Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-24806 February 13, 1 26

!UL"O #GC#O"L", plaintiff-appellant, vs. #L$ERTO SUGU"T#N, defendant-appellee. The appellant in his own behalf. The appellee in his own behalf. !O%NSON, J.: This action was commenced in the Cou t of !i st "nstance of the P ovince of "locos No te. "ts pu pose was to obtain the e#t ao dina $ le%al w it of quo warranto. The petition was denied b$ the t ial cou t and the plaintiff appealed. The &uestion p esented b$ the appeal a e' (a) "s the p ovision of Act No. *+,-, in so fa as it p ovides that ./ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ have eached the a%e of 01 $ea s,. valid and constitutional, when applied to /ustices of the peace appointed unde Act No. 2,3+, section +, to se ve .du in% %ood behavio 4. And, (b) "s the p esent action ba ed b$ the statutes of limitations4 The facts involved in the decision of those &uestions a e as follows' (a) That the said 5ulio A%caoili was appointed as /ustice of the peace of the municipalit$ of 6aoa%, of the P ovince of "locos No te, b$ 7is E#cellenc$, ! ancis Bu ton 7a ison, on the 21th da$ of Ma ch, +8+0, with autho it$ .to have and to hold the said office with all the powe s, p ivile%es, and emoluments the eunto of i%ht appe tainin% unto him, sub/ect to the conditions p esc ibed b$ law. The conditions prescribed by law. to which the appointee was .sub/ect. at the time of his appointment, a e found in

section + of Act No. 2,3+ (vol. 9 Public 6aws, +1*). :aid section is amendment to section 0- of Act No. +*0, and p ovides amon% othe thin%s fo the .appointment and te m of the /ustices of the peace.. "t p ovides that one /ustice of the peace and one au#ilia $ /ustice shall be appointed b$ the ;ove no -;ene al, etc., fo each municipalit$ o %ani<ed acco din% to the Municipal Code. :aid section fu the p ovides that .All /ustices of the peace and au#ilia $ /ustices shall hold office du in% good behavior . . . .. :aid Act No. 2,3+ was adopted, the Philippine 6e%islatu e was composed of the =nited :tates Commission and the 7ouse of Rep esentatives. (b) That on the +-th da$ of Ma ch, +82*, the Philippine 6e%islatu e, composed of the :enate and 7ouse of Rep esentatives, adopted Act No. *+,-, which was .an Act to amend and repeal certain provisions of the Administrative Code relative to the judiciary in o de to eo %ani<e the latte > inc easin% the numbe of /ud%es fo ce tain /udicial dist icts> inc easin% the sala ies of /ud%es of Cou ts of !i st "nstance> vestin% the :ec eta $ of 5ustice with autho it$ to detail a dist ict /ud%e tempo a il$ to a dist ict o p ovince othe than his own> regulating the salaries of justices of the peace> abolishin% the municipal cou t and /ustice of the peace cou t of the Cit$ of Manila and c eatin% in lieu the eof a municipal cou t with th ee b anches> e%ulatin% the sala ies of cle ?s of cou t and othe subo dinate emplo$ees of Cou ts of !i st "nstance, and fo othe pu poses. Notwithstandin% the fact that the title of said Act No. (*+,-), so fa as the same elates to /ustice of the peace, p ovides onl$ fo . e%ulatin% the sala ies of /ustices of the peace,. said Act in section 2,* p ovides fo .the appointment and dist ibution of /ustices of the peace. with the p oviso in said section .. . . That justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years .. Attention is he e called to the fact a%ain that the e is nothin% in the title of the Act, which, in the sli%htest de% ee, indicates that said Act contains p ovisions fo .appointment of /ustices of the of the peace. no as to the pe iod du in% which the$ ma$ se ve afte appointment. Attention is also invited to the fact that the same section (2,*) contains p ovisions fo the /u isdiction of /ustices of the peace while section 2,- contains p ovisions definin% the "qualifications for justices of the peace." :ection 2+, of said Act p ovides fo the .fillin% of vacancies in the office of /ustices of the peace.. The e is nothin% in the title of the Act which in an$ wa$ indicates that the Act contains said p ovisions. Attention is he e called to the p ovision of the Act of Con% ess of the 28th

da$ of Au%ust, +8+0, and to section * the eof, which p ovides . That no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject and that the subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill .. The effect of a violation of said p ovision of said Act of Con% ess will be discussed late . (c) That on the 8th da$ of Ap il, +82*, the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice sent the followin% lette to the said 5ulio A%caoili, th ou%h the 5ud%e of the Cou t of !i st "nstance of the Thi d 5udicial @ist ict, of the P ovince of "locos :u . :aid lette is in the wo ds and fi%u es followin%' MAN"6A, April ! "!#$ :"R' "n view of the p ovision of section 2,* of the Administ ative Code as amended b$ section + of Act No. *+,-, which, in pa t, p ovides that /ustices and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ have eached the a%e of si#t$-five $ea s, and in view of the fact that the eco d shows that $ou a e ove si#t$-five $ea s of a%e al ead$, " have the hono to he eb$ advise $ou that, upon eceipt he eof, $ou cease to be a /ustice of the peace b$ ope ation of said amendment of the Administ ative Code. Respectfull$, (:%d.) 6=": P. TARRE: %ndersecretary of &ustice :aid lette was eceived b$ 5ulio A%caoili, the /ustice of the peace, on the 20th da$ of Ap il, +82*. "t was handed to him b$ the cle ? of the Cou t of !i st "nstance of the P ovince of "locos No te. (d) "t will be noted that in the lette of Ap il 8, +82*, the :ec eta $ of 5ustice di ected o o de ed 5ulio A%caoili, then /ustice of the peace, . upon receipt of said letter to cease to be a justice of the peace .. A%ainst the o de contained in said lette of Ap il 8th, 5ulio A%caoili ente ed a p otest dated Ap il 29, +82*, in the followin% lan%ua%e'

5=:T"CE A! T7E PEACE A! CA=RT A! 6AAA;, "6ACA: NARTE P. ". April #' "!#$ The 7on. 6=": TARRE: %ndersecretary of &ustice of the (hilippine )slands :"R' The unde si%ned, 5ulio A%caoili, /ustice of the peace of 6aoa%, capital of the P ovince of "locos No te, has the hono to state that on Ap il 20, +82*, he eceived, th ou%h the cle ? of the Cou t of !i st "nstance of "locos No te, $ou communication of Ap il 8, +82*, info min% the unde si%ned that, havin% attained the a%e of 01 $ea s, he ceased to be /ustice of the peace of 6aoa% unde the p ovisions of section + of Act No. *+,-, amendin% section 2,* of the Administ ative Code, which is Act No. 2-++ enacted in the $ea +8+8, and which section + of said Act No. *+,- p ovides in pa t that the /ustices of the peace and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ attain the a%e of 01 $ea s. Bith all due espect, the unde si%ned has the hono to state that he believes that the afo ecited pa t of the p ovision of section + of Act No. *+,- does not include those /ustices of the peace who had al ead$ been appointed /ustices of the peace, li?e the unde si%ned, befo e the passa%e and enactment of said Act No. *+,- and the amended Administ ative Code, no can this be the intention of the le%islato , fo if it we e so, it should have so stated in o de that the /ustices of the peace al ead$ appointed, who we e discha %in% the functions of the office and who had attained the a%e of 01 $ea s when said Act was passed and enacted, should cease f om thei office. The unde si%ned was appointed of the peace of 6aoa% on Ma ch 21, +8+0, and the efo e unde Act No. 2,3+, enacted !eb ua $ *, +8++. :ection + of this Act, which amended section 0- of Act No. +*0,

