Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    US v. Limsiongco

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Juarez
    The document discusses a case challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Administrative Code allowing the Philippine Supreme Court to sit in divisions. The key issue is whether this infringes on any constitutional provisions. The Court held that it does not infringe, as there remains only one Supreme Court, and divisions are not separate courts but rather parts of the single court. The Legislature has authority to regulate the court's organization for convenience and efficiency. Sitting in divisions does not impact the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the provision allowing divisions is a valid exercise of legislative power.

    Copyright:

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

    US v. Limsiongco

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Juarez
    43 views1 page
    The document discusses a case challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Administrative Code allowing the Philippine Supreme Court to sit in divisions. The key issue is whether this infringes on any constitutional provisions. The Court held that it does not infringe, as there remains only one Supreme Court, and divisions are not separate courts but rather parts of the single court. The Legislature has authority to regulate the court's organization for convenience and efficiency. Sitting in divisions does not impact the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the provision allowing divisions is a valid exercise of legislative power.

    Original Title

    243. US v. Limsiongco.docx

    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 document discusses a case challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Administrative Code allowing the Philippine Supreme Court to sit in divisions. The key issue is whether this infringes on any constitutional provisions. The Court held that it does not infringe, as there remains only one Supreme Court, and divisions are not separate courts but rather parts of the single court. The Legislature has authority to regulate the court's organization for convenience and efficiency. Sitting in divisions does not impact the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the provision allowing divisions is a valid exercise of legislative power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views1 page

    US v. Limsiongco

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Juarez
    The document discusses a case challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Administrative Code allowing the Philippine Supreme Court to sit in divisions. The key issue is whether this infringes on any constitutional provisions. The Court held that it does not infringe, as there remains only one Supreme Court, and divisions are not separate courts but rather parts of the single court. The Legislature has authority to regulate the court's organization for convenience and efficiency. Sitting in divisions does not impact the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the provision allowing divisions is a valid exercise of legislative power.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    243 | Judicial Dept One Supreme Court

    The United States Vs.M. J. Limsiongco, Vicente Yap, Yap Bun, Tan Fong, Sing Joy, Chino
    Saya (Alias) Isaias Javier, Lim Liongco, Sing Yang, Lorenzo Pavia And Mariano Tan-Congco
    G.R. No. L-16217; October 9, 1920; MALCOLM, J.:

    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    Within the time allowed by the Rules of the Court, counsel for appellants have raised a most
    interesting question unconnected with the merits of the particular case, but assailing the very
    structure of the court itself. Appellant's motion is based "on the ground that the instant decision was
    rendered by a division of the court and not by the body constituted by law for the purpose, and
    hence the decisions as rendered, was rendered by a body outside the law and having no power,
    authority or jurisdiction to render a final decision in the controversy." In answer, the Attorney-General
    submits "that section 138 of the Administrative Code permitting and authorizing the Supreme Court
    to sit in division only touches and affects the matter of practice and method of procedure of said
    court, which the acts of Congress . . . clearly authorized the Legislature to do."

    The portion of the law which authorizes divisions in the Supreme Court is found in section 138 of the
    Administrative Code of 1917, reading as follows:

    SEC. 138. Sessions of court in banc and in divisions. The Supreme Court shall, as a body, sit in banc, but
    it may sit in divisions to transact business for which four judges constitute a quorum, and two divisions may sit
    at the same time. If the Chief Justice is present, whether in banc or division, he shall preside. In his absence,
    that one of the judges attending in banc or in the division shall reside who holds the senior commission.

    Six of the judges of the Supreme Court, lawfully convened, shall be necessary to form a quorum for the
    transaction of any business involving the admiralty jurisdiction of the court, or for the final disposition of a civil
    case in which the amount in controversy exceeds ten thousand pesos or a criminal case in which the
    judgment of the lower court imposed death, or imprisonment for more than ten years, or a fine of more than
    ten thousand pesos, and the concurrence of five judges, shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a
    judgment, but when there is a vacancy in said court five judges shall constitute such quorum, and the
    concurrence of four shall suffice for the pronouncement of the judgment. In all other case the presence of four
    judges shall be sufficient to form a quorum, and the concurrence of three judges for the pronouncement of a
    judgment.

    In the absence of a quorum the court shall stand ipso facto adjourned until such time as the requisite number
    shall be present, and a memorandum showing this fact shall be inserted by the clerk in the minutes of the
    court.

    ISSUE: whether or not section 138 of the Administrative Code infringes any of these constitutional
    provision.

    HELD: NO.

    We think not. There is but one Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. It is the jurisdiction of this
    Supreme Court which cannot be diminished. The Supreme Court remains a unit notwithstanding it
    works in divisions. Although it may have two divisions, it is but a single court. Actions considered in
    any one of these divisions and decisions rendered therein are, in effect, by the same Tribunal. The
    two divisions of this court are not to be considered as two separate and distinct courts but as
    divisions of one and the same court. In the exact words of the law which is questioned, "the
    Supreme Court shall, as a body, sit in banc, but it may sit in divisions . . . ."

    The Legislature has merely attempted to regulate the organization of the court in a way not
    prohibited by any constitutional provision. The constitution of divisions has been permitted for
    convenience and the prompt dispatch of business. The provisions in no way involves the question of
    jurisdiction.

    We hold that the Philippine Legislature had power to enact law authorizing the Supreme Court to sit
    either in banc or in divisions to transact business.

    You might also like