G.R. No. 28275 , January 10, 1928
Bonifacio Nicolas, Plaintiff, vs. Severino Alberto, Defendant.

Ponente: Malcolm, J.

FACTS

Bonifacio Nicolas was the duly appointed and confirmed Justice of the Peace of Angat, Bulacan. Severino Alberto was the duly appointed and confirmed Justice of the Peace of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Following an administrative complaint against Nicolas that was dismissed with a reprimand, the Acting Governor-General, citing Section 206 of the Administrative Code (as amended by Act No. 2768) and “public interest,” issued orders transferring Nicolas to San Jose del Monte and Alberto to Angat. These transfer orders were issued without the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate. Nicolas protested and refused the transfer, while Alberto accepted. Nicolas was subsequently compelled to surrender his office to Alberto, prompting him to file this quo warranto action to determine the rightful holder of the office.

ISSUE

Whether the Governor-General has the authority to transfer a justice of the peace from one municipality to another without the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of quo warranto, declared the transfer orders null and void, and ordered the reinstatement of Bonifacio Nicolas as Justice of the Peace of Angat, Bulacan.

The Court held that the power to transfer a justice of the peace under the proviso in Section 206 of the Administrative Code (“That in case the public interest requires it, a justice of the peace of one municipality may be transferred to another”) is an exercise of the appointing power. Since the original appointment of a justice of the peace requires the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate under Sections 203 and 210 of the Administrative Code, a transfer that effectively appoints the justice to a new municipality likewise requires Senate confirmation. The law is silent on who effects the transfer, and to interpret it as a power of the Governor-General alone would violate the constitutional scheme of checks on the appointing power. The legislative history of Act No. 2768, wherein a proposed amendment explicitly requiring Senate confirmation was rejected, was noted in a dissenting opinion but did not alter the majority’s constitutional interpretation. A transfer made without such confirmation is invalid.