was not amended b$ an$ subse&uent Act and p ovides' All /ustices if the peace and au#ilia $ /ustices shall hold office du in% %ood behavio and those now in office who have not the &ualifications e&ui ed b$ this Act shall continue in office until thei successo s a e appointed. 7as section 2,* of the Administ ative Code amended o epealed section + of Act No. 2,3+4 The unde si%ned believes that it has not, /ud%in% f om the conte#t of both laws, no was it epealed because if this we e the case the ;ove no - ;ene al would have enewed the appointments of all the /ustices of the peace and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace unde said section 2,* of the Administ ative Code. The unde si%ned was appointed /ustice of the peace of 6aoa% on Ma ch 21, +8+0, unde the said Act No. 2,3+ and continues in the discha %e of the duties of the office up to the p esent time, without the ;ove no -;ene al havin% enewed his appointment unde said section 2,* of the Administ ative Code. Then Act No. *+,- came, section + of which amends section 2,* of the Administ ative Code. 7as this amendment et oactive effect4 "n the fi st place the le%islatu e could not %ive o have %iven this Act such a cha acte , and if it had intended to do so, it would have so stated> and in the second place, because not onl$ is such e#p ess decla ation lac?in% in the law but Act No. *+,- ve $ clea l$ p ovides that the /ustices of the peace and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace to be appointed shall hold office until the$ attain the a%e of 01 $ea s. Ce $ espectfull$, (:%d.) 5=6"A A;CAA"6" &ustice of the (eace of *aoag )locos +orte

A fu the p otest a%ainst the said o de of the :ec eta $ of 5ustice was made b$ 5ulio A%caoili on the -th da$ of 5ul$, +82*, and is couched in the followin% lan%ua%e' ", 5ulio A%caoili, 5ustice of the Peace of the Municipalit$ of 6aoa%, "locos No te, do he eb$ state that on this da$, 5ul$ -, +82*, M . Buenaventu a Acampo, P ovincial !iscal of "locos No te, appea ed at m$ office and the eupon showed me the tele% am of =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice To es, add essed to said p ovincial fiscal. Afte eadin% said tele% am " as?ed the p ovincial fiscal to fu nish me a cop$ the eof and he fu nished me a cop$ of the tele% am. :aid tele% am of the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice in substance o de s the p ovincial fiscal> to cause me to delive the office and all the documents and eco ds the eof to the au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace, because acco din% to said =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice " must cease f om the office unde Act No. *+,-, and that ) be prosecuted for violation of article $,- of the (enal Code should " fail to compl$ with the tele% am sent to me on the 2d instant b$ the same =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice. " do also state that " have neve had an$ malicious intention to disobe$ the o de s of the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice, 7on. To es, one %iven tele% am and the othe b$ lette . " onl$ desi ed to stud$ the spi it of the law and this is the eason wh$ " did not leave the office until the p esent time, because ) was from the office of the justice of the peace unde the p ovision of Act No. 2,3+ unde which " was appointed /ustice of the peace of the capital, and which Act was not epealed b$ an$ subse&uent one, no b$ Act No. *+,-, which Act No. 2,3+ p ovides that the /ustices of the peace to be appointed unde it, should hold office du in% %ood behavio . This Act does not sa$ an$thin% as to limitation of a%e, and the efo e " believe m$self entitled to continue in, and etain the office. " do also state that lest the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice should thin? that " do not dul$ espect the constituted autho ities, " now delive unde p otest the office of

the /ustice of the peace of 6aoa% and all its documents and eco ds, as well as the fu nitu e the ein contained, to M . Albe to :u%uitan, au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace, in the p esence of the p ovincial fiscal, in compliance with the tele% am of the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice, 7on. To es, eceived b$ me th ou%h the p ovincial fiscal of "locos No te. ) ma.e under protest the delivery of the office and its documents and eco ds because " thin?, as " have stated, that " must not cease f om the office of /ustice of the peace, and in o de that m$ i%ht ma$ be defined, " shall institute an action in the p ope cou t of /ustice to decide the case. (:%d.) 5=6"A A;CAA"6" " eceived the thin%s of the office. (:%d.) A6BERTA :=;="TAN "n the p esence of' (:%d.) B=ENA C. ACAMPA (rovincial /iscal 5ulio A%caoili patientl$ waited in vain fo a esolution b$ the :ec eta $ of 5ustice of the p otest which he p esented on the 29th da$ of Ap il and on the -th da$ of 5ul$, +82*> and not havin% eceived an$ epl$ to his p otest, filed a petition fo a w it of quo warranto in the Cou t of !i st "nstance of the P ovince of "locos No te on the 2*d da$ of Ap il, +821, which petition was amended b$ the filin% of anothe petition in the same cou t on the 9th da$ of :eptembe , +821. A ca eful eadin% of the two p otests (Ap il 29, +82*, and 5ul$ -, +82*) shows that the$ contain a %uments in suppo t the eof which, in all e&uit$ and /ustice, demanded a epl$, but no epl$ was fo thcomin%. The a %uments in suppo t of his p otests find a counte pa t and a e full$ suppo ted in the decision of this cou t in the case of :e%ovia vs. Noel, of Ma ch 3, +821 (3- Phil., 13*), whe ein the :up eme Cou t held that the Act No. *+,- could not be applied to and enfo ced a%ainst /ustices of the peace who had been appointed p io to the +-th da$ of Ma ch, +82*. 7ad the :ec eta $ of 5ustice answe ed said p otests, the % eat in/ustice which has been done to 5ulio A%caoili pe haps mi%ht have been avoided.

