Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 418 views

    Zandueta Vs de La Costa

    Uploaded by

    Jhay Carbonel
    Francisco Zandueta filed a quo warranto proceeding against Sixto de la Costa, claiming that de la Costa was illegally occupying the office of Judge of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Zandueta had previously occupied this office but accepted a new appointment issued under Commonwealth Act No. 145 to serve as a judge in the Court of First Instance of the 4th Judicial District, which included Manila and Palawan. However, Zandueta's new appointment was later disapproved. De la Costa was then appointed to the same office and his appointment was approved. The court held that by accepting the new appointment and performing the duties of that office, Zandueta had abandoned his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zandueta Vs de La Costa

    Uploaded by

    Jhay Carbonel
    418 views3 pages
    Francisco Zandueta filed a quo warranto proceeding against Sixto de la Costa, claiming that de la Costa was illegally occupying the office of Judge of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Zandueta had previously occupied this office but accepted a new appointment issued under Commonwealth Act No. 145 to serve as a judge in the Court of First Instance of the 4th Judicial District, which included Manila and Palawan. However, Zandueta's new appointment was later disapproved. De la Costa was then appointed to the same office and his appointment was approved. The court held that by accepting the new appointment and performing the duties of that office, Zandueta had abandoned his

    Original Title

    zandueta vs de la costa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Francisco Zandueta filed a quo warranto proceeding against Sixto de la Costa, claiming that de la Costa was illegally occupying the office of Judge of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Zandueta had previously occupied this office but accepted a new appointment issued under Commonwealth Act No. 145 to serve as a judge in the Court of First Instance of the 4th Judicial District, which included Manila and Palawan. However, Zandueta's new appointment was later disapproved. De la Costa was then appointed to the same office and his appointment was approved. The court held that by accepting the new appointment and performing the duties of that office, Zandueta had abandoned his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    418 views3 pages

    Zandueta Vs de La Costa

    Uploaded by

    Jhay Carbonel
    Francisco Zandueta filed a quo warranto proceeding against Sixto de la Costa, claiming that de la Costa was illegally occupying the office of Judge of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Zandueta had previously occupied this office but accepted a new appointment issued under Commonwealth Act No. 145 to serve as a judge in the Court of First Instance of the 4th Judicial District, which included Manila and Palawan. However, Zandueta's new appointment was later disapproved. De la Costa was then appointed to the same office and his appointment was approved. The court held that by accepting the new appointment and performing the duties of that office, Zandueta had abandoned his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Zanduela Vs dela costa

    G.R. No. L-46267 November 28, 1938

    VILLA-REAL, J.:

    FACTS:

    This is a quo warranto proceeding instituted by the Honorable


    Francisco Zandueta against the Honorable Sixto de la Costa, declaring the
    respondent to be illegally occupying the office of Judge of the Fifth Branch of the
    Court of First Instance of Manila, Fourth Judicial District, ousting him from said
    office, and holding that the petitioner is entitled to continue occupying the office in
    question by placing him in possession thereof.

    Francis Zandueta was presiding over a 5th Branch of Courts of First


    Instance of Manila. He received a new ad interim appointment issued
    (Commonwealth Act No. 145) to discharge the Office of Judge in the Court of
    First Instance of the 4th Judicial District with the authority to preside over the Court
    of First Instance of Manila and Palawan.

    Another ad interim appointment to the same office was issued in favor of


    said petitioner, pursuant to which he took a new oath-After his appointment and
    qualification as judge of first instance of the Fourth Judicial District, the petitioner,
    acting as executive judge, performed several executive acts-On May 19, 1938, the
    Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly disapproved the aforesaid
    ad interim appointment of said petitioner.

    On August 1, 1938, the President of the Philippines appointed the herein


    respondent, Honorable Sixto de la Costa, judge of first instance of the Fourth
    Judicial District, with authority to preside over the Fifth Branch of the Court of
    First Instance of Manila and the Court of First Instance of Palawan, and his
    appointment was approved by the Commission on Appointments.

    1|Page
    ISSUE: WON the petitioner may question the validity of Commonwealth Act No.
    145 to entitle him to repossess the office occupied by him prior to the appointment
    issued in his favor by virtue of the assailed statute.

    HELD:

    When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First


    Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts
    another appointment to preside over the same branch of the same Court of First
    Instance, in addition to another court of the same category, both of which belong to
    a new judicial district formed by the addition of another Court of First Instance to
    the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and
    receives the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to
    repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new
    appointment has been issued.

    The rule of equity, sanctioned by jurisprudence, is that when a public


    official voluntarily accepts an appointment to an office newly created or
    reorganized by law, — which new office is incompatible with the one formerly
    occupied by him — , qualifies for the discharge of the functions thereof by taking
    the necessary oath, and enters into the performance of his duties by executing acts
    inherent in said newly created or reorganized office and receiving the
    corresponding salary, he will be considered to have abandoned the office he was
    occupying by virtue of his former appointment (46 Corpus Juris, 947, sec. 55), and
    he can not question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which he was last
    appointed (11 American Jurisprudence, 166, par. 121; id., 767, par. 123). He is
    excepted from said rule only when his non-acceptance of the new appointment
    may affect public interest or when he is compelled to accept it by reason of legal
    exigencies.

    Page | 2
    Wherefore, the petition for quo warranto instituted is denied and the same is
    dismissed with costs to the petitioner. So ordered. Wherefore, the petition for quo
    warranto instituted is denied and the same is dismissed with costs to the petitioner.
    So ordered.

    Page | 3

    You might also like