Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

Saturnino David as Collector of Internal Revenue to refund Justice Pastor

Saturnino David, as Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant- Endencia and to Justice Fernand Jugo the income tax collected on their
salary.
appellant.
Case Digest: G.R. No. L-6355-56. August 31, 1953. 93 Phil 696 When the SC held in the Perfecto case that Judicial Officers were exempt from
salary tax because the collection thereof was a decrease of their salary which
Facts: This is a joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of is prohibited by the Constitution, the Congress thereafter promulgated RA 590,
Manila declaring section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional, and authorizing and legalizing the collection of income tax on the salaries of
ordering the appellant Saturnino David as Collector of Internal Revenue to re- Judicial Officers.
fund to Justice Pastor M. Endencia the sum of P1,744.45, representing the
income tax collected on his salary as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals Manila Electric Company vs Pasay Transportation Company
in 1951, and to Justice Fernando Jugo the amount of P2,345.46, representing
the income tax collected on his salary from January 1,1950 to October 19, Avelino vs Cuenco Case Digest
1950, as Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, and from October 20, 1950
to December 31,1950, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, without Issue:
special pronouncement as to costs. Whether Section 13 of RA 590 is not unconstitutional.

Ruling
Issue: Whether or not Republic Act No. 590, particularly section 13, can justify No.
and legalize the collection of income tax on the salary of judicial officers.
The Supreme Court believes that Section 10 of Article VIII of the Constitution
which refers to salaries of Judicial Officers was interpreted by Section13 of RA
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in the case of 590.
Perfecto vs. Meer, to the effect that the collection of income tax on the salary
of a judicial officer is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. It is This act interpreting the provision of the Constitution is an invasion of the
further held that the interpretation and application of the Constitution and of Jurisdiction of the Judiciary..
statutes is within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the Judicial
department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide The decision appealed is affirmed.
therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not violate a
Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of The exemption was not primarily intended to benefit judicial officers but was
later interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation sought and grounded on public policy. As said by Justice Van Devanter of the United
provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation already given States Supreme Court in the case of Evans vs. Gore (253 U. S., 245):
in a case by the highest court of the land.

Endencia vs David Case Digest
Facts
This is a joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance in manila
declaring section 13 of RA 590 unconstitutional and ordering the appellant
Endencia v. David G.R. Nos. L-6355-56 (1953)
upxateneo Uncategorized September 22, 20181 Minute
Topic. Characteristics of construction: Judicial function
Case. Joint appeal from lower court decision declaring RA 590 Sec. 13 the side of the defendant stated that the legislative body were not in favor of
unconstitutional and ordering CIR to refund the Court’s decision over Perfecto vs. Meer and immediately enacted R.A. 380
thereby imposing taxes to the Judicial Officers. The Court in the case
Facts. Prior to this case, SC ruled on Perfecto v. Meer regarding same issue. questioned the legal basis of the Act
In Perfecto, SC found that judge is not liable to income tax because it is
against Art. VIII Sec. 9 of the Constitution which provides that judges “shall Issue: Whether or not sec. 13 of R.A. 590 can justify and legalize the collection
receive compensation…which shall not be diminished during their continuance of income taxes on the salary of Judicial officers.
in office.” After this decision, Congress passed RA 590 which deems no public
officer salary exempt from income tax. Its rationale was that taxing salary is Ruling: The Supreme Court in its decision, citing sec. 9 Art. 8 of the
not a decrease in compensation. In present case, despite RA 590’s Constitution, declared R.A. 590 unconstitutional. It construed that the law is
promulgation, the lower court that first received this case ruled in favor of the clear in its provision that compensation of Judicial officers shall not be
judges following the constitutional provision. diminished in their continuance of their office and the imposition of the taxes
on their salaries is a clear diminution of the salary. It held that when a statute
Issue. Is RA 590 Constitutional even after SC decision? -No transgresses the authority vested in the legislature, it is the duty of the court to
declare it unconstitutional. It further explained that the action of the legislative
Ratio. No it is not because the SC, which has the power to interpret that laws, body as stated by the Solicitor General is a violation of Separation of Power
has already ruled on the issue. For the rationale, recall separation of powers. among branches of the government. The enactment of the statute
Legislature is tasked with creating laws; executive with executing laws; and because the legislative congress is not in favor of Supreme Court’s decision
judiciary with interpretation and application of laws. Congress’s insistence that shows that the former also interpreted the Act. It was ruled by the court that it
taxing their salaries is not equivalent to a decrease of compensation is an act is only the Supreme Court that has the power to interpret the Law and
of interpreting the phrase “which shall not be diminished during their Congress shall not interfere as the latter’s function is to enact the law.
continuance.” In short, Congress acted outside of its capacities. Only the
judiciary has the power to do what Congress just did: to interpret. With RA 590 G.R. No. L-6355-56
being unconstitutional, the judiciary’s decision in Perfecto is retained. In so far
as the present case has similarities with Perfecto, the instant case should also
be in favor of the judges. Endencia, M.P. and F. Jugo vs. D. Saturnino, as collector of
Internal Revenue
Doctrine: Judiciary has the power to interpret laws. If it has decided on a case G.R. No. L-6355-56
regarding a constitutional provision, the Senate cannot pass a law that runs August 31, 1953
counter to same provision.
En Banc