(e) That 5ulio A%caoili bein% th eatened with a c iminal p osecution unless he tu ned his office ove to the au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace, and to avoid scandal, dis% ace and humiliation which mi%ht come to him b$ vi tue of said p osecution, on the -th da$ of 5ul$, +82*, still p otestin%, delive ed the possession of his office, as /ustice of the peace, to the au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace of the municipalit$ of 6aoa%. "t is a matte of common ?nowled%e that 5ulio A%caoili had been ent usted with the hi%hest office in his p ovince which the people could confe upon him. The petitions p esented b$ 5ulio A%caoili in the Cou t of !i st "nstance, the fi st on the 2*d da$ of 5ul$, +821, and the second on the 9th da$ of :eptembe , +821, contain, in esume, the fo e%oin% facts. To the petition the espondent Albe to :u%uitan answe ed and set up the defense of p esc iption. =pon the issue thus p esented, the 7ono able !e min Ma iano, /ud%e, sustained the defense of p esc iption and denied the petition fo the e#t ao dina $ le%al emed$ of quo warranto. ! om that /ud%ment 5ulio A%caoili appealed, and now contends in a vi%o ous and lo%ical a %ument that his emed$ has not p esc ibed. Conside in% the fi st &uestion su%%ested above, attention is a%ain called to one of the p ovisions of section * of the 5ones 6aw (Act of Con% ess, Au%ust 28, +8+0, vol. +2, Public 6aws of the Philippine "slands). The .5ones 6aw. is the constitution of the Philippine "slands p ovidin% a %ove nment the efo . :ubpa a% aph +0 of section * of the 5ones law p ovides .That no bill which ma$ be enacted into law shall emb ace mo e than one sub/ect, and that sub/ect shall be expressed in the title of the bill .. =nde said p ovision, ma$ the le%islatu e adopt a law which contains in the title of the Act4 The effect of violatin% said p ovision of the 5ones 6aw has been b ou%ht befo e the cou ts man$ times. The effect of violatin% said p ovision has al ead$ been passed upon b$ this cou t. (Cent al Capi< vs. Rami e<, 3, Phil., 99*, 998.) "n the case of Cent al Capi< vs. Rami e<, supra, it was decided that said p ovision of the 5ones 6aw was mandato $ and not di ecto $ and its violation was fatal to an$ p ovision of the law to which no efe ence was made in the title. "n the decision of this cou t in the case of Cent al Capi< vs. Rami e<, the decisions of the cou ts of man$ of the states of the =nion we e followed. Man$ of the constitutions of the :tates of the =nion contain simila p ovision to that &uoted above f om the 5ones 6aw. Amon% such states ma$ be mentioned Alabama, Califo nia, ;eo %ia, "daho, "llinois, "ndiana, "owa, Dansas, Dentuc?$, 6ouisiana, Ma $land, Michi%an, Minnesota, Missou i, Montana, Neb as?a, Nevada, New 5e se$, New Eo ?, Ahio, A e%on, Penns$lvania, :outh Ca olina, Te#as, Tennessee, Ci %inia, Best Ci %inia, Bisconsin and B$omin%.

M . 5ustice :uthe land, now an Associate 5ustice of the :up eme Cou t of the =nited :tates, in his valuable wo ? on .:tatuto $ Const uction,. vol. +, 2nd ed.) at section +++, states the eason and the pu pose of such a constitutional p ovision. 7e sa$s' "n the const uction and application of this constitutional est iction the cou ts have ?ept steadil$ in view the co ection of the mischief a%ainst which it was aimed. The ob/ect is to p event the p actice, which was common in all le%islative bodies whe e no such est iction e#isted, of emb acin% in the same bill incon% uous matte s havin% no elation to each othe , o to the sub/ect specified in the title, b$ which measu es we e often adopted without att actin% attention. :uch distinct sub/ects ep esented dive se inte ests, and we e combined in o de to unite the membe s of the le%islatu e who favo eithe in suppo t of all. These combinations we e co uptive of the le%islatu e and dan%e ous to the state. :uch omnibus bills sometimes included mo e than a hund ed sections on as man$ diffe ent sub/ects, with a title app op iate to the fi st section, and fo othe pu poses. The failu e to indicate in the title of the bill the ob/ect intended to be accomplished b$ the le%islation often esulted in membe s votin% i%no antl$ fo measu es which the$ would not ?nowin%l$ have app oved. And not onl$ we e le%islato s thus misled, but the public also> so that le%islative p ovisions we e stealthil$ pushed th ou%h in the closin% hou s of a session, which, havin% no me it to commend them, would have been made odious b$ popula discussion and emonst ance if thei pendenc$ had been seasonabl$ announced. The constitutional clause unde discussion is intended to co ect these evils> to p event such co uptin% a%% e%ations of incon% uous measu es, b$ confinin% each act to one sub/ect> to p event su p ise and inadve tence b$ e&ui in% that sub/ect o ob/ect to be e#p essed in the title. The :up eme cou t of the :tate of Alabama, in discussin% the effect of the violation of a simila p ovision of the constitution of that state in the cases of Bal?e vs. :tate (38 Ala., *28) and 6indsa$ vs. =nited :tates :avin%s and 6oan Association (+2, Ala., +10), had the followin% to sa$, &uotin% with app oval, what M . 5ustice Coole$ in his Constitutional 6imitations, at pa%e +3*, had said upon that &uestion'

The ob/ect sou%ht to be accomplished, and the mischief p oposed to be emedied b$ this p ovision, a e well ?nown. . . . 6e%islative assemblies fo the dispatch of business often pass bills b$ thei titles onl$, without e&ui in% them to be ead. A specious title sometimes cove ed a le%islation which, if its eal cha acte had been disclosed, would not have commanded assent. To p event su p ise and f aud on the le%islatu e is one of the pu poses this p ovision was intended to accomplish. Befo e the adoption of this p ovision, the title of a statute was often no indication of its sub/ect o contents. . . . An evil this constitutional e&ui ement was intended to co ect was the blendin% in one and the same statute of such thin%s as we e dive se in thei natu e, and we e connected onl$ to combine in favo of all the advocates of each, thus often secu in% the passa%e of seve al measu es, no one of which could have succeeded on its own me its. M . Coole$ thus sums up his eview of the autho ities, definin% the ob/ects of this p ovision' "t ma$, the efo e, be assumed as settled, that the pu pose of these p ovisions was' !i st, to p event hod%e-pod%e, o lo%- ollin% le%islation> second, to p event su p ise o f aud upon the le%islatu e, b$ means of p ovisions in bills of which the titles %ave no info mation, and which mi%ht the efo e be ove loo?ed and ca elessl$ and unintentionall$ adopted> and, thi d, to fai l$ app ise the people, th ou%h such publication of le%islative p oceedin%s as is usuall$ made, of the sub/ects of le%islation that a e bein% conside ed, in o de that the$ ma$ have oppo tunit$ of bein% hea d the eon, b$ petition o othe wise if the$ shall so desi e. (38 Ala., **,, **+.) The pu poses of constitutional e&ui ement must be bo ne steadil$ in mind, when it becomes necessa $ to dete mine whethe the e has been le%islative obse vance of it. The e#position of these pu poses b$ 5ud%e Coole$ is accepted, we believe, in all the states in which a li?e limitation p evails. . . . (+2, Ala., +-2.) "n the case of People vs. Pa ?s (19 Cal., 023) the :up eme Cou t of the :tate of Califo nia had occasion to discuss the &uestion now befo e us and said' At the least, then two hete o%eneous sub/ects a e emb aced in the act, one of which is not e#p essed in the title, and the$

