NAME: JABE TECSON GICA

[ THE JUDICIARY: Case Digest 7 ]

TITLE: ENDENCIA VS. DAVID CITATION: 93 PHIL 696 EN BANC G.R. NO. L-6355-56 DATE: AUGUST 31, 1953 ACTS: Saturnino David was the Internal Revenue Collector who ordered Judges Endencio and Jugos salaries. A case was filed. However, u on construing Article VIII Section ! of the constitution, it shows that "udicial officers are e#e$ t fro$ a%ing ta# fro$ their salaries and thus considered that the deduction of salaries fro$ the said "udges as a violation fro$ the co$ ensation received &% "udicial officers. Due to this, the "udg$ent given &% Court of 'irst Instance has declared the section () of Re u&lic Act *!+ ,No salary wherever received by any public officer of the Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to be dimunition of his compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law- unconstitutional. Case was a ealed.

ISSUE: .hether or not Section () of RA *!+ is constitutional/

THE COURT!S RULING: 0% legislative fiat as enunciated in section (), Re u&lic Act 1o. *!+, Congress sa%s that ta#ing the salar% of a "udicial officer is not a decrease of co$ ensation. 2his is a clear e#a$ le of inter retation or ascertain$ent of the $eaning of the hrase ,which shall not &e di$inished during their continuance in office,- found in section !, Article VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries of "udicial officers. 2his act of inter reting the Constitution or an% art thereof &% the 3egislature is an invasion of the well4defined and esta&lished rovince and "urisdiction of the Judiciar%. ,2he assage, so as to give it an% &inding rule is recogni5ed elsewhere that the legislature cannot ass an% declarator% act, or act declarator% of what the law was &efore its weight with the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in a statute is not conclusive of its $eaning as used elsewhere6 otherwise, the legislature would &e usur ing a "udicial function in defining a ter$.

** The reason behind the exemption in the Constitution, as interpreted by the United States ederal Supreme Court and this Court, is to preserve the independence of the !udiciary, not only of this "i#h Tribunal but of the other courts, whose present membership number more than $$% &udicial officials' The independence of the &ud#es is of far #reater importance than any revenue that could come from taxin# their salaries' 2he doctrine laid down in the case of 7erfecto vs. 8eer, to the effect that the collection of inco$e ta# on the salar% of a "udicial officer is a di$inution thereof and so violates the Constitution. 2he inter retation and a and of statutes is within the e#clusive lication of the Constitution rovide rovince and "urisdiction of the "udicial

de art$ent, and that in enacting a law, the 3egislature $a% not legall%

therein that it &e inter reted in such a wa% that it $a% not violate a Constitutional rohi&ition, there&% t%ing the hands of the courts in their tas9 of later inter reting said statute, es eciall% when the inter retation sought and runs counter to a court of the land. rovided in said statute revious inter retation alread% given in a case &% the highest

TITLE: NITAFAN VS. CIR CITATION: 15" SCRA "#$ DATE: JULY "3, 19#% ACTS: 7etitioners David 1itafan, .enceslao 7olo and 8a#i$o Savellano Jr., were dul% a ointed and :ualified Judges of the R2C 1ational Ca ital Judicial Region. rohi&it and;or fro$ er etuall% en"oin res ondents, <CIR and the their salaries.

7etitioners see9s to ta#es

'inancial =fficer of the Su re$e Court> fro$ $a9ing an% deduction of withholding 7etitioners su&$it that ,an% ta# withheld fro$ their e$olu$ents or co$ ensation as "udicial officers constitutes a decreased or di$inution of their salaries, contrar% to Section (+, Article VIII of the (!?@ Constitution.-

ISSUE: .hether or not $e$&ers of the Judiciar% are e#e$ t fro$ inco$e ta#es/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he salaries of $e$&ers of the Judiciar% are su&"ect to the general inco$e ta# a lied to all ta# a%ers. 2his intent was so$ehow and inadvertentl% not clearl% set roved and ratified in 'e&ruar%, (!?@ u&lic . @4?>. Although the intent $a% have &een o&scured &% the failure to roscri tion against e#e$ tion of an% a%$ent of inco$e ta#, forth in the final te#t of the Constitution as a <infra, include in the Aeneral 7rovisions a

officer or e$ lo%ee, including constitutional officers, fro$

the Court since then has authori5ed the continuation of the deduction of the withholding ta# fro$ the salaries of the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, as well as fro$ the salaries of all other $e$&ers of the Judiciar%. 2he Court here&% $a9es of record that it had then discarded the ruling in 7erfecto vs. 8eer and Endencia vs. David. 2he (!@) Constitution has rovided that ,no salar% or an% for$ of e$olu$ent of

an% fro$

u&lic officer or e$ lo%ee, including constitutional officers, shall &e e#e$ t a%$ent of inco$e ta# <Section B, Article CV>- which was not resent in the

(!?@ Constitution. 2he deli&erations of the (!?B Constitutional Co$$ission relevant to Section (+, Article VIII <2he salar% of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Su re$e Court, and of "udges of lower courts shall &e fi#ed &% law. During their continuance in office, their salar% shall not &e decreased>, negate the contention that the intent of the fra$ers is to revert to the original conce t of ,non4di$inution- of salaries of "udicial officers. E:ualit% of &ranches of govern$ent effected &% $odifications in rovision. 2he ter$ ,di$inished- &e changed to ,decreased- and that the words ,nor su&"ected to inco$e ta#- &e deleted so as to give su&stance to e:ualit% a$ong the three &ranches in the govern$ent. A eriod <.> after ,decreased- was $ade on the eriod, the l% understanding that the salar% of "ustices is su&"ect to ta#. .ith the

doctrine in 7erfecto vs. 8eer and Endencia vs. David is understood not to a

an%$ore. Justices and "udges are not onl% the citi5ens whose inco$e have &een reduced in acce ting service in govern$ent and %et su&"ected to inco$e ta#. Such is true also of Ca&inet $e$&ers and all other e$ lo%ees. Constitutional construction ado ts the intent of the fra$ers and eo le ado ting the law. 2he ascertain$ent of the intent is &ut in 9ee ing with the funda$ental the eo le ado ting it should &e given effect. 2he rinci le of

constitutional construction that the intent of the fra$ers of the organic law and of ri$ar% tas9 in constitutional ur ose of construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the reali5ation of the the fra$ers and of the safel% assu$ed that the

eo le in the ado tion of the Constitution. It $a% also &e eo le in ratif%ing the Constitution were guided $ainl% &% ass a law fi#ing another rate of lica&le onl%

the e# lanation offered &% the fra$ers. In the case at &ar, Section (+, Article VIII is lain that the Constitution authori5es Congress to co$ ensation of Justices and Judges &ut such rate $ust &e higher than that which the% are receiving at the ti$e of enact$ent, or if lower, it would &e a to those a into the ointed after its a roval. It would &e a strained construction to read

rovision an e#e$ tion fro$ ta#ation in the light of the discussion in the

Constitutional Co$$ission.

