STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – CHAPTER 8 (CASE DIGESTS)

CHAPTER VIII G.R. No. L-3983 February 15, 1910

MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY STATUTES SALVADORA OCAMPO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. TOMAS
CABAÑGIS, defendant-appellant.
A. IN GENERAL
Facts:
1. TAÑADA VS. CUENCO 103 PHIL 1051 On the 26th of December, 1908, a judgment was entered in this case in the
2. BREHN VS. REPUBLIC GR NO. 18566 following words:
3. DIOKNO VS. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP. 91 PHIL. 608
4. GREGO VS. COMELEC 274 SCRA 481 Without prejudice to the filing of an extended opinion later, the
5. IN RE GUARINA 24 PHIL 37 judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant is
6. ACOSTA VS. ADAZA GR NO. 168617 absolved from the complaint without special finding as to costs, and
7. MCGEE VS REPUBLIC 94 PHIL 820 twenty days hereafter let judgment be entered in conformity herewith,
and ten days later let the record be returned to the court wherein it
B. MANDATORY STATUTES originated, for appropriate action. So ordered.

8. MENDOZA VS. CAYA 98 PHIL 107 No further decision was ever filed.
9. PALISOC VSTAMONDONG 43 PHIL 789
10. DE MESA VS MENCIAS GR NO. 24583 Two of the four justices who signed the decision are no longer members of
11. DE LOS REYES VS RODRIGUEZ 46 PHIL 595 this court. The appellees now seek the cancellation and annulment of the
12. AGUILA VS GENATO GR NO. 55151 entry of judgment and the recall of the remittitur and the record of the case
13. RAMOS VS. VILLAVERDE 88 PHIL. 651 to this court. The motion is made upon the theory that no final judgment has
ever been entered, and that by reason of the changes in the personnel of the
C. DIRECTORY STATUTES court the more extensive opinion which was contemplated cannot now be
filed.
14. OCAMPO VS. CABANGIS 15 PHIL 626
15. QUERUBIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS 82 PHIL 226 Section 15 of Act No. 136 provides that "in the determination of causes all
16. MARCELINO VS. CRUZ GR NO. 42428 decisions of the Supreme Court shall be given in writing, signed by the judges
concurring in the decision, and the grounds of the decision shall be stated as
briefly as may be consistent with clearness."

The decision of December 26, 1908, was in writing, and was signed by the
four justice who concurred therein, but no grounds are stated for the
decision.

Issue:
WON the statute is Mandatory or Directory.

Held:
The court held that it is a directory statute.

A strict and literal compliance with this statute would often render it
impossible for the court to decide a case. The Act declares the manner in
which the Supreme Court shall perform the strictly judicial act of giving final
expression to its decision, but it does not say that the failure to comply
therewith shall render the decision ineffective. The direction is as to a matter
which is not of the essence of the thing to be done, and there is nothing to
suggest that the Legislature intended that strict compliance therewith should
be essential to the validity of a decision duly and formally rendered in some
other regular manner. It seems to be universal held that statutes of this
nature are merely directory, and that compliance therewith is not necessary
to the validity of the proceedings. A somewhat similar questions required the
supreme court to "decided every point fairly arising upon the record, and give
its reasons therefor in writing." This provision was held not to affect the
common law doctrine of res judicata.

Notwithstanding that clause in the constitution [said the curt] if the points
are involved in the issue, they are res judicata, although not mentioned in the
opinion of the court or noticed by counsel on either side. That clause of the
constitution is merely directory to the court, and it ought to be followed; but
it does in no wise change the common law rule as to the doctrine of res
judicata. The contrary doctrine would lead to endless litigation; and no suitor
could know when his controversy was terminated. There would be anything
but response in such a construction of the constitution as that.
(Henry vs. Davis, 13 W Va., 230.)

QUERUBIN vs COURT OF APPEALS

82 PHIL 226

FACTS:
Petitioner challengers the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to continue in
DIRECTORY STATUTES taking cognizance of the appeal in the election cases of Querubin vs Mamuri,
concerning the mayoralty of Ilagan Isabela, because of the expiration of the
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – CHAPTER 8 (CASE DIGESTS)
three (3) month period provided in the Revised Election Code, which reads as
follow:

Sec. 178. Appeal from the decision in election contests. — From any final
decision rendered by the Court of First Instance in protest against the
eligibility or the election of provincial governors, members of the
provincial board, city councilors, and mayors, the aggrieved party may
appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may
be, within five days after being notified of the decision, for its revision,
correction, annulment or confirmation, and the appeal shall proceed as
in a criminal case. Such appeal shall be decided within three months
after the filing of the case in the office of the clerk of the court to which
the appeal has been taken.

The record of appeal was release by the CA on MAY 22, 1948. And on AUG 23,
1948, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the 3 month
period has already been expired on AUG 22, 1948, thus the CA lost its
jurisdiction over the case.

The motion to dismiss was denied on SEPT 15, 1948.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals loses its jurisdiction over the said case.

RULING:
NO.

The provision of Sec. 178 of the Revised Election Code which states within
three months after the filing of the case in the office of the clerk of the court
to which the appeal has been taken is these as the provision in Sec. 177
requiring the trial courts to decide protest within 6 months or 1 year from its
filing…. The purpose of the law in both sections is to impress the need of
speedy disposal of election contests, as imperatively demanded by public
interest. The terms of office of elective positions are short. Any cloud as to
the true result of an election should be dispelled as soon as possible. Public
faith, confidence and cooperation, essential to the success of government,
are jeopardized by controversies as to who have been actually chosen by the
electorate. These controversies should be settled as soon as possible. Doubts
as to the true expression of the will of the people in polls should be cleared
out without delay.

To dismiss an election contest or the appeal taken therein because the

respective courts, regardless of cause or reason, have failed to render final
decisions within the time limits of said sections, is to defeat the
administration of justice upon factors beyond the control of the parties. That
would defeat the purposes of the process of law and would make of the
administration of justice in election contests an aleatory process where the
litigants, irrespective of the merits of their respective claims, will be gambling
for a deadline. The dismissal in such case will constitute a miscarriage of
justice. The speedy trial required by the law would be turned into a denial
of justice.