ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS, as Commissioner of Land ORIGINAL PETITION in the Supreme Court.

Registration, petitioner, vs. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, Prohibition with preliminary injunction.

as Secretary of Justice, and RAFAEL M. SALAS, as
Executive Secretary, respondents. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Leandro Sevilla, Ramon C. Aquino & Lino M.
Constitutional law; System of separation of Patajo for petitioner.
powers; Concept of.—If Congress had really intended to
Claudio Teehankee for and in his own behalf as
include in the general grant of “privileges” or “rank and
privileges of Judges of the Court of First Instance” the right
respondent.
to be investigated only by the Supreme Court and to be
suspended or removed upon its recommendation, then such
REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:
grant of privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would
violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers, by
Petition for a writ of prohibition with preliminary
charging this court with the administrative function of injunction to restrain the Secretary of Justice from
supervisory control over executive officials, and inves-
simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief 406
Executive over such officials. In this spirit, it has been held 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
that the Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members ANNOTATED
should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or Noblejas vs. Teehankee
to perform trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or tigating the official actuations of the Commissioner of
connected with the administration of judicial function. Land Registration, and to declare inoperative his
Same; Same; Statutory construction; Intention of the suspension by the Executive Secretary pending
law should not conflict with the Constitution.—Conformably
investigation.
to the well-known principle of statutory construction that
statutes should be given whenever possible, a meaning that
The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner Antonio H.
will not bring them in conflict with the Constitution, Noblejas is the duly appointed, confirmed and qualified
consequently. the grant by Republic Act 1151 to the Commissioner of Land Registration, a position created
Commissioner of Land Registration of the “same privileges by Republic Act No. 1151. By the terms of section 2 of
as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance” did not said Act, the said Commissioner is declared “entitled to
include, and was not intended to include, the right to demand the same compensation, emoluments and privileges as
investigation by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.” The
removed only upon that Court’s recommendation; for appropriation laws (Rep. Acts 4642, 4856 and 5170) in
otherwise, the said grant of privileges would be violative, of the item setting forth the salary of said officer, use the
the Constitution and be null and void. following expression:
 1. “1.One Land Registration Commissioner with the 407
rank and privileges of district judge— VOL. 23, APRIL 30, 1968 407
P19,000.00.” Noblejas vs. Teehankee
retary of Justice, claiming lack of jurisdiction and abuse
On March 7, 1968, respondent Secretary of Justice of discretion, and praying for restraining writs. In their
coursed to the petitioner a letter requiring him to answer respondents admit the facts but denied that
explain in writing not later than March 9, 1968 why no petitioner, as Land Registration Commissioner,
disciplinary action should be taken against petitioner exercises judicial functions, or that the petitioner may
for “approving or recommending approval of be considered a Judge of First Instance within the
subdivision, consolidation and consolidated-subdivision purview of the Judiciary Act and Revised Rules of Court
plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas 140; that the function of investigating charges against
covered by the original titles.” Noblejas answered and public officers is administrative or executive in nature;
apprised the Secretary of Justice that, as he enjoyed the that the Legislature may not charge the judiciary with
rank, privileges, emoluments and compensation of a non-judicial functions or duties except when reasonably
Judge of the Court of First Instance, he could only be incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties, as it
suspended and investigated in the same manner as a would be in violation of the principle of the separation
Judge of the Courts of First Instance, and, therefore, the of powers.
papers relative to his case should be submitted to the Thus, the stark issue before this Court is whether the
Supreme Court, for action thereon conformably to Commissioner of Land Registration may only be
section 67 of the Judiciary Act (R. A. No. 296) and investigated by the Supreme Court, in view of the
Revised Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. conferment upon him by the Statutes heretofore
On March 17, 1968, petitioner Noblejas received a mentioned (Rep. Act 1151 and Appropriation Laws) of
communication signed by the Executive Secretary, “by the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First
authority of the President”, whereby, based on “finding Instance.
