Endencia and Jugo vs David

L-6355-56 August 31, 1953

PETITIONER: Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo
RESPONDENT: Saturnino David, as Collector of Internal Revenue

FACTS (related sa statcon):

The case is a joint appeal from the decision of Court of First Instance
Manila declaring SECTION 13 OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 590
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It also orders the Respondent to refund to
Justice Endencia the sum of 1744.45 pesos, representing the income
tax collected on his salary as Associate Justice of Court of Appeals in
1951 and to Justice Jugo the amount of 2345.56 representing the
income tax collected on his salary as Presiding Justice of COA and as
Assoiate Justice of the SC.
The case cited the doctrine laid down by the Court in PERFECTO vs
MEER
After the promulgation of PERFECTO vs MEER case, the Congress
passed R.A. No. 590 in which Section 13 of the said act states that no
salary of any public officer of the RP shall be exempt from income tax
and such payment is not a diminution of his compensation fixed by
the Constitution or law. This includes the collection of tax on the
salary of the judicial officers.
Apparently, the said RA particularly Section 13 thereof contradicts
with Sec. 9 of Article VIII of the Constitution which stipulates that
members of SC and all judges of inferior courts shall receive
compensation which shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office. It was also held in Perfecto case that judicial
officers are EXEMPT from the payment of income tax on their
salaries because the said collection of income tax from such is
diminution of their salaries in violation of the constitutional
provision.

 The Solicitor General, in

Congress did not receive
promulgated RA 590 not
authorize and legalize the
judicial officers.

behalf of the defendant, claims that

the decision in Perfectos case and it
to counteract the ruling but to now
collection of income tax on salaries of

ISSUE:
Whether or not the legislature can lawfully declare the collection of
income tax on the salary of judicial officers after the Supreme court
has found and decided otherwise?
HELD:
The collection of income tax on the salary of judicial officers as
stipulated in Section 13 of RA 590 is a diminution thereof and violates
the Constitution. Interpretation of the Constitution and of statutes is
the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary. In enacting a law, the
legislative may not provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way
it may not violate the constitutional prohibition thereby tying the
hands of the Court in the task of interpreting said statute, especially
when the interpretation provided in the statute runs counter to the
previous interpretation already given in a case by the Supreme Court.