Republic of the Philippines represented by the said division the said court; that on

SUPREME COURT September 29, 1958, an "Urgent Motion for

Manila Reconsideration" was filed before the court, praying for
the setting aside of the order of September 22, 1958 but
EN BANC the same was denied on October 1958.

G.R. No. L-14542            October 31, 1962 In its order dated September 22, 1958, the Court
Agrarian Relations (Second Regional District) upheld
respondents' claim and held, among others:
MANUEL A. CORDERO, Trial Attorney of the
Tenancy Unit, Mediation Division, Agricultural
Tenancy Commission Department of Justice and (1) That representation by counsel of tenants who
VICENTE SALAZAR, petitioners,  cannot afford to pay should be done by the public
vs. defendant of the Department of Labor as provided for in
HON. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, Associate Judge of section 54 of Republic Act No. 1199;
the Court of Agrarian Relations, and LEONARDO
STA. ROMANA, respondents. (2) That Circular No. 5, dated June 28, 1957, of
Agricultural Tenancy Commission, as approved by
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioners. Secretary of Justice, creating a Tenancy Unit Counsel in
Manuel A. Cordero for and in his own behalf as the Mediation Division, is ultra vires and has no legal
petitioner. force; and
Fausto F. Allado and Ludivico M. Ipac for respondent
Associate Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations. (3) That even the Mediation Division of the Agricultural
Policarpio O. Sta. Romana for respondent Leonardo Tenancy Commission, which has been performing many
Sta. Romana. functions, has been in existence without the sanction of
any statute.
REGALA, J.:
As a result of this order, the plaintiff filed the present
This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus "to declare petition before this Court. As prayed for, this Court on
null and void the disputed order dated September 22, August 21, 1958 issued a writ of preliminary injunction
1958 and the resolution dated October 1, 1958" of the restraining the respondent judge from enforcing his order
Court of Agrarian Relations, disqualifying petitioner complained of until further orders from this Court.
Manuel A. Cordero, Trial Attorney, Tenancy Counsel
Unit, Mediation Division, Agricultural Tenancy Meanwhile, Congress passed Republic Act No. 2263,
Commission, Department of Justice "from appearing as amending the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines
counsel for petitioner tenant in this case, or for any (Republic Act No. 1199) providing among others that —
tenant in any other cases before this Court," and "to
compel respondent Judge to allow petitioner trial In all cases wherein a tenant cannot afford to be
attorney and all trial attorneys of the Mediation Division represented by counsel, it shall be the duty of
of the Department of Justice to appear as counsel for the trial attorney of the tenancy mediation
indigent tenants in cases pending in his sala." commission to represent him, upon proper
notification by the party concerned, or the court
The record discloses that on July 21, 1958, the Tenancy of competent jurisdiction shall assign or appoint
Counsel Unit of the Agricultural Tenancy Commission of counsel de oficio for the indigent tenant.
the Department of Justice, thru its Trial Attorney the (Section 54, Republic Act No. 1199, as
herein petitioner Manuel A. Cordero as counsel for amended by Section 20 of Republic Act No.
indigent petitioner tenant Vicente Salazar, filed with the 2263).
Second Regional District of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, CAR Case No. 1379-NE-58 against After the enactment of the aforementioned Republic Act
respondent landlord Leonardo Sta. Romana and others No. 2263, on August 11, 1959, petitioner filed a
"for reinstatement and reliquidation of past harvests"; MANIFESTATION contending "that the issue in the case
that on September 1958, respondent landlord Leonardo at bar is now moot and academic." As required by this
Sta. Romana file "Motion to Disqualify Counsel and To Court, respondent judge, thru counsel, filed on October
Set Hearing at Cabanatuan City, praying among others 3, 1959 his COMMENT to the aforementioned
for the disqualification of petitioner Manuel A. Cordero to manifestation of petitioner alleging that, before the
act as counsel tenant Vicente Salazar; that on enactment of Republic Act No. 2263, there was no
September 22, 1958, respondent Judge, acting on the Tenancy Mediation Division in existence nor was there
aforesaid motion to qualify, issued the order in question any law creating the same and defining its functions, and
disqualifying petitioner Manuel A. Cordero and/or any that its only basis for existence, therefore, are sections
other attorney from the Mediation Division of the 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2263 which are null and
Department of Justice from appearing as counsel for void because the Constitution provides that "no bill which
petitioner tenant Vicente Salazar or for other tenants
may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one construction. It is sufficient if the title be
subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill." comprehensive enough reasonably to include
He contended further that nowhere in the titles of the general object which a statute seeks to
Republic Act No. 1199 and Republic Act No. 2263 is the effect, without expressing each and every end
creation of the Tenancy Mediation Division ever and means necessary or convenient for the
mentioned, thereby indicating that section 19, Republic accomplishing of the object. Mere details need
Act No. 2263 falls under the first class of prohibited bills. not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract
or index of the Act. (syllabus)
The decisive issue in this case is the constitutionality of
sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2263, amending In the case of Sumulong v. Commission on Elections, 73
sections 53 and 54 of Republic Act No. 1199. The Phil. 288, the following doctrine was enunciated:
fundamental objection of respondent to the presumed
constitutionality of these sections is that section 19 of The Constitutional requirement that the subject