TITLE: DE LA LLANA VS. ALBA CITATION: 11" SCRA "#$ DATE: MARCH 1", 19#" ACTS: In (!?(, 07 (D!, entitled ,An Act Reorgani5ing the Judiciar%, A therefor and for =ther 7ur oses-, was ro riating 'unds

assed. De la 3lana was assailing its validit%

&ecause, first of all, he would &e one of the "udges that would &e re$oved &ecause of the reorgani5ation and second, he said such law would contravene the constitutional rovision which rovides the securit% of tenure of "udges of the courts, He averred that onl% the SC can re$ove "udges 1=2 Congress. ISSUE: .hether or not Judge De 3a 3lana can &e validl% re$oved &% the legislature &% such statute <07 (D!>/ THE COURT!S RULING: 2he SC ruled the following wa%E ,8oreover, this Court is e$ owered ,to disci line "udges of inferior courts and, &% a vote of at least eight $e$&ers, order their dis$issal.- 2hus it ossesses the co$ etence to re$ove "udges. Fnder the Judiciar% Act, it was the 7resident who was vested with such ower. Re$oval is, of course, to &e distinguished fro$ ter$ination &% virtue of the a&olition of the office. 2here can &e no tenure to a non4e#istent office. After the a&olition, there is in law no occu ant. In case of re$oval, there is an office with an occu ant who would there&% lose his osition. It is in that sense that fro$ the stand oint of strict law, the

:uestion of an% i$ air$ent of securit% of tenure does not arise. 1onetheless, for the incu$&ents of inferior courts a&olished, the effect is one of se aration. As to its effect, no distinction e#ists &etween re$oval and the a&olition of the office. Realisticall%, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to &e a $e$&er of the "udiciar%. In the i$ le$entation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would &e in accordance with acce ted rinci les of constitutional construction that as far as incu$&ent "ustices and "udges are concerned, this Court &e consulted and that its view &e accorded the fullest consideration. 1o fear need &e entertained that there is a failure to accord res ect to the &asic this Court could not have its sa% the $atter has &een a rinci le that this Court does not render advisor% o inions. 1o :uestion of law is involved. If such were the case, certainl% rior to the action ta9en &% either of the two de art$ents. Even then, it could do so &ut onl% &% wa% of deciding a case where ut in issue. 1either is there an% intrusion into who shall &e ointed to the vacant ositions created &% the reorgani5ation. 2hat re$ains in the

hands of the E#ecutive to who$ it ro erl% &elongs. 2here is no de arture therefore fro$ the tried and tested wa%s of "udicial ower.

Rather what is sought to &e achieved &% this li&eral inter retation is to reclude an% lausi&ilit% to the charge that in the e#ercise of the conceded ower of reorgani5ing the inferior courts, the ower of re$oval of the resent incu$&ents vested in this redis osed 2ri&unal is ignored or disregarded. 2he challenged Act would thus &e free fro$ an% unconstitutional taint, even one not readil% discerni&le e#ce t to those the &asic to view it with distrust. 8oreover, such a construction would &e in accordance with rinci le that in the choice of alternatives &etween one which would save and another which would invalidate a statute, the for$er is to &e referred.-

TITLE: SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF TAGUIG VS. ESTRELLA CITATIONE A.M. NO. &1-16&#-RTJ JANUARY 16, "&&1 '()*: =n =cto&er D+, (!!@, ten $e$&ers of the Sangguniang 0a%an of 2aguig, 8etro 8anila file a co$ laint charging Judge Santiago A. Estrella of 0ranch B? of the Regional 2rial Court of the 1ational Ca ital Judicial Region stationed in 7asig Cit% with serious $isconduct relative to Election 7rotest 1o. (GG, entitled ,Ricardo D. 7a a, Jr. vs. Isidro 0. Aarcia-. 2he resent controvers% ste$s fro$ an election rotest filed &% then $a%oral roclai$ed rotest, 7a a DATE:

candidate Ricardo D. 7a a, Jr. against Isidro 0. Aarcia, the candidate $a%or of 2aguig, 8etro 8anila in the 8a% ?, (!!* elections. In his

i$ ugned the results of all @() recincts in the $unici alit%. 2his was filed with the Regional 2rial Court of 7asig and eventuall% raffled to the sala of res ondent wherein it was doc9eted as Election 7rotest 1o. (GG. 0oth arties offered their res ective e#hi&its, which were all ad$itted &% res ondent "udge. =n 'e&ruar% ((, (!!@, res ondent issued an order directing the 1ational 0ureau of Investigation <10I> to e#a$ine the contested &allots in the re resentative of &oth arties. 2he ertinent ortion of the order resence of a rovided that so

as to ena&le the court to get a co$ lete overview of the $atter, it was &etter to have a handwriting e# ert e#a$ine the :uestioned &allots to settle once and for all the :uestions and o&"ections relative to the &allots. =n Jul% DD, (!!@, Aarcia filed a 8anifestation and 'or$al 8otion with 'or$al Huer%, ra%ing that an order &e issued to the 0ranch Cler9 of Court to &e furnished a co % of the 10I Re orts and;or allow hi$ to co % or review or at least to read said re orts. Res ondent "udge denied the $otion on the sa$e da%, roclai$ing that the e#a$ination of contested &allots &% the 10I was ordered, u on the instance of the court, and not &% the arties, hence, onl% the court was given co ies of the 10I Re orts. =n the sa$e da% that Aarcias $otion was denied, res ondent also set the date of ro$ulgation of "udg$ent for Jul% )(, (!!@. 7ro$ulgation of Judg$ent2his ro$ ted Aarcia to file a ,8anifestation and 8ost Frgent 8otion to Defer and;or Cancel Scheduled re$ised on res ondents refusal to furnish hi$ a co % h%sical i$ ossi&ilit% of e#a$ining the contested ara hernalia had &een transferred to the sala Res ondent "udge denied Aarcias arties at this stage to secure ro$ulgating the of the 10I Re orts, and Aarcias

&allots &ecause <a> the re ort was su&$itted on June DB, (!!@, and <&> the contested &allots and other election of Judge Vivencio 0aclig in R2C, 0ranch (*@.

