1/2

Digest by: Denesy Jao || I-B 2017

Endencia and Jugo v David, etc.

Doctrine: A law that violates a constitutional provision shall be declared invalid and
unconstitutional even if the legislature validated it through declaring that the said law shall be
construed as not to violate the constitutional inhibition.
Petition: Appeal from a judgment of lower court
Plaintiff & Appellees: Pastor M. Endencia & Fernando Jugo
Defendant & Appellant: Sturnino David (Collector of BIR)
Pontente: Justice Montemayor

Short version:
Taxes were collected from the petitioners who are
both members of the judiciary by the BIR. They are
asking the appellant for a refund of the taxes
collected arguing that sec.13 of R.A. 590, which
states that no salary received by any public officer
shall be exempted from the income tax, is
unconstitutional as Sec 9, Art VIII of the
constitution states that compensation of members
of the SC and all judges shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office. The SC affirmed
the decision appealed from, stating that should
there be a conflict between a legislature and the
constitution, the law will have to give way and has
to be declared invalid and unconstitutional.

Facts:
1. Sec. 13 of R.A. 590 states that no salary received
by any public officer shall be exempted from
the income tax, payment of which was declared
not to be a diminution of his compensation
fixed by the Constitution or by law. Tax was
hence collected by the BIR from Justice Pastor
Endencia and Justice Fernando Jugo as follows:

J.
Endencia
Associate
Justice; Court
of Appeals
1951 PHP 1,744.45
J. Jugo Associate
Justice; Court
of Appeals
January
1950
October
1950
PHP 2,345.46
Associate
Justice;
Supreme
Court
October
December
1950

2. A joint appeal to the Court of First Instance of
Manila declared Sec 13 of R.A. 590
unconstitutional as it violates Sec 9, Art VII of
the constitution which explicitly states that
[members of the Supreme Court and all judges
of inferior courts] shall receive such
compensation as may be fixed by law, which
shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office.
3. The SC ordered the defendant to refund the
income tax collected. The defendants appealed
from the decision of the lower court.

Issue:
1. Is Sec 13 of R.A. 590 unconstitutional?

Held:
1. Yes. Sec. 13 of R.A. 590 is unconstitutional
















2/2
Digest by: Denesy Jao || I-B 2017
Ratio:
Contention Supreme Court
The law declared that tax payment is not to be
a diminution of the compensation fixed by the
constitution.
First, it is not within the sphere of the
legislature to interpret or ascertain the
meaning of the phrase which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office
(Sec 9, Art VII of the constitution). This act of
the legislature invades the fundamental
principles of separation of powers.

In upholding Perfecto v Meer, the SC reiterated
that taxing the salary of a judicial officer in the
Philippines is a diminution of such salary as his
salary is actually decreased every year.
Hence Sec 13 of RA 590 is not unconstitutional The Legislature may not legally provide in a
law that it be interpreted in such a way that it
may not violate a constitutional provision.

Since Sec 13 of RA 590 violates the
constitution, it is held invalid and
unconstitutional.

Opinions:

Justice Bautista Angela (concurring)
- The provision that that taxing of the salary of a judicial officer shall be considered not to be
a diminution of his compensation fixed by the constitution or by law is an invasion of the
province and jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Chief Justice Paras (concurring and dissenting):
- Referred to dissent of Justice Ozaeta in Perfecto v Meer where the intent of the drafters of
the constitution was considered saying, when the framers of the Constitution fixed those
salaries, they must have taken into consideration that the recipients were paying income tax
thereon. There was no necessity to provide expressly that said salaries shall be subject to
income tax because they knew that already so provided. On the other hand, if exemption
from any tax on said salaries had been intended, it would have been specifically [provided],
- Disagrees that no legislation may provide that it be held valid although against a provision
of the constitution.