The United States,
plaintiff-appellee, 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, defendants-appellants
G.R. No. L-16217. October 9, 1920. 41 Phil 94
Facts:
The second division of the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case on gambling.
Within the time allowed by the Rules of
the Court, counsel for appellants have raised a 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.
Issue:
Whether or not section 138 of the Administrative Code which authorizes
divisions in the Supreme Court had diminished the authority of the Supreme
Court to hear and determine causes.
Ruling:
No. 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. In addition,
the Supreme Court held that the Philippine Legislature had power to enact law
authorizing the Supreme Court to sit either in banc or in divisions to
transact business.