Villanueva vs Jbc

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City EN BANC G.R. No. 211833

April 7, 2015

FERDINAND R. VIANUEVA, Pr!"i#i$% &'#%!, MCTC, Co(po")!l*+N! -*)**$, Co(po")!l* V*ll! Pro/i$!, Petitioner, vs.  &UDICIA AND -AR -AR COUNCI, Respondent. COUNCI, Respondent. DECII!N

prohibition cannot issue to prevent the "BC fro' perfor'ing its principal function under the Constitution to reco''end appointees to the "udiciary because the "BC is not a tribunal e>ercising /udicial or 0uasi2/udicial function: %5& the re'edy of 'anda'us and declaratory relief -ill not lie because the petitioner has no clear legal right that needs to be protected: %& the e0ual protection clause is not violated because the classi1cation of lo-er court /udges -ho have served at least 1ve years and those -ho have servedless than 1ve years is valid as it is perfor'ance and e>perience based: and %@& there is no violation of due process as the policy is 'erely internal in nature.  3he Issue  3he cru> of of this petition petition is -hether -hether or not the policy of "BC "BC re0uiring 1ve years of service as /udges of 1rst2level courts before they can 0ualify as applicant to second2level courts is constitutional.

REES,  J.:

Ruling of the Court

Presiding "udge #erdinand R. $illanueva %petitioner& directly ca'e to this Court via a Petition for Prohibition, (anda'us, and Certiorari, and Declaratory Relief ) Relief ) under Rules *+ and * of the Rules of Court, respectively, -ith prayer for the issuance of a te'porary restraining order andor -rit of preli'inary in/unction, to assail the policy of the "udicial and Bar Council %"BC&, re0uiring 1ve years of service as /udges of 1rst2level courts before they can 0ualify as applicant to second2level courts, on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and -as issued -ith grave abuse of discretion.  3he #acts #acts  3he petitioner petitioner -as appointed on epte'ber epte'ber )4, 56)5 as as the Presiding "udge of the (unicipal Circuit 3rial Court, Co'postela2Ne- Bataan, Poblacion, Co'postela $alley Province, Region 7I, -hich is a 1rst2level court. !n epte'ber 58,56), he applied for the vacant position of Presiding "udge in the follo-ing Regional 3rial Courts %R3Cs&9 Branch ), 3agu' City: Branch ), Davao City: and Branch *, Prosperidad, Agusan Del ur. In a letter5 letter 5 dated Dece'ber )4, 56), "BC;s !plained that9 ith respect to the Court, ho-ever, the re'edies of certiorari and prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the -rit of certiorari or prohibition 'ay be issued to correct errors of /urisdiction co''itted not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or oercising /udicial, 0uasi2/udicial or 'inisterial functions but also to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion a'ounting to lac= or e>cess of /urisdiction by any branch or instru'entality of the overn'ent, even if the latter does not e>ercise /udicial, 0uasi2/udicial or 'inisterial functions. 3his application is e>pressly authoriFed by the te>t of the second paragraph of ection ), supra.  3hus, petitions petitions for certiorari certiorari and prohibition prohibition are are appropriate appropriate re'edies to raise constitutional issues and to revie- andor prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and e>ecutive oercise of the "BC;s constitutional 'andate, a deter'ination 'ust be 'ade on -hether the "BC has acted -ith grave abuse of discretion a'ounting to lac= or e>cess of  /urisdiction  /urisdiction in issuing issuing and enforcing enforcing the said policy policy.. Besides, the Court can appropriately ta=e cogniFance of this case by virtue of the Court;s po-er of supervision over the  "BC. "urisprudenc "urisprudence e provides provides that the po-er po-er of supervision supervision is is the po-er of oversight, or the authority to see that subordinate ocept to see to it that the rules are follo-ed. )5 #ollo-ing this de1nition, the supervisory authority of the Court over the "BC is to see to it that the "BC co'plies -ith its o-n

rules and procedures. 3hus, -hen the policies of the "BC are being attac=ed, then the Court, through its supervisory authority over the "BC, has the duty to in0uire about the 'atter and ensure that the "BC co'plies -ith its o-n rules.  3-o. 3he re'edy of 'anda'us cannot be availed of by the petitioner in assailing "BC;s policy. 3he petitioner insisted that 'anda'us is proper because his right -as violated -hen he -as not included in the list of candidates for the R3C court she applied for. e said that his non2inclusion in the list of candidates for these stations has caused hi' direct in/ury. It is essential to the issuance of a -rit of 'anda'us that the applicant should have a clear legal right to the thing de'anded and it 'ust be the i'perative duty of the respondent to perfor' the act re0uired.) 3he petitioner bears the burden to sho- that there is such a clear legal right to the perfor'ance of the act, and a corresponding co'pelling duty on the part of the respondent to perfor' the act. 3he re'edy of 'anda'us, as an e>traordinary -rit, lies only to co'pel an ot level court, declog the doc=ets, put in place i'proved procedures and an etensive e>perience in the /udicial process. A 1ve2year stint in the "udiciary can also provide evidence of the integrity, probity, and independence of /udges see=ing pro'otion. 3o 'erit "BC;s no'ination for their pro'otion, they 'ust have had a record of, and reputation for, honesty, integrity, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and 1delity to sound 'oral and ethical standards. ?i=e-ise, their decisions 'ust be reJective of the soundness of their /udg'ent, courage, rectitude, cold neutrality and strength of character. ence, for the purpose of deter'ining -hether /udges are -orthy of pro'otion to the ne>t level court, it -ould be pre'ature or diist bet-een lo-er court /udges -ith 1ve year e>perience and those -ith less than 1ve years of e>perience, li=e the petitioner, and the classi1cation enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant to its legiti'ate purpose. 3he Court, thus, rules that the

 3he petitioner averred that the assailed policy violates procedural due process for lac= of publication and non2 sub'ission to the Kniversity of the Philippines ?a- Center !. Applicants -ho 'eet the constitutional and legal 0uali1cations 'ust vie and -ithstand the co'petition and rigorous screening and selection process.  3hey 'ust sub'it the'selves to the selection criteria, processes and discretion of respondent "BC, -hich has the constitutional 'andate of screening and selecting candidates -hose na'es -ill be in the list to be sub'itted to the President. o long as a fair opportunity is available for all applicants -ho are evaluated on the basis of their individual 'erits and abilities, the 0uestioned policy cannot be struc= do-n as unconstitutional.) %Citations o'itted&

#ro' the foregoing, it is apparent that the petitioner has not established a clear legal right to /ustify the issuance of a preli'inary in/unction. 3he petitioner has 'erely 1led an application -ith the "BC for the position of R3C /udge, and he has no clear legal right to be no'inated for that oisting criteria i'posed by the "BC itself. As such, prospective applicants, including the petitioner, cannot clai' any de'andable right to ta=e part in it if they fail to 'eet these criteria. ence, in the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of an in/unctive -rit is not /usti1ed. As the constitutional body granted -ith the po-er of searching for, screening, and selecting applicants relative to reco''ending appointees to the "udiciary, the "BC has the authority to deter'ine ho- best to perfor' such constitutional 'andate. Pursuant to this authority, the "BC issues various policies setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the evaluation of applicants, and for'ulates rules and guidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond to e>isting circu'stances. Its discretion is freed fro' legislative, e>ecutive or /udicial intervention to ensure that the "BC is shielded fro' any outside pressure and i'proper inJuence. ?i'iting 0uali1ed applicants in this case to those  /udges -ith 1ve years of e>perience -as an e>ercise of discretion by the "BC. 3he potential applicants, ho-ever, should have been infor'ed of the re0uire'ents to the /udicial positions, so that they could properly prepare for and co'ply -ith the'. ence, unless there are good and co'pelling reasons to do so, the Court -ill refrain fro' interfering -ith the e>ercise of "BC;s po-ers, and -ill respect the initiative and independence inherent in the latter. ERE#!RE, pre'ises considered, the petition is DI(IED.  3he Court, ho-ever, DIREC3 that the "udicial and Bar Council co'ply -ith the publication re0uire'ent of %)& the assailed policy re0uiring 1ve years of e>perience as /udges of 1rst2 level courts before they can 0ualify as applicant to the Regional 3rial Court, and %5& other special guidelines that the  "udicial and Bar Council is or -ill be i'ple'enting. ! !RDERED. -IENVENIDO . REES Associate "ustice