that a prima facie case exists against you for gross First to militate against petitioner’s stand is the fact
negligence and conduct prejudicial to the public that section 67 of the Judiciary Act providing for
interest”, petitioner was “hereby suspended, upon investigation, suspension or removal of Judges,
receipt hereof, pending investigation of the above specifically recites that “No District Judge shall be
charges.” separated or removed from office by the President of the
On March 18, 1968, petitioner applied to this Court, Philippines unless sufficient cause shall exist in the
reiterating the contentions advanced in his letter to the judgment of the Supreme Court x x x” and it is nowhere
Sec- claimed, much less shown, that the Commissioner of
Land Registration is a District Judge, or in fact a Incidentally, petitioner’s stand would also lead to the
member of the Judiciary at all. conclusion that the Solicitor General, another appointee
In the second place, petitioner’s theory that the grant of the President, could not be removed by the latter,
of “privileges of a Judge of First Instance” includes by since the Appropriation Acts confer upon the Solicitor
implication the right to be investigated only by the General the rank and privileges of a Justice of the Court
Supreme Court and to be suspended or removed upon of Appeals, and these Justices are only removable by the
its recommendation, would necessarily result in the Legislature, through the process of impeachment
same right being possessed by a variety of executive (Judiciary Act, sec. 24, par. 2).
officials upon whom the Legislature had In our opinion, such unusual corollaries could not
indiscriminately conferred the same privileges. These have been intended by the Legislature when it granted
favoured officers include (a) the Judicial these executive officials the rank and privileges of
Superintendent of the Department of Justice (Judiciary Judges of First Instance. This conclusion gains strength
Act, sec. 42); (b) the Assistant Solicitors General, seven when account is taken of the fact that in the case of the
in number (Rep. Act No. 4360) ; (c) the City Fiscal of Judges of the Court of Agrarian Relations and those of
Quezon City (R.A. No. 4495); (d) the City the Court of Tax Appeals, the organic statutes of said
408 bodies (Republic Act 1267, as amended by Act 1409;
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Rep. Act No. 1125) expressly provide that they are to
ANNOTATED be removed from office for the same causes and in the
Noblejas vs. Teehankee same manner provided by law for Judges of First
Fiscal of Manila (R. A. No. 4631) and (e) the Securities Instance”, or “members of the judiciary of appellate
and Exchange Commissioner (R. A. No. 5050, s. 2). To rank”. The same is true of Judges of the Court of
adopt petitioner’s theory, therefore, would mean placing Agrarian Relations (Comm. Act No. 103) and of the
upon the Supreme Court the duty of investigating and Commissioner of Public Service (Public Service Act, Sec.
disciplining all these officials, whose functions are 3). It is thereby shown that where the legislative design
plainly executive, and the consequent curtailment is to make the suspension or removal procedure
by mere implication from the Legislative grant, of the prescribed for Judges of First Instance applicable to
President’s power to discipline and remove other officers, provision to that effect is made in plain
administrative officials who are presidential and unequivocal language.
appointees, and which the Constitution expressly But the more fundamental objection to the stand of
placed under the President’s supervision and control petitioner Noblejas is that, if the Legislature had really
(Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 10 [i]). 409
VOL. 23, APRIL 30, 1968 409
 Noblejas vs. Teehankee California Fig Nut Co. supra (272 U.S. 700, 701, 71 L. ed.
intended to include in the general grant of “privileges” 481, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284) ; Liberty Warehouse Co. v.
or “rank and privileges of Judges of the Court of First Grannis, 273 U.S. 70, 74, 71 L. ed. 541, 544, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep.
282; Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Asso. 277 U.S. 274, 289,
Instance” the right to be investigated by the Supreme
72 L. ed. 880, 884, 48 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Ex parte Bakelite
Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon
Corp. 279 U.S. 438, 449, 73 L. ed. 789, 793, 49 Sup. Ct. Rep.
recommendation of that Court, then such grant of 411. (Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric
privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would Company, 281 U.S. 469, 74 L. ed. 972.) (Italics supplied.)
violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of
powers, by charging this court with the administrative In this spirit, it has been held that the Supreme Court
function of supervisory control over executive officials, of the Philippines and its members should not and
and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform
the Chief Executive over such officials. any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
Justice Cardozo ruled in In re Richardson et al., connected with
410
Connolly vs. Scudder (247 N.Y. 401, 160 N.E. 655),
saying: 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
“There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislature ANNOTATED
to charge the judiciary with administrative functions except Noblejas vs. Teehankee
when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of judicial the administration of judicial functions; and a law
duties.” requiring the Supreme Court to arbitrate disputes
The United States Supreme Court said in Federal Radio between public utilities was pronounced void in Manila
Electric Co. vs. Pasay Transportation Co. (57 Phil. 600).
Commission vs. General Electric Co., et al., 281 U.S.
469, 74 Law. Ed., 972,— Petitioner Noblejas seeks to differentiate his case
“But this court cannot be invested with jurisdiction of that from that of other executive officials by claiming that
character, whether for purposes of review or otherwise. It under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 1151, he is endowed
was brought into being by the judiciary article of the with judicial functions. The section invoked runs as
Constitution, is invested with judicial power only and can follows:
have no jurisdiction other than of cases and controversies “SEC. 4. Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of
falling within the classes enumerated in that article. It Land Registration.—When the Register of Deeds is in doubt
cannot give decisions which are merely advisory; nor can it with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum
exercise or participate in the exercise of functions which are to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other
essentially legislative or administrative. Keller v. Potomac instrument presented to him for registration, or where any
Electric Power Co., supra (261 U.S. 444, 67 L. ed. 736, 43 party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds
Sup. Ct. Rep. 445) and cases cited; Postum Cereal Co. vs. with reference to any such matter, the question shall be
submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration either does not prove that they are not administrative; any bureau
upon the certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the director’s ruling is likewise appealable to the corresponding
question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the suggestion department head.
in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the
Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by But even granting that the resolution of consultas by
the records certified to him, and in case of registered lands, the Register of Deeds should constitute a judicial (or
after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order more properly quasi judicial) function, analysis of the
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. powers and duties of the Land Registration
His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and binding Commissioner under Republic Act No. 1151, sections 3
upon all Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That, when a and 4, will show that the resolution of consultas are but
party in interest disagrees with the ruling or resolution of a minimal portion of his administrative or executive
the Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law, functions and merely incidental to the latter.
said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within
Conformably to the well-known principle of statutory
thirty days from and after receipt of the notice thereof.”
construction that statutes should be given, whenever
Serious doubt may well be entertained as to whether the
resolution of a consulta by a Register of Deeds is a judicial possible, a meaning that will not bring them in conflict
function, as contrasted with administrative process. It will with the Constitution, We are constrained to rule that
2

be noted that by specific provision of the section, the decision the grant by Republic Act 1151 to the Commissioner of
of the Land Registration Commissioner “shall be conclusive Land Registration of the “same privileges as those of a
and binding upon all Registers of Deeds” alone, and not upon Judge of the Court of First Instance” did not include,
other parties. This imi-tation in effect identifies the
1
and was not intended to include, the right to demand
resolutions of the Land Registration Commissioner with investigation by the Supreme Court, and to be
those of any other bureau director, whose resolutions or suspended or removed only upon that Court’s
orders bind his subordinates alone. That the Commissioner’s recommendation; for otherwise, the said grant of
resolutions are appealable privileges would be violative of the Constitution and be
______________ null and void. Consequently, the investigation and
suspension of the aforenamed Commissioner pursuant
1 That did not exist when formerly consultas were resolved by the

fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. (Cf. Adm. Code.
to sections 32 and 34 of the Civil Service Law (R. A.
sec. 200). 2260) are neither abuses of discretion nor acts in excess
of jurisdiction.
411
WHEREFORE, the writs of prohibition and
VOL. 23, APRIL 30, 1968 411
injunction applied for are denied, and the petition is
Noblejas vs. Teehankee ordered dismissed. No costs.
 Dizon, Makalintal Bengzon,
J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando,
JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.
Writs denied and petition dismissed.