Republic Act No. 226 authorizing the Secretary of of an act shall be expressed in its title should be
Justice acting through a tenancy mediation division, to reasonably construed so as not to interfere
carry out a national enforcement program including the unduly with the enactment of necessary
mediation of tenancy disputes, is not expressed in the legislation. It should be given a practical rather
title of the bill as required by section 21, paragraph 1, of than technical construction. It should be a
Article VI of the Philippine Constitution which reads: sufficient compliance with such requirement if
the title expresses the general subject and all
No bill which may be enacted into law shall the provisions of the statute are germane to that
embrace more than one subject which shall be general subject. In the light of the relevant
expressed in the title of the bill. provisions of the Constitution, the challenged
provision of section 5 of Commonwealth Act 657
It is to be noted that the basic law, Republic Act 1199, is has a necessary and proper connection with the
called "The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines." reorganization of the Commission on Elections,
which is the subject expressed in the title of the
Act. . . . (syllabus)
The constitutional requirement in question is satisfied if
all parts of the law are related, and are germane to
subject matter expressed in the title of the bill. The title And in the later case of People v. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535,
of Republic Act No. 2263 reads as follows: "AN ACT We again said:
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED The People's Court was intended to be a full and
NINETY-NINE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE complete scheme with its own machinery for the
AGRICULTURAL TENANCY ACT OF THE indictment, trial and judgment of treason cases.
PHILIPPINE." The constitutional requirement is complied The various provisos mentioned in appellants
with as long the law, as in the instant case, has a single brief are allied and germane to the subject
general subject which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act matter and purposes of the People's Court Act;
and the amendatory provisions no matter how diverse they are subordinate to its end. The multitude of
they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or matters which the legislation, by its nature, has
foreign to the general subject, will be regarded as valid to embrace would make mention of all of them in
(Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 11th Ed., p. 225; Cooley, the title of the act cumbersome. It is not
Constitutional Limitations, 6th Ed., p. 172; See also necessary, and the Congress is not expected, to
Public Service Commission v. Recteweald, 290 Ill. 314, make the title of an enactment a complete index
8 A.L.R. 466.) of its contents. (Government of the Philippine
Islands v. Municipality of Binalonan, 32 Phil.
The provisions of sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 634.) The constitutional rule is satisfied if all
2263 are certainly germane to, and are reasonably parts of a law relate to the subject expressed in
necessary for the accomplishment of the one general its title.
subject, agricultural tenancy.
The only amendment brought about by Republic Act No.
In the case of Government v. Hongkong & Shanghai 2263 is the transfer of the function of representing these
Banking Corporation, 66 Phil. 483, We laid down the rule indigent tenants to the Department of Justice, apparently
that — to consolidate in the latter Department the functions
relative to the enforcement of tenancy laws. In essence,
therefore, there is no change in the set-up established
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject
by Republic Act No. 1199 and that provided for by
matter and titles of statutes should not be so
Republic Act No. 2263. There is only a transfer of
narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the
functions from one department of the government to
power of legislation. The requirement that the
another.
subject of an act shall be expressed in its title
should receive a reasonable and not a technical
One salient aspect of this case We should not lose sight
of is the fact that, shortly after the enactment of Republic
Act No. 2263 in 1959, the function of representing these
indigents before the Agrarian Court by public defenders
of the Department of Labor had been actually transferred
to the Tenancy Mediation Division of the Department of
Justice by virtue of a Memorandum Circular of the
department of Labor, dated July 15, 1959, addressed to
Regional Labor Administrators, Officers-in-Charge Local
Offices, Legal Advisers and Labor Attorneys of the
Department. The concluding paragraph of this circular
reads:

In view hereof, all legal personnel of this

department shall henceforth desist from
performing legal aid functions in tenancy cases
in any manner in their respective jurisdiction,
and all such cases which they are handling and
still pending adjudication settlement, as well as
those which may be addressed to them in the
future, should be referred and turned over to the
Commissioner of the Tenancy Mediation
Commission at 758 Padilla St., San Miguel,
Manila.

To declare sections 19 and 20 of Republic Act No. 2 null

and void would in effect upset the transfer of duty of
representing indigent tenants from the public defenders
of the Department of Labor to the trial attorney in the
Mediation Division of the Agricultural Tenancy
Commission of the Department of Justice. In other
words, a declaration of nullity of these provisions of
Republic Act No. 2263 would do harm to, and would be
nugatory of, intention of Congress to consolidate the
function of enforcing our tenancy laws in the Department
of Justice.

For these reasons, We hereby declare sections 19 and

20 of Republic Act No. 2263 valid and constitutional.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and writ of

preliminary injunction heretofore issued, made
permanent.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,

Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and
Makalintal,concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.