$otion on Jul% D?, (!!@, e# laining thatE 2o allow

co ies of the 10I re ort and to co$$ent on the sa$e &efore decision would &e o ening the floodgates for undue dela%. Aarcia filed a etition for certiorari,

rohi&ition, and mandamus, with a

ra%er for

restraining order and

reli$inar% in"unction with the C=8E3EC on Jul% D!, (!!@. roceeding with the

2he ver% ne#t da% or on Jul% )+, (!!@, the C=8E3EC issued a 2e$ orar% Restraining =rder <2R=> en"oining res ondent "udge fro$ scheduled ro$ulgation of "udg$ent set on Jul% )(, (!!@. 2he "udg$ent was ro$ulgated, dis osing that the Court resolves to sustain the

7rotest lodged &% Ricardo D. 7a a, Jr., and accordingl% renders "udg$ent DEC3ARI1A the aforena$ed 7rotestant the dul% elected $a%or of the 8unici alit% of 2aguig, 8etro 8anila. 2he Counter47rotest filed &% rotestee Isidro 0. Aarcia was ro$ulgation of dis$issed. Co$ lainants further clai$ that it was onl% after the "udg$ent that Aarcia was a&le to secure co ies of the 10I Re orts. In his Co$$ent dated Dece$&er (+, (!!@, res ondent vehe$entl% denied the allegations in the co$ laint &% addressing co$ lainants two $ain issuesE whether it was <(> ro er for res ondent to have designated the 10I to conduct the

necessar% handwriting e#a$ination and to su&$it re orts on the results thereof to the court and not to the arties considering that said re orts were the sole &asis of the decision rendered &% the court, and <D> whether it was ro er for res ondent to have granted the ,8otion for E#ecution 7ending A eal- filed &% the declared winner Ricardo D. 7a a, Jr., allowing hi$ to ta9e his oath notwithstanding the

endenc% of an a

eal filed with the Co$$ission on Elections concerning the

decision rendered &% res ondent. I**+,: .hether or not the res ondent violated Section )<e> of Re u&lic Act )+(! or the Anti4Araft and Corru t 7ractices Act/

T-, C.+/)!* R+0123: 2he res ondent violated S,()1.2 34,5 .6 R,7+801( A() 3&19 ./ )-, A2)1-G/'6) '29 C.//+7) P/'()1(,* A() ,Sec' (' )n addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penali*ed by existin# law, the followin# shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officers and are hereby declared to be unlawful+ ,e- Causin# undue in&ury to any party, includin# the #overnment, or #ivin# any private party any unwarranted benefits, advanta#e or preference in the dischar#e of his official administrative or &udicial functions throu#h manifest partiality, evident bad faith or #ross inexcusable ne#li#ence'He was found guilt% of serious $isconduct, artialit%, and ine#cusa&le negligence, art in the future will &e

and is ordered to a% a fine in the a$ount of 2went% 2housand 7esos <7D+,+++.++>, with the stern warning that an% si$ilar $isconduct on his dealt with $ore severel%. In the revious re ort and reco$$endation dated 'e&ruar% D!, D+++ su&$itted &% ertinentl% o&served that

Court Ad$inistrator Alfredo 3. 0eni a%o, it was

res ondent gravel% a&used his discretion in deciding the case and in issuing the :uestioned order since grave a&use of discretion a$ounting to lac9 of "urisdiction occurs when a &oard, tri&unal or officer e#ercising "udicial functions e#ercises its "udg$ent in a ca ricious, whi$sical, ar&itrar% or des otic $anner, or fails to consider the evidence adduced &% the arties. 2he =ffice of the Court Ad$inistrator echoed the C=8E3ECs finding that res ondents action showed utter disregard of the a ro riate rocedure re:uired of hi$, resulting in the disenfranchise$ent of thousands of voters. 1o less than the Code of Judicial Conduct $andates that a "udge should &e the e$&odi$ent of co$ etence, integrit%, and inde endence <Rule (.+(, Canon (>. Indeed, in ever% case, a "udge shall endeavor diligentl% to ascertain the facts and a lica&le laws unswa%ed &% artisan interests, u&lic o inion, or fear of criticis$ 2hus, this Court has continuall% ro$ tl% <Rule ).+D, Canon ), Code of Judicial Conduct>.

re$inded $e$&ers of the &ench that ,2he Judge should alwa%s &e i$&ued with a high sense of dut% and res onsi&ilit% in the discharge of his o&ligation to and ro erl% ad$inister "ustice. He $ust view hi$self as a riest for the

ad$inistration of "ustice is a9in to a religious crusade.

2hus, e#erting the sa$e u&lic

devotion as a riest ,in the erfor$ance of the $ost sacred cere$onies of religious liturg%-, the "udge $ust render service with i$ artialit% co$$ensurate with trust and confidence re osed in hi$-. <Di$atulac vs. Villon, D!@ SCRA B@! I(!!?J> In the recent case of Evel%n Ag alasin vs. Judge Ernesto 8. Agcaoili <A.8. 1o. R2J4 !*4()+?, A ril (D, D+++>, a "udge should, in ending or ros ective litigation &efore hi$, &e scru ulousl% careful to avoid such action as $a% reasona&l% tend to wa9en the sus icion that his social or &usiness relations or friendshi s constitute an ele$ent in deter$ining his "udicial course. He $ust not onl% render a "ust, correct and i$ artial decision &ut should do so in such a $anner as to &e free fro$ an% sus icion as to his fairness, i$ artialit% and integrit%. A decision which correctl% a lies the law and "uris rudence will nevertheless &e su&"ect to :uestions of i$ ro riet% when rendered &% a $agistrate or tri&unal &elieved to &e less than i$ artial and honest. 2o conduct this 9ind of e#a$ination, involving enor$ous nu$&er of &allots, is al$ost i$ ossi&le to acco$ lish. fro$ @() =ne would have to s read the (G,BBG &allots ic9 at rando$ recincts &eside each other, in a floor or ta&le s ace &igger than the si5e

of a &as9et&all court, and &% going over those thousands of &allots,

grou s of &allots K si# grou s in all K and, &% e#a$ining the$, reach a conclusion that the &allots in each of these grou s were written &% one erson. Co$$on sense dictates that this is si$ l% an i$ ossi&le rocedure. And we are not convinced that through this $ethod, the 10I could correctl% and with scientific (D,@DG &allots of the rotestee. Indu&ita&l%, the foregoing have raised the sus icion of res ondent. Veril%, a "udge $ust i$ artialit% of the "udiciar%. ro$ote artialit% on the art of recision invalidate

u&lic confidence in the integrit% and

2hese stringent standards are intended to assure

arties of "ust and e:uita&le decisions and of a "udiciar% that is ca a&le of dis ensing i$ artial "ustice in ever% issue in ever% trial <A&undo vs. 8anio, Jr., )(D SCRA ( I(!!!J>

TITLE: SANTIAGO VS. BAUTISTA CITATION: 3" SCRA 1## DATE: MARCH 3&, 19%&

ACTS: 2eodoro Santiago, Jr. was a graduating student at Sero Ele$entar% School in Cota&ato Cit%. 7rior to the end of the school %ear, the said school constituted a Co$$ittee on the Rating of Students for Honor co$ osed of teachers of the said school for the ur ose of selecting the honor students of its graduating class. 2he lace &eing o&tained &% his two other class$ates, a&ove4na$ed co$$ittee deli&erated and ad"udged 2eodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and second third Socoro 8edina and 7atricia 3iLgat. 2hree da%s &efore the date of graduation, the lace 2eodoro Santiago, Jr., re resented &% his $other and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the ran9ing of honor students &% instituting an action for certiorari, in"unction and da$ages in the Court of 'irst Instance of Cota&ato against the a&ove4na$ed co$$ittee $e$&ers along with the District Su ervisor and the Acade$ic Su ervisor of the lace. 2he co$ laint alleges grave a&use of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor students in the said school such as the followingE <a>the 3iLgat in the second lacing of 7atricia lace instead of hi$ when in fact he had &een a consistent

honor student and the for$er had never &een his close rival &efore e#ce t in Arade V wherein she ran9ed third6 <&>the tutorial given &% their teacher in English to the first honor during su$$er vacation6 <c>the illegal constitution of the said co$$ittee as the sa$e was co$ osed of all the Arade VI teachers onl%, in violation of the Service 8anual for 2eachers of the 0ureau of 7u&lic Schools which rovides that the co$$ittee to select the honor students should &e co$ osed of all teachers in Arades V and VI6 <d>the changing of the final ratings on their grading sheets6 <e> that etitioner ersonall% a ealed the $atter to the School 7rinci al, to the District assed the &uc9 to eal to higher authorities will &e too Su ervisor, and to the Acade$ic Su ervisor, &ut said officials each other to dela% his grievances, and as to a

late, there is no other s eed% and ade:uate re$ed% under the circu$stances. Res ondents $oved for the dis$issal of the case on the grounds <(> that the action for certiorari was i$ ro er, and <D> that even assu$ing the ro riet% of the action, the :uestion &rought &efore the court had alread% &eco$e acade$ic. 2he $otion to dis$iss was granted.

