Alba v. Evangelista

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

ALBA v.

EVANGELISTA (RIGGZ) designated him as Acting Vice-Mayor and instructed him to qualify and
enter upon the performance of the office, furnishing the Commission of
January 17, 1957 | Felix, J. | Implications Civil Service with the copy of his oath.
4. Not satisfied with the action of the President, Alajar instituted quo warranto
PETITIONER: Juliano Alba (in his capacity as Acting Vice Mayor of Roxas
City) proceedings in CFI of Capiz against Alba.
5. The lower court held that Alajar was “entitled to remain in office as Vice-
RESPONDENTS: Honorable Jose Evangelista (Judge of CFI of Capiz) and
Vivencio Alajar Mayor of Roxas City with all the emoluments, rights and privileges
appurtenant thereto until he resigns, dies or is removed for cause.”
6. Alba appealed by filing a notice of appeal on 3 February 1956. Alajar filed
a petition praying for immediate execution of the judgment. Despite the
SUMMARY: RA 603 created the City of Roxas and Section 8 thereof provides
that the vice mayor shall be appointed by the President. Pursuant to the law, strong opposition of Alba, the motion was granted by the Court.
7. The Solicitor General requested permission to intervene in the certiorari
Alajar was appointed as the mayor. Later on, the President sent communication to
Alajar telling him that he will be replaced by a new appointee, Juliano Alba. case alleging that the order of immediate execution issued by the trial judge
deprived him of the opportunity to be heard and defend the constitutionality
Petitioner was then declared as the acting mayor. Alajar refused to leave his post
and filed a quo warranto case against Judge Evangelista who ruled in favor of of RA 603 in the lower court and he desires to be heard by the Court before
proceeding to determine the constitutionality of Section 8 of RA 603.
him.
8. The stand of the Solicitor General is that said Section 8 is constitutional.
9. The appeal of Alba was given due course and reached the Court.
Alba appealed before the Supreme Court arguing that Section 2545 of the Revised
Administrative Code provides that “the President of the Philippines shall appoint, 10. As the petition for certiorari was admitted and given due course and the writ
of preliminary injunction prayed for was issued, the appeal from a decision
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the Congress, the mayor,
the vice-mayor . . . and he may REMOVE at pleasure any of the said officers. . .” of the CFI in quo warranto proceedings is perfected by the mere
presentation of the notice of appeal and from that moment, the trial court
Alajar however insisted that the stated provision is incompatible with the losses its jurisdiction over the case. The trial court had no jurisdiction to
provide for the issuance of the writ for the advance execution if its
constitutional inhibition that “no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be
removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law”, because the two judgment. Such order is null and void and of no force and effect and to
make permanent the writ of preliminary injunction.
provisions are mutually repugnant and absolutely irreconcilable.
ISSUE: whether or not the alleged removal of Alajar and the designation of Alba as
DOCTRINE: If a statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one Vice-Mayor of Roxas City was legal – YES.
making it unconstitutional and other valid, it is the duty of the court to adopt the
second construction in order to save the measure. The provision of Section 8 of RA 603 empowering the President to appoint, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, the Vice-Mayor of Roxas City, the
latter to hold office at the pleasure of the President, can not by any stretch of
FACTS: imagination be considered unconstitutional and void.
1. On 1 January 1954, the President of the Philippines appointed Vivencio RULING: The quo warranto proceedings are dismissed; Alajar has no right to
Alajar as Vice-Mayor of Roxas City, and he took his oath and assumed continue occupying the office of Vice-Mayor of Roxas City after the President, in
office on 5 January 1954. the exercise of his power of allowing him to hold office at his pleasure, displaced
2. On March 31, his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on him from said office and designated Alba as Acting Vice-Mayor of said City.
Appointment and continued holding office until November 1955 when he
received a communication from Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique RATIO:
Quema informing him that the President had designated Juliano Alba in his
stead as Acting Vice-Mayor of Roxas City and requesting him to turn over 1. The act of Congress in creating a public office, defining its powers,
his said office to Alba effective immediately. functions and fixing the “term” or the period during which the officer may
3. On 19 November 1955, Alba took his oath and assumed office after claim to hold office as of right and the “tenure” or the term during which
receiving a communication from Executive Secretary Fred Ruiz Castro, the incumbent actually holds the office, is a valid and constitutional
through the Mayor of Roxas City, informing him that the President has exercise of legislative power.
2. In the exercise of that power, Congress enacted RA 603 on 11 April 1951,
creating the City of Roxas and providing, among others for the position of
Vice-Mayor and its tenure or period during which the incumbent Vice-
Mayor holds office at the pleasure of the President.
3. The pervading error of the respondents lies in the fact that they insist on the
act of the President in designating Alba in the place of Alajar as one of
removal.
4. The replacement of Alajar is not removal, but an expiration of its
tenure, which is one of the ordinary modes of terminating official
relations.
5. Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code is different from Section
8 of RA 603 for the former refers to removal at pleasure while the latter
refers to holding office at the pleasure of the President.
6. Even assuming for the moment that the act of replacing Alajar
constitutes removal, the act itself is valid and lawful, for under Section
8 of RA 603, no fixity of tenure has been provided for, and the pleasure
of the President has been exercised in accordance with the policy laid
down by the Congress therein.
7. After all the foregoing circumstances are round to be present, it must be
shown that the statute violates the constitution clearly, palpably, plainly and
in such manner as to leave no doubt or hesitation in the mind of the court.
8. The court presumes that every statute is valid. This presumption is based
upon the theory of separation of powers which makes the enactment and
repeal of laws exclusively legislative function.
9. It should be remembered that before a legislature passes a bill, it is
presumed that it has decided the measure to be constitutional; and when the
executive approves that bill it also presumed that he has been convinced of
its validity.

You might also like