AGCAOILI V. SUGUITAN, 48 Phil. 676, (BONBON) statute.

February 13, 1926 | Johnson, J. | Title

PETITIONER: JULIO ACCAOILI, plaintiff-appellant FACTS:

RESPONDENTS: ALBERTO SUGUITAN, defendant-appellee. 1. Julio Agcaoili was appointed as justice of the peace of the municipality of
SUMMARY: Laoag, of the Province of Ilocos Norte on the 25th day of March, 1916, with
authority "to have and to hold the said office with all the powers, privileges,
The case is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
and emoluments thereunto of right appertaining unto him, subject to the
Norte, which is anomalous under American sovereignty. Agcaoili was an officer
conditions prescribed by law. The conditions prescribed by law" to which
appointed in accordance with the law to the judiciary to serve "during good
the appointee was "subject" at the time of his appointment, are found in
behavior." After he had faithfully and honestly served the Government for a
section 1 of Act No. 2041 which provides that "All justices of the peace and
number of years, the legislature adopted a new law which arbitrarily, without
auxiliary justices shall hold office during good behavior…"
giving any reason therefore, provided that Justices of the Peace cease to be
such when they should reach the age of 65 years. Said law contained no 2. On the 17th day of March, 1923, the Philippine Legislature adopted Act No.
express provision or method for its enforcement. 3107. Said Act in section 203 provides for “ That justices and auxiliary
justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the
The Executive Department, through its Undersecretary of Justice, without any
age of sixty-five years."
authority given in said law, notified the said officer that he was no longer an
officer in the judicial department of the Government and must vacate his office 3. On the 9th day of April, 1923, the Undersecretary of Justice sent to Agcaoili
and turn the same over to another (Suguitan), who was designated by said which provides that the former has the honor to advise the latter that he has
Undersecretary. When Agcaoili protested against such arbitrary action, giving ceased to be a justice of the peace by operation of said amendment of the
reasons therefor, and without answering said protest, he was threatened with a Administrative Code.
criminal prosecution if he did not immediately vacate his office.
4. This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
The SC reversed the judgment of the lower court, and then further modified Ilocos Norte. Its purpose was to obtain the extraordinary legal writ of quo
such judgment through a resolution after a petition for reconsideration,
warranto. The petition was denied by the trial court and the plaintiff
thereby denying such motions from Suguitan and the Justice Undersecretary.
appealed.
DOCTRINE:
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PUNCTUATION.—The punctuation ISSUE/s:
used in statutes may be referred to for the purpose of determining the 1. WoN the provision of Act No. 3107, in so far as it provides that "justices of
meaning and construction of a law. A semicolon is a mark of grammatical the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of 65
punctuation, to indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree years," valid and constitutional, when applied to justices of the peace
greater than that expressed by comma, and what follows the semicolon must appointed under Act No. 2041, section 1, to serve "during good behavior? "
have relation to the same matter which precedes it. What follows a semicolon - No. Attention is called to one of the provisions of section 3 of the Jones
always has relation to the same subject matter of that which precedes it. A Law "That no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more
semicolon is not used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. A semicolon is
than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the
used for the purpose of continuing the expression of a thought, a degree
greater than that expressed by a mere comma. It is never used for the bill." Considering that there is nothing in the title of Act No. 3107 which
purpose of introducing a new idea. The comma and semicolon are both used indicates in the slightest degree that said Act contains a provision "that
for the same purpose, namely, to divide sentences and parts of sentences, the justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until
only difference being that the semicolon makes the division a little more they have reached the age of sixty-five years”, the court is forced to the
pronounced than the comma. The punctuation used in a law may always be conclusions that, that provision is illegal, void and contrary to the
referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of a doubtful mandatory provision of the Jones Law, and that said law cannot be applied
 to justices and auxiliary justices of the peace who were appointed prior
to the 17th day of March, 1923; and that when Julio Agcaoili was forcibly,
by means of threats and intimidation, ordered to leave his office as justice RESOLUTION UPON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION:
of the peace, he was forced to do so illegally, without just cause, and should
Prior judgment modified. (February 26, 1926)
therefore be restored to his position as justice of the peace of the
municipality of Laoag, without delay. The Clerk having before it for consideration, (a) the motion of Alberto Suguitan for a
reconsideration of the decision of the court promulgated on February 13, 1926, and
2. WoN Sec. 216 applies to public officers and the present action barred by the
statutes of limitations? (b) the motion of the Secretary of Justice, praying for leave to appear in said cause as
amicus curiæ; and after a careful review of said decision in relation with said
(2)   No. A semicolon is a mark of grammatical punctuation, in the English motions, it is hereby ordered and decreed that said decision, heretofore announced,
language, to indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree be modified, to the end that the decision of all the questions involved in said decision
greater than that expressed by a comma, and what follows that semicolon be limited to the following alone:
must have relation to the same matter which precedes it. A semicolon is not
used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. A semicolon is used for the (a) That said Act No. 3107 can have no application to the petitioner herein,
purpose of continuing the expression of a thought, a degree greater than that following the doctrine heretofore announced in the case of Segovia vs. Noel (47
expressed by a mere comma. It is never used for the purpose of introducing
Phil., 543); and,
a new idea. The comma and semicolon are both used for the same purpose,
namely, to divide sentences and parts of the sentences, the only difference
(b)That the defense of limitation or prescription contended for by the
being that the semicolon makes the division a little more pronounced than
the comma. The punctuation used in a law may always be referred to for the respondent does not apply to the petitioner under the particular facts of this
purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of a doubtful statute. It follows cause.
therefore that, inasmuch as all of the provisions of said section 216 which
precede the semicolon refer to corporations only, that which follows the Modifying the decision heretofore announced, as herein indicated, and basing the
semicolon has reference to the same subject matter, or to officers of a decision upon the two grounds above-mentioned only and eliminating all remarks
corporation. made about the action and conduct of the Acting Secretary of Justice, said motions
are hereby denied. Avanceña, C. J., Street and Ostrand, JJ., adhering to the
dissenting opinion heretofore promulgated, concur nevertheless in this resolution.
INITIAL RULING:

Judgment reversed. The opinion of the court contains a lengthy dissertation RATIO:
intended to demonstrate that the amendment of section 203 of the Administrative 1. "QUO WARRANTO"; JUSTICES OF THE PEACE; LEGALITY OF A
Code contained in Act No. 3107 is unconstitutional, for defect in the title of the Act.
PROVISION IN AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO WHICH NO
With this proposition I am also unable to agree. The title to Act No. 3107 begins
with these words: "An Act to amend and repeal certain provisions of the REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TITLE, DISCUSSED AND CASES
Administrative Code relative to the judiciary." These words are general and in my CITED.—One of the subsections of section 3 of the Jones Law provides
opinion broad enough to include the amendment of section 203 relating to the "That no bill -which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
appointment of justices of the peace. By examining the analysis of Title IV of the subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill." The title
Administrative Code it will be found that justices of the peace are there treated as a of Act No. 3107 of the Philippine Legislature reads as follows: "An Act to
part of the judiciary, as in fact they are; and although the provisions of Act No. 3107 amend and repeal certain provisions of the Administrative Code relative to
are various, they have this in common, that they deal with different parts of the
judiciary establishment and are intended to effect changes in this system alone. It the judiciary in order to reorganize the latter; increasing the number of
will be noted that a pronouncement as to the constitutionality of the amendment in judges for certain judicial districts; increasing the salaries of judges of
question was by no means called for in this case, not only because the point was not Courts of First Instance; vesting the Secretary of Justice with authority to
raised in the discussion of the case but for the further reason that we are all agreed detail a district judge temporarily to a district or province other than his
that said amendment is not applicable to the plaintiff.
 own; regulating the salaries of justices of the peace; abolishing the have relation to the same matter which precedes it. What follows a
municipal court and justice of the peace court of the City of Manila and semicolon always has relation to the same subject matter of that which
creating in lieu thereof a municipal court with three branches; regulating the precedes it. A semicolon is not used for the purpose of introducing a new
salaries of clerks of court and other subordinate employees of Courts of idea. A semicolon is used for the purpose of continuing the expression of a
First Instance, and for other purposes." thought, a degree greater than that expressed by a mere comma. It is never
used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. The comma and semicolon
2. It will be noted that the only reference to justices of the peace in said title is are both used for the same purpose, namely, to divide sentences and parts of
"regulating the salaries of justices of the peace." Section numbered 203 of sentences, the only difference being that the semicolon makes the division a
said Act provides "* * * That justices and auxiliary justices of the peace little more pronounced than the comma. The punctuation used in a law may
shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five always be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of a
years." It will be noted from reading the above title of said Act that no doubtful statute.
reference is made therein indicating in the slightest degree that the body
contains any provision whatever, limiting the period of service of justices of 5. 4.ID.; PASSING, "SUB SILENTIO," THE PROVISION OF A LAW BY
the peace. The courts are unanimous in holding that a provision in the THE COURTS; EFFECT OF.—It has been "frequently decided that the fact
organic law of the state, like that above quoted from the Jones Law, is that a statute has been accepted as valid, and invoked and applied for many
years in cases where its validity was not raised or passed on, does not
mandatory and not directory; that a violation of such a provision is fatal;
prevent a court from later passing on its validity, where that question is
that any important provision of an Act of the Legislature, to which no squarely and properly raised and presented. Where a question passes the
reference is made in the title, is illegal, null and void. (Central Capiz vs. court, sub silentio, the case in which the question was so passed is not
Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883, 889; Walker vs. State, 49 Ala., 329; People vs. binding on the court. (McGirr vs. Hamilton and Abreu, 30 Phil., 563.)
Parks, 58 Cal., 624; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 111; Cooley
on Constitutional Limitations, 179, 180.)

3. 2.ID.; ID.; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—When a justice of the peace is,

by intimidation and threats of criminal prosecution by a representative of
the Government, forced or compelled to vacate his office under protest
upon the ground that the law does not require him to vacate his office, the
statute of limitations does not begin to run against him until the legality of
his protest is decided. The justice of the peace in the present case protested
against his alleged illegal. ouster, upon the ground that his term of office
was fixed by Act No. 2041; that Act No. 3107 could have no application to
him nor to his term of office; that said Act No. 3107, so far as it was
applicable to him, was illegal and void. Whether or not the period of
limitation mentioned in section 216 of Act No. 190 is applicable to public
officials of the Government and not only to officials of corporations,—
quære.

4. 3.STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PUNCTUATION.—The punctuation

used in statutes may be referred to for the purpose of determining the
meaning and construction of a law. A semicolon is a mark of grammatical
punctuation, to indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree
greater than that expressed by comma, and what follows the semicolon must