Case number: 169

Chavez vs JBC GR number: 202242

Facts: A motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents in a prior

decision that declares the JBCs action of allowing more than one member of the
congress to represent the JBC to be unconstitutional. The respondents contend that
the phrase a representative of congress refers to the both of the houses of the
congress because the two houses are the main components of the congress.

Issue: Whether or not the JBCs action of having members from the houses of
the congress to be unconstitutional.

Held: Unconstitutional, under article VIII section 8 of the 1987 Constitution,

the phrase a representative of the congress provides that there should only be
one representative of the congress, not from each representatives form both houses
of the congress. In this case, the JBCs practice is unconstitutional because it violates
article VIII section 8 of the Philippine Constitution.
Case number: 170
Villanueva vs JBC GR Number: 211833

Facts: Judge Ferdinand Villanueva, after more than a year of being a first-
level judge applied for the vacant position of Presiding Judge in the RTCs but the JBC
disqualified the petitioner due to its five-year service policy. He filed a petition
stating that the policy of JBC of which the incumbent judge must serve his current
position for at least five years before his qualification as a second-level judge is
against the Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not the JBCs policy of requiring five years of service as
judges of first-level courts before qualifying as an applicant to second-level courts is
constitutional.

Held: The policy of Judicial and Bar Council is Constitutional because under
Article VIII Section 8 (5) of the Philippine Constitution The Council shall have the
principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. In this case,
the JBC has the authority to recommend appointees to the judiciary, only those
nominated by the JBC in a list officially transmitted to the President may be
appointed by the latter as justice or judge in the judiciary.
Case Number: 171
De la Llana vs. Alba GR Number: L-57883

Facts: BP. 129, Entitled An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Apropriating

Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes was passed. Gualberto J De la Llana filed a
petition assailing the validity of the law saying that it would contravene the
constitution because BP 129 which mandates that Justices and judges of inferior
courts from the CA to MTCs, except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the
CTA, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such act, would be
considered separated from the judiciary. According to him the Supreme Court can
only remove judges and not the Congress.

Issue: Whether or not BP. 129 is constitutional, considering that it violates

the security of the tenure of judges and justices under the Article VIII Section XI of
the Philippine Constitution which states that The Members of the Supreme Court
and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach
the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon..

Held: Yes, it is constitutional. The removal or the separation of the judges and
justices is not involved, what is involved is the validity of the abolition of the offices.
It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor
separation of the incumbents. In this case, the removal is to be distinguished from
termination by virtue of valid abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a
non-existent office. After the abolition, there is no occupant. In case of removal,
there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in that
sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of
security of tenure does not arise.
Case Number: 172
Nicos Industrial Court vs. CA, 206 SCRA 127

Facts: NICOS Industrial Corporation obtained a loan from the United

Coconut Planters Bank and to secure the payment thereof executed a real
estate mortgage on two parcels of land. Three years after, it was foreclosed
due to non-payment, a sheriffs sale was held and UCPB sold all the rights to a
private respondent without the knowledge or consent of the mortgator.
NICOS filed an action for "annulment of sheriff's sale, recovery of possession,
and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary prohibitory and
mandatory injunction. The action was dismissed by the court and affirmed
by Court of Appeals. The petitioners complain that there was no analysis of
their testimonial

Issue: Whether or not there