Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Valera Vs Tuason

    Uploaded by

    Dana Mae Tadea
    The case involved a dispute over which law governed the transfer of a case from one justice of the peace to another after the original justice recused himself due to a conflict of interest. The court held that Section 73 of Act No. 190 and Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code could be harmonized and both apply, with Section 73 governing recusals under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 211 governing other types of recusals or disabilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Valera Vs Tuason

    Uploaded by

    Dana Mae Tadea
    1K views2 pages
    The case involved a dispute over which law governed the transfer of a case from one justice of the peace to another after the original justice recused himself due to a conflict of interest. The court held that Section 73 of Act No. 190 and Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code could be harmonized and both apply, with Section 73 governing recusals under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 211 governing other types of recusals or disabilities.

    Original Description:

    StatCon

    Original Title

    5. Valera vs Tuason

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over which law governed the transfer of a case from one justice of the peace to another after the original justice recused himself due to a conflict of interest. The court held that Section 73 of Act No. 190 and Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code could be harmonized and both apply, with Section 73 governing recusals under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 211 governing other types of recusals or disabilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Valera Vs Tuason

    Uploaded by

    Dana Mae Tadea
    The case involved a dispute over which law governed the transfer of a case from one justice of the peace to another after the original justice recused himself due to a conflict of interest. The court held that Section 73 of Act No. 190 and Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code could be harmonized and both apply, with Section 73 governing recusals under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 211 governing other types of recusals or disabilities.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VALERA vs. TUAZON, JR.

    GR No. L-1276, 30 April 1948


    PROVISIONS OF A LAW OR OF TWO LAWS TO BE HARMONIZED; IMPLIED REPEAL

    FACTS:
     A complaint for forcible entry was filed in the justice of the peace court of Lagayan over which
    Judge Federico Paredes presided. Finding himself disqualified, by reason of relationship to one of
    the parties, to try the case, Judge Paredes transferred it to the justice of the peace of La Paz, the
    nearest municipality to Lagayan.
     The justice of the peace of La Paz, over the objection of the attorney for the defendants,
    proceeded with the trial, after which he gave judgment for the plaintiff and returned the record of
    the case with his decision to the justice of the peace of Lagayan – this was overturned by the new
    justice of peace appointed for Lagayan (Tuason) on the ground that the decision of the justice of
    the peace of La Paz is that "the designation of another justice of the peace to hear, try and decide
    a given case, when the justice having jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the same disqualifies
    himself, is not in law given to the disqualifying justice but 'to the judge of the district' who 'shall
    designate the nearest justice of the peace.'

     Section 73 of Act No. 190 as amended provides:


    In every case, whether civil or criminal, of disqualification of a justice of the peace upon any
    ground mentioned in section eight of this Act, the regular justice shall notify the auxilliary, who
    shall thereupon appear and try the cause, unless he shall be likewise disqualified or otherwise
    disabled, in which event the cause shall be transferred to the nearest justice of the peace of the
    province who is not disqualified.

     Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:


    Auxilliary justice — Qualifications and duties. — The auxilliary justice of the peace shall have
    the same qualifications and be subject to the same restrictions as the regular justice, and shall
    perform the duties of said office during any vacancy therein or in case of the absence of the
    regular justice from the municipality, or of his disability or disqualification, or in case of his death
    or resignation until the appointment and qualification of his successor, or in any cause whose
    immediate trial the regular justice shall certify to be specially urgent and which he is unable to try
    by reason of actual engagement in another trial.

    In case there is no auxilliary justice of the peace to perform the duties of the regular justice in the
    cases above mentioned, the judge of the district shall designate the nearest justice of the peace of
    the province to act as justice of the peace in such municipality, town, or place, in which case the
    justice of the peace so designated shall have jurisdiction and shall receive the total of his own
    salary and seventy-five per centum of the salary of the justice of the peace whom he may
    substitute.

    ISSUES:
     WON Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code has impliedly repealed Section 73 of the
    Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190).

    HELD:
     NO. Section 73 of Act No. 190 and Section 211 of the Revised Administrative Code can stand
    together. By a fair and reasonable construction, section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
    amended, may be said to apply to disqualifications under section 8 of that Act, and section 211 of
    the Revised Administrative Code to disqualifications or disabilities not embraced in the Code of
    Civil Procedure

    RATIONALE:
     One of the well-established rules of statutory construction enjoins that endeavor should be made
    to harmonize the provisions of a law or of two laws so that each shall be effective. In order that
    one law may operate to repeal another law, the two laws must actually be inconsistent. The
    former must be so repugnant as to be irreconcilable with the latter act.
     Merely because a later enactment may relate to the same subject matter as that of an earlier
    statute is not of itself sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the latter, since the new law may be
    cumulative or a continuation of the old one.
     The history of the two laws gives positive indication that they were designed to complement each
    other. The two enactments have different origins, one independent of the other, and have been
    intended to operate side by side.

    You might also like