Agcaoili v. Suguitan G.R. No. 24806. February 13, 1926

Facts: Julio Agcaoili was appointed as justice of the peace of the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte by Francis Harrison on March 25, 1916, with authority to have and hold the said office with all the powers, privileges, and emoluments thereinto of right appertaining into him, subject to the conditions prescribed by law. Agcaoili received a letter from Luis Torres, Undersecretary of Justice, saying that he should cease to be a justice because he is now over 65 years old. Justice Agcaoili filled a protest through a letter addressed to the undersecretary to which he asserted that he will not cease from the office because he was appointed as justice of peace before the enactment of Act 3107, and he has the right to hold office during good behaviour. Agcaoili filed protest at Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte. He waited for a reply but nothing came. So, he filed for a petition for writ of quo warranto in the CFI of the Province of Ilocos Norte.

Issue: Whether or not Sec. 216 of Act 190 is applicable to the petitioner with regard to his petition for quo warranto

Held: No.

Ratio: Article 190 provides remedies for the usurpation of office and franchise. Section 216 provides “Nothing herein contained shall authorize an action against a corporation for forfeiture of charter, unless the same be commenced within five years after the act complained of was done or committed; nor shall an action be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office unless within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office, arose.” The Supreme Court held that this provision is applicable only to private officials. Hence, it has no applicability to the petitioner, who is a justice of the peace. The second point the court made is with regard to the rules of Statutory Construction, given that the said provision is applicable to public officials, the sentence after the word “committed;” should not be treated as a separate thought from the preceding phrase. In the end, the court ruled that the petitioner remain in office.

StatCon maxim: A semicolon is a mark of grammatical punctuation, in the English language, to indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree greater than that expressed by a comma, and what follows that semicolon must have relation to the same matter which precedes it. A semicolon is not used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. A semicolon is used for the purpose of continuing the expression of a thought, a degree greater than that expressed by a mere comma. It is never used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. The comma and semicolon are both used for the same purpose, namely, to divide sentences and parts of the sentences, the only difference being that the semicolon makes the division a little more pronounced than the comma.