Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015

Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833,  April 7, 2015

Nature: Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari, and Declaratory Relief under Rules 65 and 63 of the Rules of Court, respectively, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. DISMISSED

Keywords:Equal Protection.

Summary: Petitioner was appointed as a Presiding Judge of MTC, Compostela-New Bataan (a first level court) on 18 Sept 2012. On 27 Sept 2013 he applied for a vacant position of Presiding Judge in RTCs. Thru a letter, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) informed him that he was not included in the list of candidates for said position.

Facts:

•    18 Sept 2012: Petitioner was appointed as a presiding judge of MTC

•     27 Sept 2013: Petitioner applied for a vacant position of Presiding Judge in RTCs (Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan Del Sur.).

•            18 Dec 2013: He received a letter from the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) informed him that he was not included in the list of candidates for said position. On the same date, petitioner sent a letter, thru email, seeking reconsideration.

•            3 Feb 2014: the JBC Executive Officer told him that his protest and reconsideration was duly noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision not to include his name in the list of applicants was upheld due to the JBC's long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-level courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have served in their current position for at least five years, and since the petitioner has been a judge only for more than a year, he was excluded from the list. This caused the petitioner to take recourse to this Court.

•     In his petition he argued that:

o            the JBC’s five-year requirement violates the equal protection and due process clause of the constitution.

o            It violates Rights for Equal Opportunity of employment

•     He alleged that he has all the qualifications for the position prescribed by the Constitution and the Congress, since he has already complied with the requirement of 10 years of practice of law.

•            JBC & OSG submitted their Comments separately and argued that:

o            It does not violate the equal protection clause because the classification of lower court judges who have served less than five years is valid as it is performance and experience based

o            There is no violation of due process as the policy is merely internal in nature

Issues:W/N the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level court is constitutional

Ratio:YES.

Ruling:

Based on the JBC's collective judgment, those who have been judges of first-level courts for five (5) years are better qualified for promotion to second-level courts. It deems length of experience as a judge as indicative of conversance with the law and court procedure.Five years is considered as a sufficient span of time for one to acquire professional skills for the next level court…and gain extensive experience in the judicial process.

A five-year stint in the Judiciary can also provide evidence of the integrity, probity,and independence of judges seeking promotion. To merit JBC's nomination for their promotion, they must have had a "record of, and reputation for, honesty, integrity, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards." Likewise, their decisions must be reflective of the soundness of their judgment, courage, rectitude, cold neutrality and strength of character.

Clearly, the classification created by the challenged policy satisfies the rational basis test. The foregoing shows that substantial distinctions do exist between lower court judges with five year experience and those with less than five years of experience, like the petitioner, and the classification enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant to its legitimate purpose. The Court, thus, rules that the questioned policy does not infringe on the equal protection clause as it is based on reasonable classification intended to gauge the proven competence of the applicants. Therefore, the said policy is valid and constitutional.