ISSUE: .hether or not declarator% relief is a ro er re$ed% to have a "udicial declaration of citi5enshi /

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he Su re$e Court ruled against Santiago. Although a$ended, the initiated and originall% a 'ili ino. Fnder our laws, there can &e no action or declaration of the citi5enshi settle$ent of "ustifia&le controversies, which i$ l% roceeding

ra%ed for is a declarator% relief to have hi$ &e declared as roceeding for the "udicial a given right, legall% of an individual. Courts of "ustice e#ist for the

de$anda&le and enforcea&le, an act or o$ission violative of said right, and a re$ed%, granted or sanctioned &% law, for said &reach of right. As an accident onl% of the ad"udication of the rights of the arties to a controvers%, the court $a% ass u on, and $a9e a ronounce$ent relative to, their status. =therwise, such a ronounce$ent is &e%ond "udicial ower. 2hus, for instance, no

action or roceeding $a% &e instituted for a declaration to the effect that laintiff or etitioner is $arried, or single, or a legiti$ate child, although a finding thereon $a% &e $ade as a necessar% re$ise to "ustif% a given relief availa&le onl% to one er$its the ac:uisition of a given status, roceeding to declare that a given erson is en"o%ing said status. At ti$es, the law authori5ing the institution of a "udicial art of our citi5enr%.

such as naturali5ation, &% "udicial decree. 0ut, there is no si$ilar legislation

TITLE: DAZA VS. SINGSON CITATION: 1#& SCRA $96 DATE: DECEMBER "1, 19#9 ACTS: =n Se te$&er (B, (!??, the 3a&an ng De$o9rati9ong 7ili ino was reorgani5ed, resulting in a olitical realign$ent in the House of Re resentatives. 2went% four art% and "oined the 3D7, $e$&ers of the 3i&eral 7art% for$all% resigned fro$ that to onl% (@ $e$&ers. =n Dece$&er *, (!??, the cha$&er elected a new set of re resentatives consisting of the original $e$&ers e#ce t the etitioner and including therein res ondent 3uis C. Singson as the additional $e$&er fro$ the 3D7. 2he etitioner ca$e to this Court on Januar% (), (!?!, to challenge his re$oval oint$ents and the assu$ tion of his seat &% the etitioner is that he cannot &e oint$ents &ecause his election thereto

there&% swelling its nu$&er to (*! and corres ondingl% reducing their for$er art%

fro$ the Co$$ission on A

res ondent. 0riefl% stated, the contention of the re$oved fro$ the Co$$ission on A

is er$anent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. 2an. 'or his art, the res ondent argues that the :uestion raised &% the etitioner is

olitical in nature and so &e%ond the "urisdiction of this Court. He also $aintains that he has &een i$ ro erl% i$ leaded, the real A oint$ents and re$oved the art% res ondent &eing the House of Re resentatives which changed its re resentation in the Co$$ission on etitioner. 'inall%, he stresses that nowhere in the olitical art% &e registered to &e entitled to oint$ents. Constitution is it re:uired that the

ro ortional re resentation in the Co$$ission on A

ISSUE: .hether or not etitioners re$oval is unconstitutional/ .hether or not the election of Sen. Cuenco and Delgado to the Electoral 2ri&unal is unconstitutional/

THE COURT!S RULING:

.HERE'=RE, the

etition is DIS8ISSED. 2he te$ orar% restraining order dated oint$ents and is entitled to assu$e

Januar% (), (!?!, is 3I'2ED. 2he Court holds that the res ondent has &een validl% elected as a $e$&er of the Co$$ission on A his seat in that &od% ronounce$ent as to costs. ursuant to Article VI, Section (?, of the Constitution. 1o

If &% reason of successful election e# ulsion fro$ the with another olitical olitical

rotests against $e$&ers of a House, or of their olitical arties in

art% to which the% &elonged and;or of their affiliation

art%, the ratio in the re resentation of the

the House is $ateriall% changed, the House is clothed with authorit% to declare vacant the necessar% nu$&er of seats in the Co$$ission on A $e$&ers of said House &elonging to the olitical oint$ents held &% art% adversel% affected &% the

change and then fill said vacancies in confor$it% with the Constitution. In the election for the House of Re resentatives held in (!B(, @D seats were won &% the 1acionalista 7art%, D! &% the 3i&eral 7art% and ( &% an inde endent. Accordingl%, the re resentation of the cha$&er in the Co$$ission on A was a 7art%. Su&se:uentl%, D* $e$&ers of the 1acionalista 7art%, oint$ents ortioned to ? $e$&ers fro$ the 1acionalista 7art% and G fro$ the 3i&eral rofessing discontent

over the House leadershi , $ade co$$on cause with the 3i&eral 7art% and for$ed what was called the Allied 8a"orit% to install a new S ea9er and reorgani5e the cha$&er. It noted that the Allied 8a"orit% was a $erel% te$ orar% co$&ination as the 1acionalista defectors had not disaffiliated fro$ their art% and er$anentl% "oined the new olitical grou . =fficiall%, the% were still $e$&ers of the 1acionalista 7art%. 2he reorgani5ation of the Co$$ission on A not &ased on the oint$ents was invalid &ecause it was olitical arties in the House of ro ortional re resentation of the

Re resentatives as re:uired &% the Constitution. 2he Court heldE 2he constitutional Co$$ission on A the &asis of rovision to the effect that Mthere shall &e a

oint$ents consisting of twelve <(D> Senators and twelve <(D>

$e$&ers of the House of Re resentatives elected &% each House, res ectivel%, on ro ortional RE7RESE12A2I=1 =' 2HE 7=3I2ICA3 7AR2IES 2HEREI1,M ro riate &ut thereto. necessaril% connotes the authorit% of each House of Congress to see to it that this re:uire$ent is dul% co$ lied with. As a conse:uence, it $a% ta9e a $easures, not onl% u on the initial organi5ation of the also, su&se:uentl% Co$$ission,

3astl%, we resolve that issue in favor of the authorit% of the House of Re resentatives to change its re resentation in the Co$$ission on A reflect at an% ti$e the changes that $a% trans ire in the $e$&ershi . It is understood that such changes $ust &e oint$ents to olitical align$ents of its er$anent and do not

include the te$ orar% alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of olitical lo%alties or for$al disaffiliation and er$anent shifts of allegiance fro$ one olitical on A art% to another. 2he Court would have referred not to intervene in this $atter, leaving it to &e settled &% the House of Re resentatives or the Co$$ission oint$ents as the &odies directl% involved. 0ut as our "urisdiction has &een invo9ed and, $ore i$ ortantl%, &ecause a constitutional stale$ate had to &e resolved, there was no alternative for us e#ce t to act, and to act decisivel%. In doing so, of course, we are not i$ osing our will u on the said agencies, or su&stituting our discretion for theirs, &ut $erel% discharging our sworn res onsi&ilit% to inter ret and a l% the Constitution. 2hat is a dut% we do not

evade, lest we ourselves &etra% our oath.