cannot be se% e%ated. The title does not e#p ess the ob/ects of le%islation embodied in the p ovisions of the act. "t is, the efo e, na owe than the bod$ of the act, and fails to impa t that notice of the measu es enacted, which the Constitution e&ui es. To p ohibit such le%islation was the sole end and aim of the constitutional e&ui ement. The p actice, sa$s the :up eme Cou t of Missou i, of comp isin% in one bill sub/ects of a dive se and anta%onistic natu e, in o de to combine in its suppo t membe s who we e in favo of pa ticula measu es, but neithe of which could command the e&uisite ma/o it$ on its own me its, was found to be not a co uptive influence in the 6e%islatu e itself, but dest uctive of the best inte ests of the :tate. But this was not mo e det imental than that othe pe nicious p actice, b$ which, th ou%h de#te ous and unsc upulous mana%ement, desi%nin% men inse ted clauses in the bodies of bills, of the t ue meanin% of which the titles %ave no indication, and b$ s?illful maneuve in% u %ed them on to thei passa%e. These thin%s led to f aud and in/u $, and it was found necessa $ to appl$ a co ective in the shape of a constitutional p ovision. (Cit$ of :t. 6ouis vs. Tiefel, 32 Mo., 18,.) The p ovision has been f amed in the constitutions of man$ of the :tates of the =nion> and the cou ts, wheneve it has come befo e them, have libe all$ const ued it as the will of the people in the inte ests of honest le%islation. @ecisions to the same effect a e found in the followin% cases' Cit$ of :t. 6ouis vs. Tiefel (32 Mo., 1-9)> Cannon vs. Mathes (9 7eis? FTenn.G, 1,3)> R$e son vs. =tle$ (+0 Mich., 208)> Boa d of Public Education fo the Cit$ of Ame icus vs. Ba low (38 ;a., 2*2)> :pie vs. Ba?e (+2, Cal., *-,). M . 5ustice :uthe land, in a fu the discussion of the &uestion, at section ++2 of his wo ? on :tatuto $ Const uction, said' The efficienc$ of this constitutional emed$ to cu e the evil and mischief which has been pointed out depends on /udicial enfo cement> on this constitutional in/unction bein% e%a ded as mandatory, and compliance with it essential to the validit$ of le%islation. The mischief e#isted notwithstandin% the swo n official obli%ation of le%islato s> it mi%ht be e#pected to continue notwithstandin% that the obli%ation is fo mulated and emphasi<ed in this constitutional in/unction, if it be const ued as add essed e#clusivel$ to them, and onl$ di ecto $. "t would, in a %ene al sense, be a dan%e ous doct ine to announce that an$ of the p ovisions of the

constitution ma$ be obe$ed o dis e%a ded at the me e will o pleasu e of the le%islatu e, unless it is clea be$ond all &uestion that such was intention of the f ame s of that inst ument. "t would seem to be a lowe in% of the p ope di%nit$ of the fundamental law to sa$ that it descends to p esc ibin% ules of o de in unessential matte s which ma$ be followed o dis e%a ded at pleasu e. The fact is this' That whateve constitutional p ovision can be loo?ed upon as di ecto $ me el$ is ve $ li?el$ to be t eated b$ the le%islatu e as if it was devoid of mo al obli%ation, and to be the efo e habituall$ dis e%a ded. "n the case of Cannon vs. Mathes, supra, M . Chief 5ustice Nicholson, in discussin% the effect of the violation of a constitutional p ovision li?e the one befo e us, said' H H H This is a di ect, positive, and impe ative limitation upon the powe of the 6e%islatu e. "t matte s not that a bill has passed th ou%h th ee eadin%s in each house, on th ee diffe ent da$s, and has eceived the app oval of the ;ove no > still it is not a law of the :tate if it emb aces mo e than one sub/ect. . . . The :up eme Cou t of Alabama, in the case of Bal?e vs. :tate, supra, said' "t is settled law of this cou t, founded on easonin% which seems to us unanswe able, that this p ovision of the Constitution is not a me e ule of le%islative p ocedu e, di ecto $ to the %ene al assembl$, but that it is mandato $, and it is the dut$ of cou ts to decla e void an$ statute not confo min% to it. . . . M . 5ustice Coole$ in his valuable wo ? on Constitutional 6imitations (pp. +-8. +9,) states that ou cou ts have held, without e#ception, that such constitutional p ovision is mandatory. Conside in% that the % eat wei%ht of autho it$ is to the effect that the p ovision li?e the one above &uoted f om the 5ones 6aw is mandato $> and conside in% that the e is nothin% in the title of Act No. *+,- which indicates in the sli%htest de% ee that said Act contains a p ovision .that /ustices and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ have eached the a%e of si#t$-five $ea s,. we a e fo ced to the conclusions that, that p ovision is ille%al, void and cont a $ to the mandato $ p ovision of the 5ones 6aw, and that said law (*+,-) cannot be applied to /ustices and

au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace who we e appointed p io to the +-th da$ of Ma ch, +82*> and that when 5ulio A%caoili was fo cibl$, b$ means of th eats and intimidation, o de ed to leave his office as /ustice of the peace, he was fo ced to do so ille%all$, without /ust cause, and should the efo e be esto ed to his position as /ustice of the peace of the municipalit$ of 6aoa%, without dela$. Bith efe ence to the second &uestion above su%%ested, in re p esc iption o limitation of the action, it ma$ be said that o i%inall$ the e was no limitation o p esc iption of action in an action fo quo warranto, neithe could the e be, fo the eason that it was an action b$ the ;ove nment and p esc iption could not be plead as a defense to an action b$ the ;ove nment. The ancient w it of quo warranto was a hi%h p e o%ative w it in the natu e of a w it of i%ht b$ the Din% a%ainst an$ one who usu ped o claimed an$ office, f anchise o libe t$ of the c own, to in&ui e b$ what autho it$ the usu pe suppo ted his claim, in o de to dete mine the i%ht. Even at the p esent time in man$ of the civili<ed count ies of the wo ld the action is still e%a ded as a p e o%ative w it and no limitation o p esc iption is pe mitted to ba the action. As a %ene al p inciple it ma$ be stated that o dina $ statutes of limitation, civil o penal, have no application to quo warranto p oceedin% b ou%ht to enfo ce a public i%ht. (McPhail vs. People ex rel. 6ambe t, +0, "ll., --> 12 Am. :t. Rep., *,0> People ex rel. Molone$ vs. PullmanIs Palace Ca Co., +-1 "ll., +21> 03 6. R. A., *00.) "n all public matte s a w it of quo warranto is a w it of i%ht at the suit of the state, and issues as a matte of cou se upon demand of the p ope office (:tate e# el. Bashin%ton Count$ vs. :tone, 21 Mo., 111> Commonwealth vs. Allen, +29 Mass., *,9), and the cou t has no autho it$ to withhold leave to file a petition the efo . "f the statute of limitation o p esc iption cannot un a%ainst the state, it is difficult to unde stand how in the same action the$ ma$ be used as a defense a%ainst a public office who has been fo cibl$, with th eats and intimidation, ousted f om a public office b$ the ;ove nment itself as was done in the p esent case. The p inciple that acts of limitation do not bind the Din% (the :tate) o the people, applies to p oceedin% b$ quo warranto, the ule bein% that the ep esentative of the state ma$ file an info mation on behalf of the people at an$ time> and the lapse of time constitutes no ba to the p oceedin%, in confo mit$ with the ma#im +ullum tempus occurrit regi. (Catlett vs. People e# el. :tatesIs Atto ne$, +1+ "ll., +0.) !o the state to claim that the statutes of limitation do not appl$ to it and $et insist that it ma$ plead such statutes to ba the action of quo warranto b ou%ht b$ one of its public officials whom it itself has ousted f om office, appea s to us to be un/ust, unfai , un easonable, and not within the contemplation of sound /u isp udence.

