Remata v. Javier
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gregoria Remata initiated an original action seeking to oust respondent Juan Javier from the office of municipal president of Candelaria, Tayabas, alleging usurpation of public office. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in a prior judgment on a demurrer, ruled that no one was legally elected president in the June 6, 1916 elections, and that petitioner Remata, having been lawfully elected vice-president, was entitled to the office of president under Section 2126 of the Administrative Code of 1916. The Petition: Pending further proceedings, Remata filed a supplemental petition impleading Generoso de Gala, alleging that under color of authority from Act No. 2707, which amended Section 2126 of the Administrative Code, De Gala was appointed municipal president and had taken possession of the office from Javier. De Gala demurred to the supplemental petition.
Issue(s)
Whether Act No. 2707, which amended Section 2126 of the Administrative Code, has retroactive effect so as to divest the petitioner of his lawfully acquired right to the office of municipal president. Whether Generoso de Gala is unlawfully in possession of the office of municipal president of Candelaria.
Ruling
The Supreme Court overruled the demurrer to the supplemental petition. It declared that petitioner Gregoria Remata is lawfully entitled to the office of municipal president of Candelaria, and respondent Generoso de Gala is unlawfully in possession thereof. The Court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly, with costs against De Gala.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Act No. 2707 has retroactive effect: The Court held that Act No. 2707, which amended Section 2126 of the Administrative Code, does not have retroactive effect. Under well-settled principles of construction, statutes should not be given retroactive effect unless the intention of the legislature is made apparent by express terms or necessary implication. Act No. 2707 became effective on March 11, 1917, long after the general election of June 6, 1916. Section 2 of the Act expressly states its applicability to the general election of June 6, 1916, but this was interpreted to mean that any vacancy arising from that election must be filled according to its terms, not that it could divest rights already acquired. The purpose of the statute, both before and after amendment, is to provide a method for filling vacancies, and its provisions do not become applicable until a vacancy exists. The statute does not purport to deprive anyone of an office or a right to an office lawfully acquired prior to its enactment. Therefore, it cannot authorize the ousting of someone who had lawfully become entitled to an office as a result of the June 6, 1916 election. On whether Generoso de Gala is unlawfully in possession of the office: The Court found that there was no vacancy in the office of the municipal president of Candelaria at the time Act No. 2707 became effective, nor had any occurred since. Under the law in force prior to the amendment, the petitioner had already acquired the right to the office and stood ready to perform its duties. The mere fact that he was unlawfully excluded did not create a vacancy as long as he did not decline to qualify and remained ready to serve. Consequently, the appointment of De Gala was not authorized under Act No. 2707, as there was no vacancy upon which the provisions of the amended statute could operate. His possession of the office is therefore unlawful, and the petitioner is entitled to be ousted therefrom.
Main Doctrine
A statute amending provisions on filling vacancies in municipal offices will not be given retroactive effect to divest an individual of a right to an office lawfully acquired prior to its enactment, absent express legislative intent for retroactivity. The amendment applies only to vacancies existing at the time of its effectivity.