TITLE: GARCIA VS. BOARD O CITATION: 191 SCRA "## DATE: NO:EMBER 199&

IN:ESTMENTS

ACTS: 'or$er have its 0ataan 7etroche$ical Cor oration <07C>, now 3u5on 7etroche$ical

Cor oration, for$ed &% a grou lant site for the

of 2aiwanese investors, was granted &% the 0=I its roduction in 0ataan,

roducts ,na hta crac9er- and ,na hta- to &ased in lant site transferred fro$ 0ataan to

0ataan. In 'e&ruar% (!?!, one %ear after the 07C &egan its the cor oration a 0atangas. Des ite vigorous o 0=I granted osition fro$ lied to the 0=I to have its

etitioner Cong. Enri:ue Aarcia and others, the lication, stating that the investors have lant site &ecause the% are the ones who

rivate res ondent 07Cs a

the final choice as to where to have their ris9 ca ital for the ro"ect.

ISSUE:

.hether or not the 0=I co$$itted a grave a&use of discretion in %ielding to the a lication of the investors without considering the national interest/

THE COURT!S RULING:

2he Su re$e Court found the 0=I to have co$$itted grave a&use of discretion in this case, and ordered the original a 0ataan and the lication of the 07C to have its lant site in roduct na hta as feedstoc9 $aintained. 2he onente, Justice

Autierre5, Jr., first stated the Courts "udicial

ower to settle actual controversies as

rovided for &% Section ( of Article VIII in our (!?@ Constitution &efore he wrote the reasons as to how the Court arrived to its conclusion. He $entioned that nothing is shown to "ustif% the 0=Is action in letting the investors decide on an issue which, if handled &% our own govern$ent, could have &een ver% &eneficial to the State, as he re$e$&ered the word of a great 'ili ino leader, to witE ,.. he would not $ind having a govern$ent run li9e hell &% 'ili inos than one su&servient to foreign dictation-.

Justice AriLo A:uino, in her dissenting o inion, argued that the certain a

etition was not

well4ta9en &ecause the (!?@ Invest$ent Code does not rohi&it the registration of a ro"ect, as well as an% decision of the 0=I regarding the a$ended etitioner disagrees with 0=I does not ealed to the Code. rovided for &% Section )B of the lication. She stated that the fact that

$a9e the 0=I wrong in its decision, and that etitioner should have a 7resident of the countr% and not to the Court, as (!?@ Invest$ent

Justice 8elencio4Herrera, in another dissenting o inion, stated that the Constitution does not vest in the Court the such as in this case. ower to enter the real$ of olic% considerations,

TITLE: PACU VS. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION CITATION: 9% PHIL. #&6 DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1955 ACTS: 2he 7hili ine Association of Colleges and Fniversities $ade a etition that Acts 1o. the Secretar% of 7u&lic Instruction- and was

D@+B otherwise 9nown as the ,Act $a9ing the Ins ection and Recognition of rivate schools and colleges o&ligator% for a$ended &% Act 1o. )+@* and Co$$onwealth Act 1o. (?+ &e declared unconstitutional on the grounds that (> the act de rives the owner of the school and colleges as well as teachers and arents of li&ert% and ro ert% without due rocess of 3aw6 D> it will also de rive the Secretar% of Education unli$ited arents of their 1atural Rights and dut% to rovisions conferred on the rescri&e rules and owers and discretion to rear their children for civic efficienc% and )> its

standards constitute towards unlawful delegation of 3egislative owers. Section ( of Act 1o. D@+B,It shall &e the dut% of the Secretar% of 7u&lic Instruction to $aintain a general standard of efficienc% in all rivate schools and colleges of the 7hili ines so that the sa$e shall furnish ade:uate instruction to the u&lic, in accordance with the class and grade of instruction given in the$, and for this

ur ose said Secretar% or his dul% authori5ed re resentative shall have authorit% to advise, ins ect, and regulate said schools and colleges in order to deter$ine the efficienc% of instruction given in the sa$e,2he su etitioner also co$ lain that securing a ort to the first ro osition of the er$it to the Secretar% of Education etitioners the% contended that the er$it &efore such erson could

&efore o ening a school is not originall% included in the original Act D@+B. And in Constitution guaranteed the right of a citi5en to own and o erate a school and an% law re:uiring su&$itted revious govern$ental a roval or e#ercise the said right =n the other hand, the defendant 3egal Re resentative a $e$orandu$ contending that (> the $atters resented no "usticia&le controvers% e#hi&iting unavoida&le necessit% of deciding the constitutional :uestion6 D> 7etitioners are in esto els to challenge the validit% of the said act and )> the Act is constitutionall% valid. 2hus, the etition for rohi&ition was dis$issed &% the court. ISSUE: .hether or not Act 1o. D@+B as a$ended &% Act no. )+@* and Co$$onwealth Act no.(?+ $a% &e declared void and unconstitutional/ THE COURT!S RULING: 2he 7etitioner suffered no wrong under the ter$s of law and needs no relief in the for$ the% see9 to o&tain. 8oreover, there is no "usticia&le controvers% &efore the court. It is an esta&lished rinci le that to entitle a the "udicial rivate individual i$$ediatel% in resented

danger of sustaining a direct in"ur% and it is not sufficient that he has $erel% invo9e ower to deter$ined the validit% of e#ecutive and legislative action he u&lic. ower of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises onl% rotection $ust show that he has sustained co$$on interest to all $e$&ers of the 'urther$ore, the when the interest of litigant re:uire the use of "udicial authorit% for their actual cases and controversies and the authorit% to

against actual interference. As such, Judicial 7ower is li$ited to the decision of ass on the validit% of statutes is incident alto the decisions of such cases where conflicting clai$s under the constitution and under the legislative act assailed as contrar% to the constitution &ut it is legiti$ate onl% in the last resort and it $ust &e necessar% to deter$ined a real and vital controvers% &etween litigants. 2hus, actions li9e this are &rought for a ositive ur ose to o&tain actual ositive relief and the court does not sit to ad"udicate a $ere acade$ic :uestion to satisf% scholarl% interest therein. 2he court however, finds the defendant osition to &e sufficientl% sustained and state that the etitioner re$ed% is to challenge the regulation not to invalidate the law &ecause it

needs no argu$ent to show that a&use &% officials entrusted with the e#ecution of the statute does not =n this hase er se de$onstrate the unconstitutionalit% of such statute. of the litigation the court conclude that there ended

has &een no undue delegation of legislative ower even if the etitioners a

a list of circulars and $e$oranda issued &% the De art$ent of Education the% fail to indicate which of such official docu$ents was constitutionall% o&"ectiona&le for &eing ca ricious for rohi&ition. or ain nuisance. 2herefore, the court denied the etition