:o much of the %ene al ule conce nin% limitation of action in quo warranto p oceedin%s. "s the e a statute in the Philippine "slands of limitation, limitin% the action of a public official of the ;ove nment who has been dul$ appointed and &ualified, and who has, b$ fo ce and intimidation, been ousted f om such office, to defeat his action of quo warranto4 An the -th da$ of Au%ust, +8,+, the =nited :tates Philippine Commission adopted Act No. +8, which had been conside ed p ivatel$ and publicl$ fo seve al months the etofo e. "ts p ovisions we e published th ou%hout the Philippine "slands lon% p io to its adoption. Bhile said Act was adopted on the -th da$ of Au%ust, +8,+, it did not ta?e effect, even thou%h it had been published, until the +st da$ of Actobe , +8,+. (Act No. 2+2.) An e#amination of said Act (+8,) shows that it p ovides emedies fo the usu pation of office o f anchise, etc. (secs. +8--2+0). :aid Act No. +8, was published in both En%lish and :panish. :ection 2+0, in En%lish, p ovided that .Nothin% he ein contained shall autho i<e an action a%ainst a co po ation fo fo feitu e of cha te , unless the same be commenced within five $ea s afte the act complained of was done o committed> no shall an action be b ou%ht a%ainst an office to be ousted f om his office unless within one $ea afte the cause of such ouste , o the i%ht to hold the office, a ose.. The same section (2+0), as published in :panish, eads as follows' .+inguna de estas disposiciones facultara la iniciacion de un juicio contra una corporacion por la perdida de sus derechos de concesion a menos que el juicio se lleve a efecto dento de los cinco a0os siguente a la comision u omision del hecho objeto de la accion. Tampocose podra iniciar un juicio la persona que ejer1a un cargo en una corporaciuon para desposeerla a menos que se lleve a efecto dentro del a0o siguente a la fecha de la comision del hecho que dio motivo a su privacion o que se puso en duda su derecho para ocupar el cargo .. :aid section (2+0), as published in :panish and t anslated into En%lish, eads as follows' .Nothin% he ein contained shall autho i<e an action a%ainst a co po ation fo fo feitu e of its co po ate i%hts, unless the same be commenced within five $ea s afte the commission o omission complained of too? place. Neithe ma$ an action be b ou%ht a%ainst an office to oust him f om office, unless the same is commenced within one $ea afte the commission of the act which caused the dep ivation the eof, o afte the i%ht to hold the office a ose.. :aid section 2+0, as above &uoted in :panish, was published in vol. + of the Public 6aws of the Philippine "slands and dist ibuted to the public office s th ou%hout the Philippine "slands. "t is a fact of %ene al info mation that even now, in +820, the :panish cop$ of the Public 6aws a e consulted b$ the people in emote pa ts of the Philippine "slands fo the pu pose of ?nowin% what the law is. "t is not st an%e, the efo e, that the appellant did not believe that said section 2+0 applied to public office s> that it onl$ applied to office s

of co po ations as it appea ed in the :panish t anslation. "s it /ust and fai and easonable fo the ;ove nment of the Philippine "slands to oust one of its office s f om an office to which he had been le%all$ appointed, b$ fo ce and intimidation and without /ust cause, and then to defeat his action in quo warranto b$ invo?in% the p ovisions of a public statute, diffe ent f om the one which the ;ove nment itself had fu nished its public office s4 The appellant is familia with the :panish but not with the En%lish lan%ua%e. 7e natu all$ elied upon the :panish ve sion of the law fo his info mation as to what the law eall$ was. Not onl$ had the appellant the i%ht to el$ upon the p ovisions of section 2+0 as the$ appea ed in :panish in the Public 6aws of the Philippine "slands, but the eadin% of the th ee o fou sections immediatel$ p ecedin% section 2+0 will show that the$ efe specificall$ to co po ations onl$. The appellant, the efo e, was /ustified in believin% that said section 2+0 as it appea ed in :panish was co ect. At least the ;ove nment should %ive him c edit with havin% in %ood faith. But, even % antin% that the appellant is bound b$ the p ovisions of section 2+0 as it appea s in En%lish, is the same applicable to the appellant4 B$ efe ence to said section above &uoted in En%lish, it will be seen that afte the wo d .committed. the e is a semicolon. @oes that which follows the semicolon have efe ence to the same sub/ect matte which p ecedes it4 A semicolon is a ma ? of % ammatical punctuation, in the En%lish lan%ua%e, to indicate a sepa ation in the elation of the thou%ht, a de% ee % eate than that e#p essed b$ a comma, and what follows that semicolon must have elation to the same matte which p ecedes it. A semicolon is not used fo the pu pose of int oducin% a new idea. A semicolon is used fo the pu pose of continuin% the e#p ession of a thou%ht, a de% ee % eate than that e#p essed b$ a me e comma. "t is neve used fo the pu pose of int oducin% a new idea. The comma and semicolon a e both used fo the same pu pose, namel$, to divide sentences and pa ts of the sentences, the onl$ diffe ence bein% that the semicolon ma?es the division a little mo e p onounced than the comma. The punctuation used in a law ma$ alwa$s be efe ed to fo the pu pose of asce tainin% the t ue meanin% of a doubtful statute. "t follows the efo e that, inasmuch as all of the p ovisions of said section 2+0 which p ecede the semicolon efe to co po ations onl$, that which follows the semicolon has efe ence to the same sub/ect matte , o to office s of a co po ation. But even % antin%, fo the sa?e of the a %ument, that the wo d .office . as used in the latte pa t of said section applies to public office s who have been ousted f om thei position, and not onl$ to office s of co po ations, then we have the &uestion p esented' 7ad the one $ea mentioned in said section e#pi ed on the 2*d da$ of Ap il, +821, when the fi st complaint, was filed in the p esent action4 Bhen did the $ea be%in to un if said section is applicable to the appellant4

"t will be emembe ed that on the -th da$ of 5ul$, +82*, the appellant was ousted f om his office as /ustice of the peace of the municipalit$ of 6aoa%. Not onl$ did he su ende his office on that date unde p otest, but also on the 29th da$ of Ap il, +82*, when he was notified b$ the :ec eta $ of 5ustice that he cease to be a /ustice of the peace of his municipalit$, he then p otested and %ave a lon% and lucid a %ument in suppo t of his p otest. "n all /ustice to him, did he not have a i%ht, without an$ le%al action to p otect his i%ht, to await the solution of his p otest of the 29th da$ of Ap il, +82*4 7e had a i%ht to believe that the % ounds upon which his p otest was based would be convincin% to the :ec eta $ of 5ustice and that he would not be emoved. =ntil this ve $ hou the eco d contains no epl$ f om the :ec eta $ of 5ustice and no answe whateve to the le%al % ounds p esented b$ the appellant upon his i%ht to continue as /ustice of the peace and not to be ousted. "n ou opinion even % antin% that section 2+0 is applicable to the appellant, the pe iod of p esc iption had not be%un and un at the time of the commencement of the p esent action. 7e was /ustified in dela$in% the commencement of his action until an answe to his p otest had been made. 7e had i%ht to await the answe to his p otest, in the confident belief that it would be esolved in his favo and that action would unnecessa $. "t is contended, howeve , that the &uestion befo e us was answe ed and esolved a%ainst the contention of the appellant in the case of Bautista vs. !a/a do (*9 Phil., 023). "n that case no &uestion was aised no was it even su%%ested that said section 2+0 did not appl$ to a public office . That &uestion was not discussed no efe ed to b$ an$ of the pa ties inte ested in that case. "t has been f e&uentl$ decided that the fact that a statute has been accepted as valid, and invo?ed and applied fo man$ $ea s in cases whe e its validit$ was not aised o passed on, does not p event a cou t f om late passin% on its validit$, whe e the &uestion is s&ua el$ and p ope l$ aised and p esented, Bhe e a &uestion passes the cou t sub silentio, the case in which the &uestion was so passed is not bindin% on the Cou t (Mc;i vs. 7amilton and Ab eu, *, Phil., 10*), no should it be conside ed as a p ecedent. (=. :. vs. No ie%a and Tobias, *+ Phil., *+,> Chicote vs. Acasio, *+ Phil., 3,+> =. :. vs. Mo e, * C anch F=. :.G, +18, +-2> =. :. vs. :an%es, +33 =. :., *+,, *+8> C oss vs. Bu ?e, +30 =. :., 92.) !o the easons %iven in the case of Mc;i vs. 7amilton and Ab eu, supra, the decision in the case of Bautista vs. !a/a do, supra, can have no bindin% fo ce in the inte p etation of the &uestion p esented he e. The p esent case is anomalous unde Ame ican sove ei%nt$. An office was appointed in acco dance with the law to the /udicia $ to se ve .du in% %ood behavio .. Afte he had faithfull$ and honestl$ se ved the ;ove nment fo a numbe of $ea s the le%islatu e adopted a new law which a bit a il$, without

%ivin% an$ eason the efo e, p ovided that said office cease to be such when he should each the a%e of 01 $ea s. :aid law contained no e#p ess p ovision o method fo its enfo cement. The E#ecutive @epa tment, th ou%h its =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice, without an$ autho it$ %iven in said law, notified the said office that he was no lon%e an office in the /udicial depa tment of the ;ove nment and must vacate his office and tu n the same ove to anothe , who was desi%nated b$ said =nde sec eta $. Bhen the office p otested a%ainst such a bit a $ action, %ivin% easons the efo , and without answe in% said p otest, he was th eatened with a c iminal p osecution if he did not immediatel$ vacate his office. The histo $ of this case eads mo e li?e a sto $ of the A abian Ni%hts than li?e a p ocedu e unde a well-o %ani<ed ;ove nment. "t seems impossible to believe, and we could not believe it, we e the facts not actuall$ suppo ted b$ the eco d. Bh$ the =nde sec eta $ of 5ustice did not follow the o de l$ p ocedu e ma ?ed out b$ Act No. +8, is not e#plained. The appellant was %iven no hea in%. Even his p otest, couched in most humble and espectful lan%ua%e, fell upon deaf ea s. Absolute indiffe ence was shown to the espectful p otest and the able a %ument %iven in suppo t the eof. The onl$ answe to his p otest was a th eat of a c iminal p osecution if he did not vacate his office. 7is humilit$ was met with auste eness. 7is humble petition was met with a th eat. 7is patient waitin% fo a epl$ to his p otest was ended b$ a demand that he be p osecuted fo efusin% to compl$ with an o de b$ one who was not willin% to follow the well-defined and well-beaten oad of .due p ocess of law. b$ p efe in% cha %es and %ivin% the appellant an oppo tunit$ to be hea d and to defend his i%ht. Nothin% of that cha acte too? place. The whole p ocedu e, f om be%innin% to end, in oustin% the appellant f om an office to which he had been le%all$ appointed and a%ainst whom no complaint has been made, is anomalous in the /u isp udence unde the Ame ican fla%. Believin% as " do, that the success of f ee institutions depends upon a i%id adhe ence to the fundamentals of the law, " have neve $ielded, and " hope that " ma$ neve $ield, to conside ations of e#pedienc$ in e#poundin% it. The e is also some plausible eason fo the latitudina ian const uctions which a e eso ted to fo the pu pose of ac&ui in% powe J some evil to be avoided, o some %ood to be attained b$ pushin% the powe s of the ;ove nment be$ond thei le%itimate bounda $. "t is b$ $ieldin% to such influences that the cou ts and le%islatu es a e % aduall$ unde minin% and finall$ ove th owin% constitutions. "t is b$ $ieldin% to such influences that constitutions a e % aduall$ unde mined and finall$ ove th own. "t has been, and is m$ pu pose, so fa as it is possible fo me, to follow the fundamental law does not wo ? well the people o the le%islatu e ma$ amend it. "f, howeve , the le%islatu e o the cou ts unde ta?e to cu e defects in the law b$ fo ced and unnatu al const uctions, the$ inflict a would upon the constitution

of the state which nothin% can cu e. Ane step ta?en b$ the le%islatu e o the /udicia $ in enla %in% the powe s of the ;ove nment, opens the doo fo anothe which will be su e to follow> and so the p ocess %oes on until all espect fo the fundamental law is lost and the powe s of the ;ove nment a e /ust what those in autho it$ a e pleased to call them. (Aa?le$ vs. Aspinwall, * Comstoc? FN. E.G, 13-, 109.) " cannot %ive m$ consent to a ule o doct ine which will pe mit a ;ove nment to th ow an honest and efficient official out of office without eason and without autho it$ of law, efuse to conside a p otest, and then pe mit the application of a law to p event a ecove $ of that which he has lost ille%all$ and without eason. The /ud%ment appealed f om should be evo?ed, and a /ud%ment should be ente ed o de in% the esto ation of the appellant to the office f om which he was ille%all$ e/ected. Be should follow the effect of the doct ine announced solemnl$ b$ this cou t in the case of :e%ovia vs. Noel (3- Phil., 13*). :o o de ed. 2illamor 3omualde1 and 2illa-3eal &&. concur. &ohns &. concurs in the result.

