[ADMIN LAW]

MARCELINO VS CRUZ

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with rape before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Rizal, Branch XII, and his case was conducted and concluded on August 04,
1975.

On the same date, counsels for the accused (petitioner) and complainant
People of the Philippines in the rape case filed before the CFI of Rizal, moved
for time within which to submit their respective memoranda.

Trial court granted both counsels motion and gave them thirty (30) days to
submit their memoranda. (30 days from August 04, 1975 concludes on
September 03, 1975)

Petitioner, through counsel, filed his memorandum in due time, but no

memorandum was filed by the People.

On November 28, 1975, respondent judge filed with the Deputy Clerk of
Court his decision in said for promulgation. The decision was also dated
November 28, 1975.

On the date set for promulgation of the decision, counsel for the accused
moved for postponement, citing the loss of jurisdiction of the trial court for
failure to decide the case within 90 days from submission thereof of decision,
respondent judge granted the counsels request and reset the promulgation
to January 19, 1976.

On January 19, 1976, counsel for the accused moved anew for the resetting
of the promulgation of the decision, and respondent judge granted the same
and moved anew the promulgation on January 26, 1976.

On January 12, 1976, counsel for the accused filed before the Supreme Court
this petition (Petition for prohibition and writ of habeas corpus to
enjoin respondent judge from promulgating his decision above
mentioned). Supreme Court issued an Order temporarily restraining
respondent judge from promulgating said decision.

Petitioner avers that the three-month period prescribed by Section 11 of

Article x of the 1973 Constitution, being a constitutional directive, is
mandatory in character and that non-observance thereof results in the loss of
jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved case.

*Section 11, Article X of the 1973 Constitution states that:

kei
Upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period within which a case
or matter shall be decided or resolved from the date of its submission, shall be
eighteen months for the Supreme court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts, and three months for all other
inferior courts.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent judge failed to comply with the provisions of Section
II, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, in filing the decision within the given period of
three (3) months, equivalent to ninety (90) days.

2. Whether or not Section II, Article X of the 1973 Constitution is mandatory in

character or merely directory.

3. Whether or not jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved criminal case was lost
due to non-compliance by respondent judge with the above mentioned provision.

RULING:
1. On November 28, 1973, or eighty five (85) days from September 4, 1975, the
date the case was deemed submitted for decision, respondent judge filed with the
deputy clerk of court the decision in the above mentioned criminal case. Thus,
respondent judge was able to render his decision within the three-month
period prescribed by the Constitution.

2. The established rule is that constitutional provisions are to be construed as

mandatory, UNLESS by express provision or by necessary implication, a different
intention is manifest. Supreme Court believed that the above mentioned provision
falls within the exception rather than the general rule, citing the case of Albemarel
Oil & Gase Co. v. Morris, which declares that constitutional provisions are
directory, and not mandatory, where they refer to matters merely
PROCEDURAL.

3. Exceeded or not, a decision rendered by an inferior court outside of the

90-day period is not void for loss of jurisdiction. To hold that non-compliance
by the courts with the aforesaid provision would result in loss of jurisdiction, would
make the courts, through

which conflicts are resolved, the very instruments to foster unresolved cases by
reason merely of having failed to render a decision within the allotted term.

4. The petition was DISMISSED and the Restraining Order issued by the Supreme
Court is lifted however, since respondent judge is already deceased, his successor
is ordered to decide the Criminal Case on the basis of the record thereof within 90
days from the time the case is raffled to him.

kei