G.R. No.

L-6355-56, August 31, 1953

PASTOR M. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO JUGO, plaintiffs-appellees
vs.
SATURNINO DAVID, as Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellees, Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo, were deducted income tax from
their salaries as judicial officers in 1950 and 1951. They filed a joint appeal declaring the Section
13 of Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional and seeking for a refund from Saturnino David,
Collector of Internal Revenue.
The lower court judge held that the collection of income taxes from the salaries of the
appellees was a diminution of their compensation, thus, was a Constitutional violation and ordered
the refund of the taxes.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not Section 13 of RA 590 can justify the collection of income tax on the salary
of the judicial officers

RULING

No. The decision appealed from is affirmed. The Section 13 of RA 590 cannot justify the
collection of income tax on the salary of the judicial officers because it is a violation of the
Constitution.
As it was declared in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer (1950), the salaries of judicial officers
are not subject to taxation.
On the construction and application done of Section 9, Article 8 of the Constitution on the
aforementioned case, the court had declared that taxing on the salary of a judicial officer is a
diminution of such salary and so violates the Constitution. In this case, the Congress provided,
through R.A. 590, that ―No salary by any public officer 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, which violated the principle of separation of powers as it, being a
legislative branch, tried to assume the authority of the judiciary to define and interpret when it
passed such declaratory act.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the role of interpretation and application of the
Constitution and of statutes are solely within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary, and that the Congress
may not pass a law directing the judiciary of how it shall be interpreted.

Prepared by Ellaine R. Basterechia 1-A | Statutory Construction