Facts: After the ruling of Court of First Instance of Manila declaring R.A. 590
unconstitutional and thereby ordering the respondent David Saturnino to re-
fund Justices M. Endencia and F. Hugo of the income taxes decreased
from their salaries, the petitioners in joint appeal questioned the
constitutionality of Republic Act 590. The lower court, citing the case
Perfecto vs. Meer, exhaustively declared that the collection of income
taxes is a violation of the Philippines Constitution. The Solicitor General on
Facts:
After the ruling of Court of First Instance of Manila declaring R.A. 590
unconstitutional and thereby ordering the respondent David Saturnino to re-
fund Justices M. Endencia and F. Hugo of the income taxes decreased from
their salaries, the petitioners in joint appeal questioned the constitutionality of
Republic Act 590. The lower court, citing the case Perfecto vs. Meer,
exhaustively declared that the collection of income taxes is a violation of the
Philippines Constitution. The Solicitor General on the side of the defendant
stated that the legislative body were not in favor of the Court’s decision over
Perfecto vs. Meer and immediately enacted R.A. 380 thereby imposing taxes
to the Judicial Officers. The Court in the case questioned the legal basis of the
Act.
Issue:
Whether or not sec. 13 of R.A. 590 can justify and legalize the collection of
income taxes on the salary of Judicial officers.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court in its decision, citing sec. 9 Art. 8 of the Constitution,
declared R.A. 590 unconstitutional. It construed that the law is clear in its
provision that compensation of Judicial officers shall not be diminished in their
continuance of their office and the imposition of the taxes on their salaries is a
clear diminution of the salary. It held that when a statute transgresses the
authority vested in the legislature, it is the duty of the court to declare it
unconstitutional.
It further explained that the action of the legislative body as stated by the
Solicitor General is a violation of Separation of Power among branches of the
government. The enactment of the statute because the legislative congress is
not in favor of Supreme Court’s decision shows that the former also
interpreted the Act. It was ruled by the court that it is only the Supreme Court
that has the power to interpret the Law and Congress shall not interfere as the
latter’s function is to enact the law.
G.R. No. L- 6355-56 August 31, 1953 Pastor M. Endencia and
Fernando Jugo Vs. Saturnino David, as Collector General of
Internal Revenue
Facts: After the ruling of the Court of first Instance of Manila declaring R.A.
590 unconstitutional and thereby ordering Saturnino David to refund Justices
Endencia and Jugo of the income taxes decreased from their salary,
petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the R.A. 590. The lower court
held that the said collection made to Justice Endencia and Jugo was a
diminution of their compensation and a violation of the constitution citing the
case of Perfecto vs. Meer. Thereafter, according to the solicitor general on
behalf of David said that the congress did not favorably received the ruling of
the Perfecto case, because immediately after its promulgation the congress
enacted R.A. 590, if not to counteract the ruling in the Perfecto case, at least
now to authorize and legalize the collection of income tax on the salaries of
judicial officers. The court questioned the legal basis of section 13 of R.A. 590
which states that: 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. The Supreme Court in a
decision interpreting the Constitution particularly section 9, Article VIII, has
held that judicial officers were exempt from payment of income tax on their
salaries, because the collection thereof was a diminution of such salaries,
specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not Section 13 of R.A. 590 can justify and legalize the
collection of income taxes on the salary of Judicial Officers?
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court declared Section 13 of R.A. 590
unconstitutional as it violated the clear and express provision of Section 9,
Article VIII of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further explained that the
interpretation and application of said laws belong exclusively to the Judicial
Department, whenever a statute is in violation of the fundamental law the
courts must so adjudge and thereby give effect to the constitution. The
legislative cannot pass any declaratory
act, or act declaratory of what the law was before it passage, so as to give it
any binding weight with the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in
a statute is not conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere; otherwise, the
legislature would be usurping a judicial function in defining a term. It also
cannot, upon passing a law which violates a constitutional provision, validate it
so as to prevent attack thereon in the courts, by a declaration that it shall be
so construed as not to violate the constitutional inhibition.