Tanada v. Yulo Case No. 288 No.

43575 (May 31, 1935) Chapter IV, Page 127, Footnote No.11 FACTS: Petitioner is a Justice of Peace appointed by the Gov. Gen. with the consent by the Philippine Commission, assigned to Alabat, Tayabas. ater in his service, he was transferred to Pere!, Tayabas. "e reached his #$ birthday on %ctober $, &'(), subse*uent to the approval of Act +o. (,'' which ma-es mandatory the retirement of all .ustices who have reached #$ years of age at the time said Act ta-es effect on January &, &'((. The .udge of /irst instance, acting upon the directive of the 0ecretary of 1espondent Justice, directed Petitioner to cease holding office pursuant to Act +o. (,''. ISSUE: &. 23+ Petitioner should cease to hold office. 4. 23+ his transfer is considered a 5new transfer6 and re*uires confirmation by the Philippine Commission. HELD: +o, Petitioner should not cease to hold office as Act +o. (,'' clearly states that those who will cease to hold office are those #$ yrs of age at the time the Act ta-es effect, not thereafter. Therefore, Petitioner shall be a Justice of Peace for life as long as he stays in good behavior or does not become incapacitated. +o, his transfer is not a new appointment. "ence, no confirmation is re*uired as it is .ust an enlargement of the .urisdiction grounded on original appointment. "7 89 (. The natural and reasonable meaning of the language used in Act +o. (,'', leaves room for no other deducting than that a .ustice of the peace appointed prior to the approval of the Act and who completed si:ty;five years of age on 0eptember &(, &'(), subse*uent to the approval of the Act, which was on +ovember &#, &'(&, and to the date fi:ed for cessation from office which was on January &, &'((, is not affected by the said Act. A .ustice of the peace li-e the petitioner who became si:ty;five years of age on %ctober $, &'(), was not included in a law which re*uired .ustice of the peace si:ty;five years of age to cease to hold office on January &, &'((. 4. <t is to be deduced that according to the =nited 0tates 0upreme Court, the transfer simply amounted to an enlargement or change of .urisdiction grounded on the original appointment and thus did not re*uire a new appointment. 2hatever our view is might have been to the contrary, it now becomes our duty to follow the decision of the higher court. <t also seems evident that a transfer as applied to officers amounts merely to a change of position or to another grade of service.