TITLE: TAN VS. MACAPAGAL CITATION: $3 SCRA 6%# DATE: ACTS: A five4 age etition filed on =cto&er B, (!@( &% Eugene A. 2an, Silvestre J. Ace"as ur ortedl% suing on &ehalf of the$selves and EBRUARY "9, 19%"

and Rogelio V. 'ernande5, res ectivel%, of Ro#as Cit%, Ro$&lon and Davao Cit%, for declarator% relief as ta# a%ers, &ut the 'ili ino eo le, in assailing the validit% of the 3aurel43eido Resolution, ( dealing with the range of the authorit% of the (!@( Constitutional Convention, would have this Court declare that it is Mwithout ower, under Section (, Article CV of the

Constitution and Re u&lic Act B()D, to consider, discuss and ado t ro osals which see9 to revise the resent Constitution through the ado tion of a for$ of resent Constitution Ithe resent lea of ro ose i$ rove$ents to the lan laid down therein.M D Such a govern$ent other than the for$ now outlined in the Convention &eingJ $erel% e$ owered to Constitution without altering the general understanda&le, therefore, wh% the ossessed of $erit. Accordingl%, on =cto&er ?, (!@(, this Court issued a resolution dis$issing it. 2hen ca$e on the last da% of that $onth a reconsideration. It is evident that rinted thirt%4two age $otion for etitioners too9 so$e ains this ti$e, although

the ut$ost seriousness was sought to &e co$ ressed in a five4 age

leading. It is

etition could hardl% &e characteri5ed as

the $ain reliance see$s to &e on a secondar% authorit%, A$erican Juris rudence. ) 2he show of diligence is i$ ressive &ut the ersuasive :ualit% is so$ething else. A etitioners are o&livious of the roach is not distinguished &% its erusal thereof %ields the conclusion that authoritative recedents in this "urisdiction. 2he a

confor$it% with the law as it stands. In this s here as elsewhere, new cults $a% &e eroding considering, however, the co$ ulsion of the ancient faiths.

ISSUES: .hether or not the etitioners has locus standi/ .hether or not the court has "urisdiction over the case/

THE COURT!S RULING: Justice 3aurelE M2he unchallenged rule is that the erson who i$ ugns the validit% of a statute $ust have a ersonal and su&stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct in"ur% as a result of its enforce$ent. M7ascual vs. 2he Secretar% of 7u&lic .or9sE validit% of a statute $a% &e contested onl% &% one who will sustain a direct in"ur%, in conse:uence of its enforce$ent. 2a# a%ers onl% have standing on laws roviding for the dis&urse$ent of u&lic funds, &% an officer of the State for the u&lic funds. E# enditure of ur ose of ad$inistering an

unconstitutional act constitutes a $isa en"oined at the re:uest of a

lication of such funds, which $a% &e

At the ti$e the case was filed the Con4Con has not %et finali5ed an% resolution that would radicall% alter the (!)*constitution therefore not %et ri e for "udicial review. 2he case &eco$es ri e when the Con4Con has actuall% does so$ething alread%. 2hen the court $a% actuall% in:uire into the "urisdiction of the &od%. Se aration of ower de art$ents should &e left alone to do duties as the% see fit. 2he E#ecutive and the 3egislature are not &ound to as9 for advice in carr%ing out their duties, "udiciar% $a% not interfere so that it $a% fulfill its duties well. 2he court $a% not interfere until the ro er ti$e co$es ri eness.

TITLE: DUMLAO VS. COMELEC CITATION: 95 SCRA 39" DATE: JANUARY "", 19#& ACTS: 7etitioner Du$lao :uestions the constitutionalit% of Sec. G of 0atas 7a$&ansa 0lg. *D as discri$inator% and contrar% to e:ual rotection and due rocess guarantees

of the Constitution. Sec. G official who has received

rovides that an% retired elective

rovincial or $unici al

a%$ents of retire$ent &enefits and shall have &een B*

%ears of age at the co$$ence$ent of the ter$ of office to which he see9s to &e elected, shall not &e :ualified to run for the sa$e elective local office fro$ which he has retired. According to Du$lao, the rovision a$ounts to class legislation. 7etitioners Igot and Sala antan Jr. also assail the validit% of Sec. G of 0atas 7a$&ansa 0lg. *D, which states that an% erson who has co$$itted an% act of dislo%alt% to the State, including those a$ounting to su&version, insurrection, re&ellion, or other si$ilar cri$es, shall not &e :ualified for an% of the offices covered &% the act, or to artici ate in an% artisan activit% thereinE rovided that a "udg$ent of conviction of those cri$es shall &e conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the co$$ission of such cri$es &efore a civil court or $ilitar% tri&unal after reli$inar% investigation shall &e ri$a facie evidence of such fact. ISSUE: .hether or not the afore$entioned statutor% rovisions violate the Constitution and thus and will &e declared null and void/ THE COURT!S RULING: In regards to the unconstitutionalit% of the rovisions, Sec. G of 07 0lg. *D re$ains

constitutional and valid. 2he constitutional guarantee of e:ual rotection of the laws is su&"ect to rational classification. =ne class can &e treated differentl% fro$ another class. In this case, e$ lo%ees B* %ears of age are classified differentl% fro$ %ounger e$ lo%ees. 2he ur ose of the rovision is to satisf% the ,need for new &lood- in aragra h of Sec. G, it should &e declared resu$ tion of innocence rovision that, in all the wor9 lace. In regards to the second

null and void for &eing violative of the constitutional cri$inal rosecutions, the accused shall &e

guaranteed to an accused. ,E# licit is the constitutional

resu$ed innocent until the contrar% is

roved, and shall en"o% the right to &e heard &% hi$self and counsel <Article IV, section (!, (!@) Constitution>. An accusation, according to the funda$ental law, is not s%non%$ous with guilt. 2he challenged roviso contravenes the constitutional u&lic resu$ tion of innocence, as a candidate is dis:ualified fro$ running for

office on the ground alone that charges have &een filed against hi$ &efore a civil or $ilitar% tri&unal. It conde$ns &efore one is full% heard. In ulti$ate effect, e#ce t as to the degree of roof, no distinction is $ade &etween a erson convicted of acts of dislo%alt% and one against who$ charges have &een filed for such acts, as &oth of the$ would &e ineligi&le to run for u&lic office. A erson dis:ualified to run for u&lic office on the ground that charges have &een filed against hi$ is virtuall%

