G.R. No.

211833, April 07, 2015

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN,

COMPOSTELAVALLEY PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Respondent

BRION,J:

FACTS:

Ferdinand Villanueva was appointed on September 18, 2012 as President of the Court of First Instance of the City of
Compostela-New Bataan, Poblacion, Province of Compostela Valley, Region XI, which is a first-level court. On
September 27, 2013, he applied for the vacant position of presiding judge of several RTCs. In letter dated December
18, 2013, the JBC Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Office informed the applicant that he was not on the list
of candidates for the above-mentioned positions. On the same day, the petitioner sent a letter via email requesting a
reconsideration of not including himself in the list of candidates under consideration and objecting to the inclusion
of candidates who had not passed the bias test. Petitioner was informed by the Chief Executive Officer of JBC
through a letter dated February 3, 2014 that his objection and reconsideration had been duly considered by JBC en
banc. However, his decision not to put his name on the list of candidates was upheld due to the JBC's long-standing
policy of opening up the possibility of promotion to the secondary courts, among others, to practicing judges who
have held their current positions for at least five years, and because the petitioner has been a judge for just over a
year, are excluded from the list. This causes the petitioner to have recourse to this Court.

Presiding Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva filed a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari, and Declaratory
Relief under Rules 65 and 63 of the Rules of Court, respectively, with request for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary Injunction, to assail the policy of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC),
requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level
courts, on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and was issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can
qualify as applicant to second-level courts is constitutional

HELD:

No. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution does not require that the law apply universally to all persons or
things without distinction. All it requires is equality between equals, determined by a valid classification. JBC's
consideration of experience as a factor in selecting recommended candidates does not violate equal opportunity
provisions and JBC does not discriminate when it uses length of service to evaluate and differentiate
applicants.Years of service represents a suitable criterion for determining proven competency and can be measured
in particular on the basis of experience. The classification created by the challenged policy satisfies the rational basis
test. There is a significant difference between a lower court judge with five years' experience and a judge like the
plaintiff with less than five years' experience, and the classification specified in the impugned directive is not
appropriate. and related to that legitimate purpose. The court therefore concluded that the directive in question did
not violate the equal treatment clause because it was based on a proper classification aimed at assessing the
applicant's demonstrated ability. Therefore, the policy in question is valid and constitutional.