De La Llana vs. Alba

GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA, et.al. vs. MANUEL ALBA, et.al.

GR No. L-57883                                                          12 March 1982 

FACTS: De La Llana, et. al. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition, seeking ti enjoin the Minister of the Budget, the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and the Minister of Justice from taking any action implementing BP 129 which mandates that Justices and judges of inferior courts from the CA to MTCs, except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the CTA, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such act, would be considered separated from the judiciary.  It is the termination of their incumbency that for petitioners justify a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and disregarded. 

ISSUES: W/N BP 129 is unconstitutional for impairing the security of tenure of the justices and judges in this case?

RULING: It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents.  Of course, if the abolition is void, the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office.  The rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good faith. 

Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of valid abolition of the office.  There can be no tenure to a non-existent office.  After the abolition, there is in law no occupant.  In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position.  It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise.