Legal Latin- Case and Maxim Review
Guzman, Mark Lawrence C.
Legal Latin
“Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus”
“Where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish”
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC DECISION
May 31, 1935
G.R. No. L-43575
JUAN TAÑADA, plaintiffvs.JOSE YULO, Secretary of Justice, EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of the Thirteenth Judicial District, and SANTIAGO TAÑADA, Justice of the Peace of Alabat, Tayabas, defendants.
For the second time the court is called upon to determine the right of a justice of the peace (JUAN TAÑADA, plaintiff) appointed prior to the approval of Act No. 3899, but who completed sixty-five years of age subsequent to the approval of the Act and to the date, January 1, 1933, specified in the Act, to continue in office.
The answer of the Solicitor-General presents two questions, the first predicated on the contention that Act No. 3899 applies to all justices of the peace who reach the age of sixty-five years, and the second on the acceptance of a transfer by the petitioner as denoting a new appointment bringing him within the purview of the cited law.
Facts:
- Juan Tañada, the petitioner, was appointed justice of the peace of Alabat, Tayabas, by the Governor-General with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission on December 4, 1911.
- He continued in that position until September 8, 1934, when at his own request, was “transferred from the position of justice of the peace for the municipality of Alabat, Province of Tayabas, of the same position in the municipality of Perez, same province”, by a communication signed by the Governor-General from which the foregoing is quoted.
- Tañada completed the age of sixty-five years on October 5, 1934. - Thereupon the Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, acting in accordance with instructions from the Department of Justice, directed Tañada to cease to act as justice of the peace of Perez, Tayabas.
Legal Latin
“Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus”
“Where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish”
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC DECISION
May 31, 1935
G.R. No. L-43575
JUAN TAÑADA, plaintiffvs.JOSE YULO, Secretary of Justice, EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of the Thirteenth Judicial District, and SANTIAGO TAÑADA, Justice of the Peace of Alabat, Tayabas, defendants.
For the second time the court is called upon to determine the right of a justice of the peace (JUAN TAÑADA, plaintiff) appointed prior to the approval of Act No. 3899, but who completed sixty-five years of age subsequent to the approval of the Act and to the date, January 1, 1933, specified in the Act, to continue in office.
The answer of the Solicitor-General presents two questions, the first predicated on the contention that Act No. 3899 applies to all justices of the peace who reach the age of sixty-five years, and the second on the acceptance of a transfer by the petitioner as denoting a new appointment bringing him within the purview of the cited law.
Facts:
- Juan Tañada, the petitioner, was appointed justice of the peace of Alabat, Tayabas, by the Governor-General with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission on December 4, 1911.
- He continued in that position until September 8, 1934, when at his own request, was “transferred from the position of justice of the peace for the municipality of Alabat, Province of Tayabas, of the same position in the municipality of Perez, same province”, by a communication signed by the Governor-General from which the foregoing is quoted.
- Tañada completed the age of sixty-five years on October 5, 1934. - Thereupon the Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, acting in accordance with instructions from the Department of Justice, directed Tañada to cease to act as justice of the peace of Perez, Tayabas.