laced in the sa$e categor% as a

erson alread% convicted of a cri$e with the enalt% of sus ension of the

enalt% of arresto, which carries with it the accessor%

right to hold office during the ter$ of the sentence <Art. GG, Revised 7enal Code>.And although the filing of charges is considered as &ut ri$a facie evidence, and therefore, $a% &e re&utted, %et there is Mclear and resent dangerM that &ecause of the ro#i$it% of the elections, ti$e constraints will revent one charged with acts of dislo%alt% fro$ offering contrar% roof to overco$e the ri$a facie evidence against hi$. Additionall%, it is &est that evidence ro and con of acts of dislo%alt% &e aired &efore the Courts rather than &efore an ad$inistrative &od% such as the C=8E3EC. A highl% ossi&le conflict of findings &etween two govern$ent &odies, to the e#tre$e detri$ent of a erson charged, will there&% &e avoided. 'urther$ore, a legislative;ad$inistrative deter$ination of guilt should not &e allowed to &e su&stituted for a "udicial deter$ination. 0eing infected with constitutional infir$it%, a that o&"ectiona&le artial declaration of nullit% of onl% ortion of the ortion is $andated. It is se ara&le fro$ the first

second aragra h of section G of 07 0lg. *D which can stand &% itself. .herefore, the first and that aragra h of section G of 07 0lg. *D is here&% declared valid aragra h of section G of 07 0lg. *D is here&% resu$ tion of

ortion of the second

declared null and void, for &eing violative of the constitutional innocence guaranteed to an accused.

TITLE: OPLE VS. TORRES CITATION: "93 SCRA 1$1 DATE: JULY "3, 199#

ACTS: 2he etition at &ar is a co$$enda&le effort on the art of Senator 0las '. = le to revent the shrin9ing of the right to rivac%, which the revered 8r. Justice 0randeis considered as Mthe $ost co$ rehensive of rights and the right$ost valued &% civili5ed $en.M 7etitioner = le ra%s that we invalidate Ad$inistrative =rder 1o. )+? entitled MAdo tion of a 1ational Co$ uteri5ed Identification Reference S%ste$M on two i$ ortant constitutional grounds, <(>it is a usur ation of the ower of Congress to legislate, and<D>it i$ er$issi&l% intrudes on our citi5enr%Ns rotected 5one of rivac%. .e grant the etition for the rights sought to &e vindicated &% the etitioner need stronger &arriers against further erosion. A.=. 1o. )+? was u&lished in four news a ers of general circulation on Januar% DD, (!!@ and Januar% D), (!!@. =n Januar% DG, (!!@, etitioner filed the instant etition against res ondents, then E#ecutive Secretar% Ru&en 2orres and the heads of the govern$ent agencies, who as $e$&ers of the Inter4Agenc% Coordinating Co$$ittee, are charged with the i$ le$entation of A.=. 1o. )+?. =n A ril ?, (!!@, we issued a te$ orar% restraining order en"oining its i$ le$entation.

ISSUE: .hether or not the etitioner has the stand to assail the validit% of A.=. 1o. )+?/

THE COURT!S RULING: As is usual in constitutional litigation, res ondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing to sue of the etitioner and the "usticia&ilit% of the case at &ar. 8ore s ecificall%, res ondents aver that etitioner has no legal interest to u hold and that the i$ le$enting rules of A.=. 1o. )+? have %et to &e ro$ulgated. 2hese su&$issions do not deserve our s%$ athetic ear. 7etitioner = le is a distinguished $e$&er of our Senate. As a Senator, )+? is a usur ation of legislative ower. As ta# a%er and $e$&er of the Aovern$ent Service Insurance S%ste$ <ASIS>, etitioner can also i$ ugn the legalit% of the $isalign$ent of u&lic funds and the $isuse of ASIS funds to i$ le$ent A.=. 1o. )+?. 2he ri eness for ad"udication of the 7etition at &ar is not affected &% the etitioner is ossessed of the re:uisite standing to &ring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.=. 1o.

fact that the i$ le$enting rules of A.=. 1o. )+? have %et to &e ro$ulgated. 7etitioner = le assails A.=. 1o. )+? as invalid er se and as infir$ed on its face.

His action is not re$ature for the rules %et to &e ro$ulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. 8oreover, the res ondents the$selves have started the i$ le$entation of A.=. 1o. )+? without waiting for the rules. As earl% as Januar% (!, (!!@, res ondent Social Securit% S%ste$ <SSS> caused the u&lication of a notice to &id for the $anufacture of the 1ational Identification <ID> card. Res ondent E#ecutive Secretar% 2orres has u&licl% announced that re resentatives fro$ the ASIS and the SSS have co$ leted the guidelines for the national identification s%ste$. All signals fro$ the res ondents show their unswerving will to i$ le$ent A.=. 1o. )+? and we need not wait for the for$alit% of the rules to ass "udg$ent on its constitutionalit%. In this light, the dissenters insisted that weights the rule on standing is not a co$$enda&le stance as its result would &e to throttle an i$ ortant constitutional rinci le and a funda$ental right.

TITLE: NORTH COTABATO VS. REPUBLIC CITATION: G.R. NO. 1#3591 DATE : OCTOBER 1$, "&&#

ACTS: 2he Aovern$ent and the 8I3' were scheduled to sign a 8e$orandu$ of Agree$ent on the Ancestral Do$ain <8=A4AD> as ect of the AR748I3' 2ri oli Agree$ent on 7eace of D++( in Ouala 3u$ ur, 8ala%sia. 2he AR748I3' agree$ent is the result of a for$al eace tal9s &etween the arties in 2ri oli, 3i&%a in D++(. 2he ertinent rovisions in the 8=A4AD relationshi Aovern$ent. It s ea9s of the relationshi &etween the 0JE and the 7hili ine govern$ent as rovides for the esta&lish$ent of an associative

&etween the 0angsa$oro Juridical Entit% <0JE> and the Central

,associative,- thus i$ l%ing an international relationshi

and therefore suggesting

an autono$ous state. 'urther$ore, under the 8=A4AD, the AR7 7eace 7anel guarantees that necessar% a$end$ents to the Constitution and the laws will eventuall% &e ut in lace.

ISSUE: .hether or not the said 8=A4AD constitutional/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he SC ruled that the 8=A4AD cannot &e reconciled with the and laws. 1ot onl% its s ecific unconstitutional, for the conce t resent Constitution

rovisions &ut the ver% conce t underl%ing the$, resu oses that the associated entit% is a state

na$el%, the associative relationshi envisioned &etween the AR7 and the 0JE, are and i$ lies that the sa$e is on its wa% to inde endence, it said. 8oreover, as the clause is worded, it virtuall% guarantees that the necessar% a$end$ents to the Constitution and the laws will eventuall% &e ut in lace. 1either the AR7 7eace

7anel nor the 7resident herself is authori5ed to $a9e such a guarantee. F holding such an act would a$ount to authori5ing a usur ation of the constituent owers vested onl% in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the ensure the outco$e of the a$end$ent interference with that eo le the$selves through the rocess of initiative, for the onl% wa% that the E#ecutive can rocess is through an undue influence or ines under rocess. .hile the 8=A4AD would not a$ount to an

international agree$ent or unilateral declaration &inding on the 7hili

international law, res ondents act of guaranteeing a$end$ents is, &% itself, alread% a constitutional violation that renders the 8=A4AD fatall% defective.

