De Castro vs JBC
candidates to fill the vacancy in the SC before the
Facts
Petioners Arturo De Castro and John Peralta
praying that the JBC be compelled to submit to
the incumbent President the list of at least 3
nominees for the position of the next chief justice
Chief Justice Reynato Puno
May the incumbent president appoint his
successor, considering that sec 15 art 7 of the
constitution prohibits the president or acting
president from making appointments within 2
months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term.
What is the relevance of sec 4 art 8 of consti
which provides that any vacancy in the SC shall
be filed within 90 days from the occurrence
thereof
May JBC resume the process of screening
candidates
CJ submit the list to the president even during
the period of prohibition
Alleged the JBC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in deferring the submission of the list
of nominees to the president
Prohibition applies only to appointments to
executive positions that may influence the
election
Cong. Matias Defensor an ex officio member of
JBC addressed a letter to the JBC requesting that
the process for nominations to the office of the CJ
be commenced immediately
Vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from a list
of nominees prepared by JBC. Sec 4 in relation to
sec 9 art 8
Announcement was published on 1/20/2010 in
PH daily inquirer and the PH Star
Justice Carpio, J. Corona, J. Carpio Morales, J.
Velasco and J. Nachura
Issue
WON the incumbent pres can appoint the
successor of CJ Puno upon his retirement>
Held
No, sec 4(1) and sec 9, art 8 mandate the
president to fill the vacancy in the SC within 90
days from the occurrence of the vacancy and
within 90 days from the submission of the list, in
thw case of lower courts. The 90 day period is
directed at the president not at the JBC, thus the
JBC should start the process of selecting the
occurrence of the vacancy. It is mandatory for
the JBC to submit to the president the list of
nominees to fill a vacancy in the SC in order to
enable the Pres to appoint one of them within
the 90 day period from the occurrence of the
vacancy. The JBC has no discretion to submit the
list to the president after the vacancy occurs,
because that shortens the 90 day period allowed
by the consti.
Tijam vs Sibonghanoy
Facts
Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog
commenced civil case against the the spouses
Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucio Baguio to
recover from them the sum of 1,908 with legal
interest from the date of the filing of the
complaint until the whole obligation is paid, plus
costs.
A writ of attachment was issued by the court
against defendants properties but the same was
soon dissolved upon the filing of a counter bond
by defendants and the Manila Surety and Fidelity
Co, Inc.
The court executed a writ of execution against
defendant
Plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a writ of
execution against the surety’s bond.
1. Failure to prosecute and 2. Absence of a
demand upon the surety for the payment of the
amount due under the judgment.
RA 296 otherwise known as the judiciary act of
296, had already become effective
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant's motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance during the pendency of the
appeal will prosper.
HELD:
No. After voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the
merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court. The rule
is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred upon the courts exclusive by law as
by law and as the lack of it affect the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of the
case, the objection may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings. However, considering the
facts and circumstances of the present cases, a
party may be barred by laches from
involving this plea for the first time on appeal for
the purpose of annulling everything done
in the case. A party cannot invoke a court’s
jurisdiction and later on deny it to escape a
penalty
Primicias vs Ocampo
Facts
 Petitioner was charged before COFI
Manila with 2 statutory offenses
 1. With a violation of Commonwealth act
no. 606, he knowingly chartered a vessel
of PH registry to an alien without the
approval of the Pres. Of PH. 2. With a
violation of sec 129 in relation to section
2713 of the revised administrative code,
he failed to submit to the collector of
customs the manifest and certain
authenticated documents for the vessel
“Antartic” and failed to obtain the
necessary clearance from the BOC prior to
the departure of said vessel for a foreign
port.
 Petitioner filed a motion praying that
assessors be appointed to assist the court
in considering the questions of fact
involved in said cases as authorized by
sec 49 of RA 409 otherwise known as
Revised Charter of City of Manila
 Court issued an order denying the motion
holding in effect that with the
promulgation of the Rules of Court by SC,
all rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts in PH previously
existing were not only superseded but
expressly repealed
 Alleged abuse of discretion of respondent
judge
 taken against him by this court with regard to
Issue
Held
Maceda vs Vasquez
Facts
 Petitioner Bonifacio Sanz Maceda,
presiding judge of branch 12 of the RTC of
Antique. Seeks to review the following
orders of the office of the ombudsman
 1. The order dated 9/8/1991 denying the
ex parte motion to refer to the SC filed by
petitioner and 2. The order dated
11/22/1991 denying petitioners motion
for reconsideration and directing
petitioner to file his counter affidavit and
other converting evidences
 respondent Napoleon Abiera of the PAO
alleged that petitioner had falsified his
certificate of service by certying that all
civil and criminal cases which have been
submitted for decision or determination
for a period of 90 days have been
determined and decided on or vefore
1/31/1989 when in truth, the petitioner
knew that no decision had been rendered
in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have
been submitted for decision.
 Respondent alleged that petitioner
falsified his certificates of services for the
months of feb, april, may, july and august
1989 or total of 17 months
 Petitioner contends that he had been
granted by this court an extension of 90
days to decide in said cases
 Petitioner contends that ombudsman has
no jurisdiction , since offense charge
arose from judge’s performance of his
official duty which is under the control
and supervision of SC.
Issue
WON the ombudsman has jurisdiction over
the said case?
Held
No, in absence of any administrative action
his certificates of service, the investigation
being conducted by the ombudsman
encroaches into the courts power of
administrative supervision over all courts
and its personnel in violation of doctrine of
separation of powers. Art 8 sec 6 vest with SC
administrative supervision over all courts
and court personnel in the PH.

Cuyengkeng vs cruz

Facts
 Petitioners are doctors Jose
Cuyegkeng, Pedro Mayuga, Benjamin
Roa, Timoteo Alday, Dominador
Jacinto, Alejandro Gaerlan and Rosita
Ramirez.
 Their alleged cause of action is
predicated upon the fact that their
names appear in a list of qualified
physicians, approved and submitted
to the pres. By the executive council of
the PH medical association of the PH
pursuant to the provisions of sec 13
RA# 2382 for appointment as
members of the board of medical
examiners
 respondent Cruz, whom the president
appointed was not named in said case
list
 PH medical association were allowed
to intervene in the case
 10/16/1959 said council under sec 13
RA# 2382 know as medical act of
1959 approved and submitted to the
president said list of qualified
physicians including petitioners
 by a letter of assistant ES said council
was advised that the president had
decided to appoint as member of said
board: Filoteo, Chacon, Caparas,
Cocjin, Guytingco and Cruz
 5 persons mentioned were included in
the list except respondent
 petitioners alleged that pursuant to
sec 13 RA 2382 president cannot
appoint any person not included in the
list. Hence appointment of respondent
is null and void

Issue

Held