JARDELEZA v. SERENO
Sereno
G.R. No. 213181
August 19, 2014
733 SCRA 279
FACTS: Associate Justice Roberto Abad was about to retire and the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) announce an opening for application
and recommendation for the said vacancy. Francis H. Jardeleza
(Jardeleza), incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was included
in the list of candidates. Hence, he was interviewed.
However, he received calls from some Justices that the Chief Justice
herself – CJ Sereno, will be invoking unanimity rule against him. It is
invoked because Jardeleza’s integrity is in question.
During the meeting, Justice Carpio disclosed a confidential
information which characterized Jardeleza’s integrity as
dubious. Jardeleza answered that he would defend himself provided
that due process would be observed. His request was denied and he
was not included in the shortlist.
Hence, Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for
TRO to compel the JBC to include him in the list on the grounds that
the JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion in
excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient number of votes
to qualify for the position.
ISSUE: Whether or not the right to due process is available in the
course of JBC proceedings in cases where an objection or opposition
to an application is raised.
RULING: Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis,
it does not automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due
process.
The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature of JBC
proceedings. Notwithstanding being “a class of its own,” the right to
be heard and to explain one’s self is availing.
In cases where an objection to an applicant’s qualifications is raised,
the observance of due process neither contradicts the fulfillment of
the JBC’s duty to recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on
its discretion in the nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the
precepts of due process supports and enriches the exercise of its
discretion. When an applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of
the objections, is afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented
with a clearer understanding of the situation it faces, thereby
guarding the body from making an unsound and capricious
assessment of information brought before it. The JBC is not expected
to strictly apply the rules of evidence in its assessment of an objection
against an applicant. Just the same, to hear the side of the person
challenged complies with the dictates of fairness because the only
test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of soundness.
Consequently, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza should
have been included in the shortlist submitted to the President for the
vacated position of Associate Justice Abad. This consequence arose
from the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure and the
basic tenets of due process.
True, Jardeleza has no vested right to a nomination, but this does not
prescind from the fact that the JBC failed to observe the minimum
requirements of due process.
Jardeleza vs.
FACTS:
 In 2014, incumbent Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza was
nominated to replace retiring Associate Justice Roberto
Abad.
 CJ Sereno manifested that she would be invoking Section 2,
Rule 10 of JBC-0094 regarding a question on Jardeleza’s
integrity over his handling of an international arbitration
case for the government.
 When Jardeleza appeared before the JBC, he was asked by
CJ Sereno if he wanted to defend himself against the
integrity issues raised against him. He answered that he
would defend himself provided that due process would be
observed. Jardeleza specifically demanded that CJ Sereno
and AJ Carpio execute a sworn statement specifying their
objections and that he be afforded the right to cross-
examine them in a public hearing. Finally, he requested the
JBC to defer its meeting considering that the Court En Banc
would meet the next day to act on his pending letter-
petition. At this juncture, Jardeleza was excused.
 Later in the afternoon of the same day, and apparently
denying Jardeleza’s request for deferment of the
proceedings, the JBC continued its deliberations and
proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the
short list. Thereafter, the JBC released the subject short list
of four (4) nominees which excluded Jardeleza.
 Consequently, Jardeleza filed the present petition for
certiorari and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a
TRO, seeking to compel the JBC to include him in the list of
nominees.
ISSUE:
 Does the Supreme Court’s power of supervision over the
JBC include the remedies of certiorari and mandamus?
HELD:
 YES, on the availability of certiorari. NO, on the availability
of mandamus.
 Article VIII, Section 1 provides that the judicial power is
vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.
 In this case, Jardeleza cries that although he earned a
qualifying number of votes in the JBC, it was negated by the
invocation of the “unanimity rule” on integrity in violation
of his right to due process guaranteed not only by the
Constitution but by the Council’s own rules. For said reason,
the Court is of the position that it can exercise the expanded
judicial power of review vested upon it by the 1987
Constitution.
 of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be
a member of the judiciary. In the implementation of the assailed
 It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is
a proper remedy to question the act of any branch or legislation, therefore, it would be in accordance with accepted
instrumentality of the government on the ground of grave
principles of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the justices and judges are concerned, this Court be consulted and that its
government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial,
view be accorded the fullest consideration. No fear need be
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic
 In a case like this, where constitutional bearings are too principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions. No
blatant to ignore, the Court does not find passivity as an
alternative. The impasse must be overcome. question of law is involved. If such were the case, certainly this Court
could not have its say prior to the action taken by either of the two
 Mandamus, on the other hand, lies to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not departments. Even then, it could do so but only by way of deciding a
to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. case where the matter has been put in issue. Neither is there any
Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise
of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant positions created
said public officer the right and duty to exercise his by the reorganization. That remains in the hands of the Executive to
judgment in reference to any matter in which he is required
to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that whom it properly belongs. There is no departure therefore from the
of the court. There is no question that the JBC’s duty to tried and tested ways of judicial power. Rather what is sought to be
nominate is discretionary and it may not be compelled to
do something. achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to
the charge that in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing
the inferior courts, the power of removal of the present incumbents
Gualberto De La Llana vs Manuel Alba
vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The challenged Act
In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled “An Act Reorganizing the
would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint, even one not
Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes”, was
readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with distrust.
passed. Gualberto De la Llana, a judge in Olongapo, was assailing its
Moreover, such a construction would be in accordance with the basic
validity because, first of all, he would be one of the judges that would
principle that in the choice of alternatives between one which would
be removed because of the reorganization and second, he said such
save and another which would invalidate a statute, the former is to be
law would contravene the constitutional provision which provides the
preferred.”
security of tenure of judges of the courts. He averred that only the
Supreme Court can remove judges NOT the Congress.

ISSUE: Whether or not a judge like Judge De La Llana can be validly

removed by the legislature by such statute (BP 129).

HELD: Yes. The SC ruled the following way: “Moreover, this Court is
empowered “to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at
least eight members, order their dismissal.” Thus it possesses the
competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the
President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to
be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the
office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the
abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an
office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in
that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the
incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation.
As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition
CASE DIGEST : FERDINAND R. Besides, the Court can appropriately take cognizance of
VILLANUEVA VS JUDICIAL AND this case by virtue of the Court's power of supervision over
the JBC. Jurisprudence provides that the power of
BAR COUNCIL supervision is the power of oversight, or the authority to
G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015 see that subordinate officers perform their duties.
FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE,
MCTC, COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA Following this definition, the supervisory authority of the
VALLEY PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR
Court over the JBC is to see to it that the JBC complies
COUNCIL, Respondent.
with its own rules and procedures. Thus, when the policies
of the JBC are being attacked, then the Court, through its
FACTS : The petitioner was appointed on September 18,
supervisory authority over the JBC, has the duty to inquire
2012 as the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial
about the matter and ensure that the JBC complies with
Court, Compostela-New Bataan, Poblacion, Compostela
its own rules
Valley Province, Region XI, which is a first-level court. On
September 27, 2013, he applied for the vacant position of
The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the
Presiding Judge in the following Regional Trial Courts
petitioner in assailing JBC's policy. It is essential to the
(RTCs): Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City;
issuance of a writ of mandamus that the applicant should
and Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan Del Sur In a letter2
have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must
dated December 18, 2013, JBC's Office of Recruitment,
be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the
Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner that he
act required. The remedy of mandamus, as an
was not included in the list of candidates for the said
extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an officer to perform
stations. On the same date, the petitioner sent a letter,
a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.14 Clearly, the
through electronic mail, seeking reconsideration of his
use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act
non-inclusion in the list of considered applicants and
are mutually exclusive. Clearly, to be included as an
protesting the inclusion of applicants who did not pass the
applicant to second-level judge is not properly
prejudicature examination. The petitioner was informed
compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it involves the
by the JBC Executive Officer, through a letter3 dated
exercise of sound discretion by the JBC
February 3, 2014, that his protest and reconsideration
was duly noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision
The petition for declaratory relief is improper. "An action
not to include his name in the list of applicants was upheld
for declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested
due to the JBC's long-standing policy of opening the
under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument,
chance for promotion to second-level courts to, among
and whose rights are affected by a statute, an executive
others, incumbent judges who have served in their current
order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought
position for at least five years, and since the petitioner has
under this remedy includes the interpretation and
been a judge only for more than a year, he was excluded
determination of the validity of the written instrument and
from the list. This caused the petitioner to take recourse
the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or duties
to this Court
thereunder."
ISSUE : WON the writ of certiorari and prohibition cannot
In this case, the petition for declaratory relief did not
issue to prevent the JBC from performing its principal
involve an unsound policy. Rather, the petition specifically
function under the Constitution to recommend appointees
sought a judicial declaration that the petitioner has the
to the Judiciary because the JBC is not a tribunal
right to be included in the list of applicants although he
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function
failed to meet JBC's five-year requirement policy. Again,
the Court reiterates that no person possesses a legal right
HELD : The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are
under the Constitution to be included in the list of
tenable. "The present Rules of Court uses two special civil
nominees for vacant judicial positions. The opportunity of
actions for determining and correcting grave abuse of
appointment to judicial office is a mere privilege, and not
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
a judicially enforceable right that may be properly claimed
by any person
In this case, it is clear that the JBC does not fall within the
scope of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
Furthermore, the instant petition must necessarily fail
quasi-judicial functions. In the process of selecting and
because this Court does not have original jurisdiction over
screening applicants, the JBC neither acted in any judicial
a petition for declaratory relief even if only questions of
or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any
law are involved.18 The special civil action of declaratory
performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative.
relief falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
However, since the formulation of guidelines and criteria,
appropriate RTC pursuant to Section 1919 of Batas
including the policy that the petitioner now assails, is
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.No. 7691
necessary and incidental to the exercise of the JBC's
constitutional mandate, a determination must be made on
whether the JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion
Therefore, by virtue of the Court's supervisory duty over
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and
the JBC and in the exercise of its expanded judicial power,
enforcing the said policy.
the Court assumes jurisdiction over the present petition.
But in any event, even if the Court will set aside
procedural infirmities