Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Endencia vs. David Case Digest

1) Two Justices, Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo, filed a case before the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional after the Collector of Internal Revenue collected income taxes from them in violation of their constitutional exemption. 2) The issue was whether the Legislature could pass a law exempting judicial officers from paying income tax when the Supreme Court had previously ruled they were exempt based on its interpretation of the Constitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the power to interpret laws and the Constitution lies with the Judiciary. The Legislature invaded the jurisdiction of the Judiciary by passing a law that interpreted the meaning of the Constitution after the Supreme Court had already interpreted and

Uploaded by

Sjaney
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Endencia vs. David Case Digest

1) Two Justices, Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo, filed a case before the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional after the Collector of Internal Revenue collected income taxes from them in violation of their constitutional exemption. 2) The issue was whether the Legislature could pass a law exempting judicial officers from paying income tax when the Supreme Court had previously ruled they were exempt based on its interpretation of the Constitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the power to interpret laws and the Constitution lies with the Judiciary. The Legislature invaded the jurisdiction of the Judiciary by passing a law that interpreted the meaning of the Constitution after the Supreme Court had already interpreted and

Uploaded by

Sjaney
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Legal Case Analysis: Endencia vs. David: Presents the legal arguments and judicial reasoning in the case of Endencia vs. David, related to the refund of taxes paid under protest.

PASTOR M. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO JUGO vs.

SATURNINO DAVID, as Collector


of Internal Revenue

G.R. No. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953

ROCHE, CHRISTINE I.

Power to Construe as a Judicial Function

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

FACTS:

By virtue of Republic Act No. 590, Saturnino David, Collector of Internal Revenue, was able to
collect payment for income taxes from Justice Endencia and Justice Jugo. However, the two
Justices wanted to refund such payment because it had violated their privilege of being exempt
from the collection of income tax by virtue of the Constitution under Section 9, Article VIII.
Thus, they filed before the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act No. 590 unconstitutional. The
passage of such law was because the Legislature could not accept the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer; exempting the judicial officers to be taxed by the
Collector of Internal Revenue.

ISSUE:

WON the Legislature can pass a law that would not exempt the judicial officers from paying
income tax when in fact, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and decided in the Perfecto case,
judicial officers are exempt from paying income tax.

RULING:

The power to interpret laws is vested to our Judiciary; whenever a statute is in violation of the
fundamental law, the courts must adjudge and thereby give effect to the Constitution. What the
Congress did was to interpret the meaning of the phrase “which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office” found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution. The act of
interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the Legislature is an invasion of the
jurisdiction of the Judiciary. If the Legislature may declare what a law means, or what specific
portion of the Constitution means, especially after the courts have in actual case ascertain its
meaning by interpretation and applied it in a decision, this would surely cause confusion and
instability in judicial processes and court decisions. Furthermore, the reason behind the
exemption is to preserve the independence of the Judiciary.

You might also like