GR L 1363; (January, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1363; January 30, 1948
JOSE CASIA GARCES, petitioner, vs. GERARDO BELLO, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and THE JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Casia Garces was appointed Justice of the Peace of Baugen and Concepcion, Ilocos Sur, on September 29, 1924, confirmed by the Senate, and served continuously until the Japanese occupation in January 1942. During the occupation, he did not serve in any capacity. After liberation, the Military Governor of Ilocos Sur invited him to resume his post, which he did on April 3, 1945. On February 8, 1946, President Sergio Osmeña appointed him ad interim Justice of the Peace for the same court, but the Commission on Appointments disapproved this appointment on July 9, 1946. Subsequently, on December 5, 1946, respondent Gerardo Bello was appointed ad interim to the same position. Garces filed a quo warranto proceeding to assert his right to the office.
ISSUE
Whether Jose Casia Garces retained his right to the office of Justice of the Peace after the war, despite the subsequent ad interim appointments made to him and later to Gerardo Bello.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring Jose Casia Garces the rightful Justice of the Peace of Baugen and Concepcion, Ilocos Sur. Under the principle of judicial security of tenure (inamovilidad judicial) in Article VIII, Section 9 of the Constitution , a Justice of the Peace in office at the outbreak of the war does not lose the right to resume the office after the restoration of the Commonwealth government, provided they have not resigned, been removed, or become incapacitated as provided by law. Garces did not serve during the Japanese occupation, and his post-war reinstatement by the Military Governor and the ad interim appointment by President Osmeña did not constitute abandonment or loss of his original right; they were merely restorations of the same office. The subsequent appointment of Bello could not adversely affect Garces’s vested right. The Court also rejected the argument that Garces was disqualified for not being a lawyer, as his appointment predated the constitutional requirement and he had acquired security of tenure.
AI Generated by Armztrong.