Se&ara'e O&()(o)* M#LCOLM, J., concu in% and dissentin%' (+) " concu in so much of the opinion of M . 5ustice 5ohnson as elates to the le%al issue p esented in the lowe cou t and he e, pe tainin% to the &uestion of whethe o not the p esent action was ba ed b$ the :tatute of 6imitations, and in enti e acco d with the eve sal of the /ud%ment and the einstatement of 5ulio A%caoili, the appellant, in his office as /ustice of the peace of 6aoa%, "locos No te. M$ easons a e these' (A) Act No. *+,-, p ovidin% that /ustices and au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ have eached the a%e of 01 $ea s, should not be %iven et oactive effect. That was e#p essl$ decided in the analo%ous case of :e%ovia vs. Noel (F+821G, 3- Phil., 13*). (4) PlaintiffIs action is not ba ed b$ the p ovisions of section 2+0 of the Code of Civil P ocedu e. That section pa ticula l$ confines itself to an action .a%ainst a co po ation.. The eafte followin% a semicolon, comes the clause .no shall an action be b ou%ht a%ainst an office ,. which plainl$ elates bac? to

.co po ation.. Athe wise, the new idea would neithe have been e#p essed in a sepa ate section o in a sepa ate sentence. That this is t ue is fu the bo ne out b$ the :panish t ansaction, ma?in% use of the ph ase .la pe sona &ue e/e <a un ca %o en una co po acion,. which we a e p ivile%ed to consult to e#plain an ambi%uit$ in the En%lish te#t. (C) Even unde the supposition the section 2+0 of the code of Civil P ocedu e applies, still it is not clea that one $ea has elapse .afte the cause of such ouste , . . . a ose.. "n ealit$, no cause fo ouste has a isen since it was an e oneous inte p etation of the law which met with the disposal of the :up eme Cou t, which esulted in the attempt to fo ce M . A%caoili out of the office and to place the au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace on office. The most that could be said of the attempted ouste is that the au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace became a /ustice of the peace de facto. (2) " dissent f om so much of the opinion of M . 5ustice 5ohnson, as discusses the &uestion of whethe o not the p ovisions of act No. *+,- a e costitutional, as unnecessa $ to a decision, as not submitted fo decision, and so as enti el$ uncancelled fo . The complaint fo quo warranto p esented in the cou t of fi st "nstance contained the usual alle%ations without, howeve , ma?in% an$ efe ence at all to the constitutionalit$ of Act No. No. *+,-. the answe set up p esentation. The t ial /ud%e announcin% the theo ies of the pa ties said' .The defense of the defendant is that the action b ou%ht b$ the plaintiff has p esc ibed because since 5ul$ -, +82*, when he left his office, no complaint was filed until Ap il 2*, +821, and, the efo e, mo e than one $ea had elapsed. The plaintiff in tu n alle%es that the e is no such p esc iption,. and then p oceeded to den$ the petition. An appeal this cou t, the e o s assi%ned b$ M . A%caoili as appellant a e these' (+) The lowe cou t e ed in holdin% that the action of the petitione had p esc ibed on account of the same not havin% been b ou%ht within one $ea f om 5ul$ -, +82*, when b$ an ille%al o de of the 7ono able, the :ec eta $ of 5ustice, the petitione fo cibl$ ceased to discha %e the duties of the office of /ustice of the peace of 6aoa%, "locos No te, and espondent assumed said office and be%an to act as such /ustice of the peace.

(2) The lowe cou t e ed in appl$in% tot he instant case the p ovisions of section 2+0 of act No. +8, (Code of Civil P ocedu e). (*) The lowe cou t e ed in findin% that the pe iod of p esc iption must be counted f om 5ul$ -, +82*, instead of Ma ch 3, +821. (3) The lowe cou t finall$ e ed in not % antin% the elief invo?ed b$ the petitione > in not oustin% the espondent f om the office of /ustice of the peace of 6aoa%, "locos No te, in not einstatin% the petitione in said office and in not sentencin% the espondent to pa$ the costs and dama%es caused to the petitione in the sum of P1,,,,.. The e is not one wo d eithe in appellantIs b ief o in appelleeIs b ief on the sub/ect of the constitutionalit$ of Act No. *+,-. 7ad not the constitutional &uestion been discussed and decided without it bein% su%%ested an$whe e in the bill of e#ecutions, in the assi%nments of e o , on in the b iefs, it would ha dl$ be necessa $ to cite well ?nown p inciples as these' "t must be evident to an$ one that the powe to decla e a le%islative enactment void is one which the /ud%e, cconscious of the fallibilit$ of the human /ud%ment, will sh in? f om e#e cisin% in an$ case whe e he can consciousl$ and with due e%a d to dut$ and official oath decline the esponsibilit$. . . . . . . The tas? . . . is a delicate one, and onl$ to be ente ed upon with eluctance and hesitation. . . . Neithe will a cou t, as a %ene al ule pass a constitutional &uestion, and decided a statute to be invalid, unless a decision upon that ve $ point becomes necessa $ to the dete mination of the cause. .Bhile cou ts cannot shun the discussion of constitutional &uestions when fai l$ p esented, the$ will not %o out of thei wa$ to find such topics. The$ will not see? to d aw in such wei%ht$ matte s collate all$, no on t ivial occasions. "t is both mo e p ope and mo e espectful to a coo dinate depa tment to discuss constitutional &uestions onl$ when that is the ve $ lis mota . . .. (Coole$Is Constitutional 6imitations, -th ed., pp. 22-, 229, 2*+.)

10

STREET, J., dissentin%' This is an action of quo warranto instituted in the Cou t of !i st "nstance of "locos No te b$ 5ulio A%caoili fo the pu pose of esto in% his esto ation to the office of /ustice of peace of 6aoa% and to secu e the emoval of the defendant, Alf edo :a%uitan, f om the p esent emplo$ment of the same office. =pon hea in% the cause of the t ial /ud%e, while eco%ni<in% the theo itical i%ht of the plaintiffIs i%ht of section had been ba ed b$ the limitation p esc ibed in section 2+0 of the Code of Civil P ocedu e. 7e the efo e denied the w it, with half costs, and the plaintiff appealed. "t appea s that on Ma ch 21, +8+0, the plaintiff was appointed b$ the ;ove no -%ene al to the office of 5ustice of the peace of 6aoa%, in the P ovince of "locos No te, effective f om Ap il +,, +8+0, sub/ect to the conditions p esc ibed b$ law. This appointment was app oved b$ the Philippine :enate, and the plaintiff ente ed upon the discha %ed of his duties in due cou se. At that time the e was no a%e limit upon the tenu e of office of /ustices of the peace, but on Ma ch +-, +82*, act No. *+,- of the Philippine 6e%islatu e went into effect. B$ this Act, appointment of /ustices of the peace, was amended b$ the addition of a p oviso to the fi st au#ilia $ /ustices of the peace shall be appointed to se ve until the$ have eached the a%e of si#t$five $ea s.. "n the $ea +82* the plaintiff he ein had attained the a%e of 01> and the :ec eta $ of 5ustice, supposin% that was applicable to the case, b ou%ht Administ ative Code was applicable tot he case, b ou%ht administ ative p essu e to bea upon the plaintiff, with the esult that the plaintiff ceased to e#e cise the functions of /ustice of the peace fo 6aoa% and the ;ove no ;ene al to the same office. This appointment havin% been app oved b$ the :enate, the said :u%uitan ente ed upon the discha %e of the duties the eof. An Ma ch 3, +821, this cou t p omul%ated the decision in the case of se%ovia vs. Noel (3- Phil., 13*), whe ein we decided that the amendment contained in Act No. *+,- to section 2,* of the Administ ative Code should be %iven p ospective application onl$, with the esult that said p ovisions is not applicable to a /ustice of the peace appointed p io to enactment of the amendato $ law. Bhen this decision was p omul%ated it came to the attention of the plaintiff, and the p esent action was stipulated b$ him sho tl$ the eafte fo the pu pose of obtainin% his esto ation to the office. P acticall$ the onl$ defense insisted upon in the cou t below was to the effect that the action had p esc ibed unde the one-$ea limitation> and the onl$ &uestion made in this appeal a ises upon the application of said section.

"t appea s f om he eco d that the plaintiff was ousted f om office on 5ul$ -, +82*, and that the defendant, as au#ilia $ /ustice of the peace, then ente ed upon the discha %e of the duties of the office, b$ di ection of ;ove no ;ene al Bood, in the cha acte of a tempo a $ appointee to the vacanc$. 6ate , as al ead$ stated, :u%uitan ente ed upon the discha %ed of the duties of the office unde commission f om the ;ove no -;ene al, app oved b$ the Philippine :enate, effective f om @ecembe +*, +82*. "t is the efo e appa ent that mo e than a full $ea had elapse between the emoval of the plaintiff f om office and the date of the institution of the p esent action> and mo e than a $ea had also elapsed late the defendant be%an the discha %e of the duties of the office as a e%ula l$ commissioned /ustice of the peace. The section of the Code of civil P ocedu e, the application of which is he e in &uestion, eads, in En%lish, as follows' :EC. 2+0. *imitations. J Nothin% he ein continued shall autho i<ed an action a%ainst a co po ation fo fo feitu e of cha te , unless the same be commenced within five $ea s afte the act complained of was done o committed> no shall an action be b ou%ht a%ainst an office to be ousted f om his office unless within one $ea afte the cause of such ouste , o the i%ht to hold the office a ose. The same section as it stands in a cu ent ve sion of the :panish t anslation diffe somewhat, in the second membe f om the En%lish ve sion, a s will be seen b$ compa in% the :panish ve sion, which eads as follows' ART. 2+0. 5e las limitaciones. J Nin%una de estates disposiciones faculta a la pe dida de sus de echos de concesion, a menos &ue el /ioco se lleve a efecto dent o de los cinco anos si%ientes a la comision u omision del hecho ob/ecto de la accion. Tampoco se pod a incia un /uicio cont a la pe sona &ue e/e <a un ca %o en una co po acion pa a desposee la, a menos &ue se lleve a fecto dent o del aKo si%uinte la fecha de la comision del hecho &ue dio motivo a su p ivacion, o &ue se puso en duda su de echo pa a ocupa el ca %o. =pon compa ison of these ve sion it will be seen that the wo d office ( cargo) in the second sentenced of the :panish ve sion is &ualified b$ the e#p ession .en una co po acion.. The plaintiff, el$in% upon the :panish ve sion, insist that the p ovision is not applicable to a public office, li?e that of /ustice of the peace> and it is fu the insisted that the whole section deals e#clusivel$ with

11

the sub/ect of the w it of quo warranto as used a%ainst a co po ation o a%ainst a pe son in possession of a co po ate office. " am unable to accede to this view of the law. =pon e#amination of section +8- to 2+0, inclusive, of the Code of Civil P ocedu e, it will be found that two sub/ects a e the e th eated, namel$, usu pation of f anchise b$ co po ation and usu pation of office> and the evident pu pose of this pa t of the Code is to define the conditions unde which the w it of quo warranto ma$ be final section (sec. 2+0) dealin% with the sub/ect, a limitation is p esc ibe fo both. The fi st membe of the section, down as fa as the semicolon in the En%lish ve sion, p esc ibes a limitation of five $ea s upon an$ action instituted a%ainst a co po ation fo fo feitu e of its cha te . "n the matte followin% the semicolon is found the limitation app op iate to the case whe e instituted to oust the incumbent and to secu e the office fo the pe son unlawfull$ ?ept f om the occupanc$ the eof. The p esc iption established fo this case is one $ea . A ca eful pe usal of the section, in connection with elated p ovisions of the Code, leaves no oom fo doubt that have actions ove public of the section was instituted to appl$ to actions ove public office as well as co po ate offices> and in this sense said p ovision has been applied b$ this cou t. (Bautista vs. !a/a do, *9 Phil., 023.) The autho , o autho s, of the Code of Civil P ocedu e could ha dl$ have intended fo this p ovision to be applied onl$ to co po ate office s, since the e is a public inte est in public offices which e&ui es the e should be a p esc iptive p ovision applicable to actions ove these offices no less than to actions ove the offices of co po ations. The inse tion "en una corporacion" afte the wo d .ca %o. was evidentl$ a me e mista?e, esultin% f om a supe ficial attention to the conte#t> and it will be found that in the :panish edition to the Code of civil P ocedu e edited b$ C. M. Recto this ph ase has been d opped. "t %oes without sa$in% that the En%lish ve sion of the Code of civil P ocedu e is cont ollin%, and in case of conflict the cou ts must be %ove ned b$ this ve sion. The su%%estion contained in the opinion of the cou t of the :panish lan%ua%e is novel and if followed b$ us in the futu e will be the sou ce of much unce taint$ in the inte p etation and application of ou statutes. The opinion of the cou t contains a len%th$ disse tion intended to demonst ate that the amendment of section 2,* of the Administ ative Code contained in act No. *+,- is unconstitutional, fo defect in the title of the Act. Bith this p ovision " am also unable to a% ee. The title to act No. *+,- be%ins with theses wo ds' .An Act to amend and epeal ce tain p ovisions of the Administ ative Code in m$ opinion b oad enou%h to include the amendment of section 2,* elatin% the anal$sis of Title "C of the Administ ative Code it will be found that /ustices of the peace a e> and althou%h the p ovisions of act No. *+,- a e va iousl$, the$ have this in common, that the$ deal with

diffe ent pa ts of the /udicia $ establishment and a e intended that a p onouncement as to the constitutionalit$ of the amendment in &uestion was b$ no means called fo in this case, not onl$ because the point was not aised in the discussion of the case but fo the fu the eason that we the plaintiff. RE:A6=T"AN =PAN PET"T"AN !AR RECAN:"@ERAT"AN /ebruary #6 "!#6 The cle ? havin% befo e it fo conside ation, (a) the motion of Albe to :u%uitan fo a econside ation of the decision of the cou t p omul%ated on !eb ua $ +*, +820, and (b) the motion of the :ec eta $ of 5ustice, p a$in% fo leave to appea in the said decision in elation with said motions, it is he eb$ o de ed and dec eed that said decision he etofo e announcement, be modified, to the end that the decision of all the &uestions involved ins aid decision be limited tot he followin% alone' (a) That said act No. *+,- can have no application to the petitione he ein, followin% the doct ine he etofo e announced in the case of :e%ovia vs. Noel (3- Phil., 13*)> and, (b) That the defense of the limitation o p esc iption contended fo b$ the espondent does not appl$ to the petitione unde the pa ticula facts of this cause. Modif$in% the decision he etofo e announced, as he ein indicated, and basin% the decision upon the two % ounds above-mentioned onl$ the eliminatin% all ema ?s made about the action and conduct of the Actin% :ec eta $ of 5ustice, said motions a e hereby denied. AvanceKa, C. 5., :t eet and Ast and, 55., adhe in% tot he dissentin% opinion he etofo e p omul%ated, concu neve theless in this esolution. Avance0a C.&. and 7strand &. concur.

12