secured by the
fundamental law, not primarily for his benefit, but based on public
interest, to secure and preserve his independence of judicial thought
and action.

DISPOSITION
▪ In the views of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
no pronouncement as to costs.

NOTES:
For purposes of reference:

➢ Section 9, Article VIII of 1935 Constitution:

SEC. 9. The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts shall hold office during good
behavior, until they reach the age of seventy years, or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office. They shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office. Until the Congress shall provide otherwise, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court shall receive an annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos, and each Associate
Justice, fifteen thousand pesos.

➢ Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590:

SEC 13. No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be
considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be diminution
of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.