Justice Santiago said, a$ong others, that the 8=A4AD ,contains art of the 7hili

rovisions which

are re ugnant to the Constitution and which will result in the virtual surrender of ines territorial sovereignt%.- She further said that had the 8=A4 AD &een signed &% arties, ,would have &ound the govern$ent to the creation of a se arate 0angsa$oro state having its own territor%, govern$ent, civil institutions, and ar$ed forces. 2he sovereignt% and territorial integrit% of the 7hili have &een co$ ro$ised.In this case, 2he Court e# lained that the 7residential Adviser on the 7eace 7rocess co$$itted grave a&use of discretion when he failed to carr% out the consultation rocess, as $andated &% E= 1o. ), RA @(B+, and RA ?)@(. E= 1o. ) is re lete with $echanics for continuing consultations on &oth national and local levels and for a rinci al foru$ for consensus4&uilding. R.A. @(B+ <the 3ocal Aovern$ent Code of (!!(> re:uires all national offices to conduct consultations &efore an% ro"ect or rogra$ critical to the environ$ent and hu$an ecolog% including those that $a% call for the eviction of a articular grou of eo le residing in such localit%, is i$ le$ented therein. 2he 8=A4AD is one eculiar rogra$ that une:uivocall% and unilaterall% vests ownershi the 0angsa$oro environ$ent. R.A. ?)@( <the Indigenous 7eo les Rights Act of (!!@> rovides for clear4cut eo le, which could of a vast territor% to ervasivel% and drasticall% result to the ertinent ines would

dias ora or dis lace$ent of a great nu$&er of inha&itants fro$ their total

rocedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral do$ain, which entails, a$ong other things, the o&servance of the free and rior infor$ed consent <'7IC> of the Indigenous Cultural Co$$unities;Indigenous 7eo les.

TITLE: KILOSBAYAN VS. GUINGONA R. CITATION: "3" SCRA 11& ATE: MAY 5, 199$

ACTS: 7ursuant to Section ( of the charter of the 7CS= <R.A. 1o. ((B!, as a$ended &% 0.7. 0lg. GD> which grants it the authorit% to hold and conduct ,charit% swee sta9es races, lotteries and other si$ilar activities,- the 7CS= decided to esta&lish an on4 line lotter% s%ste$ for the ur ose of increasing its revenue &ase and diversif%ing 0erhad, ,a its sources of funds. So$eti$e &efore 8arch (!!), after learning that the 7CS= was interested in o erating an on4line lotter% s%ste$, the 0er"a%a Arou $ultinational co$ an% and one of the ten largest 0er"a%a Arou u&lic co$ anies in 8ala%sia,-

,&eca$e interested to offer its services and resources to 7CS=.- As an initial ste , 0erhad <through its individual no$inees> organi5ed with so$e ine cor oration 9nown as the 7hili ine 'ili ino investors in 8arch (!!) a 7hili

Aa$ing 8anage$ent Cor oration <7A8C>, which ,was intended to &e the $ediu$ through which the technical and $anage$ent services re:uired for the would &e offered and delivered to 7CS=.0efore August (!!), the 7CS= for$all% issued a Re:uest for 7ro osal <R'7> for the 3ease Contract of an on4line lotter% s%ste$ for the 7CS=. =n (* August (!!), 7A8C su&$itted its &id to the 7CS=. =n D( =cto&er (!!), the =ffice of the 7resident announced that it had given the res ondent 7A8C the go4signal to o erate the countr%s on4line lotter% s%ste$ and that the corres onding i$ le$enting contract would &e su&$itted not later than ? 1ove$&er (!!) ,for final clearance and a roval &% the Chief E#ecutive.ro"ect

=n G 1ove$&er (!!), OI3=S0APA1 sent an o en letter to 7resident 'idel V. Ra$os strongl% o osing the setting u of the on4line lotter% s%ste$ on the &asis of serious rotest and the state$ent of Assistant E#ecutive Secretar% Renato 8alacaLang,- and the i$$inent $oral and ethical considerations. Considering the denial &% the =ffice of the 7resident of its Corona that ,onl% a court in"unction can sto etitioners, filed on D? Januar% (!!G this etition. 7etitioner clai$s that it is a non4stoc9 do$estic cor oration co$ osed of civic4 s irited citi5ens, astors, riests, nuns, and la% leaders. 2he rest of the etitioners, e#ce t Senators 'reddie .e&& and .ig&erto 2aLada and Re resentative Jo9er 7. Arro%o, are suing in their ca acities as $e$&ers of the 0oard of 2rustees of OI3=S0APA1 and as ta# a%ers and concerned citi5ens. Senators .e&& and 2aLada and Re resentative Arro%o are suing in their ca acities as $e$&ers of Congress and as ta# a%ers and concerned citi5ens of the 7hili citing the Courts resolution in Val$onte vs. 7hili ines. 2he u&lic res ondents, $eanwhile allege that the etitioners have no standing to $aintain the instant suit, ine Charit% Swee sta9es =ffice.

i$ le$entation of the Contract of 3ease in 'e&ruar% (!!G, OI3=S0APA1, with its co4

ISSUES: .hether or not the etitioners have locus standi/ .hether or the Contract of 3ease in the light of Section ( of R.A. 1o. ((B!, as a$ended &% 0.7. 0lg. GD, which rohi&its the 7CS= fro$ holding and conducting lotteries ,in colla&oration, association or "oint venture with an% erson, association, co$ an% or entit%, whether do$estic or foreign.- is legal and valid/

THE COURT!S RULING:

.e find the instant well4&eing of the

etition to &e of transcendental i$ ortance to the

u&lic. 2he

ra$ifications of such issues i$$easura&l% affect the social, econo$ic, and $oral eo le even in the re$otest &aranga%s of the countr% and the esos it is e# ected to raise. 2he legal rocedural &arrier which the counter4 roductive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on4line lotter% s%ste$ are as staggering as the &illions in standing then of the etitioners deserves recognition and, in the e#ercise of its

sound discretion, this Court here&% &rushes aside the res ondents tried to ta9e advantage of.

2he language of Section ( of R.A. 1o. ((B! is indis uta&l% clear. 2he 7CS= cannot share its franchise with another &% wa% of colla&oration, association or "oint venture. 1either can it assign, transfer, or lease such franchise. .hether the

contract in :uestion is one of lease or whether the 7A8C is $erel% an inde endent contractor should not &e decided on the &asis of the title or designation of the contract &ut &% the intent of the arties, which $a% &e gathered fro$ the rovisions of the contract itself. Ani$us ho$inis est ani$a scri ti. 2he intention of the art% is the soul of the instru$ent. Fndou&tedl%, fro$ the ver% ince tion, the 7CS= and the 7A8C $utuall% understood that an% arrange$ent &etween the$ would necessaril% leave to the 7A8C the technical, o erations, and $anage$ent as ects of the on4line lotter% s%ste$ while the 7SC= would, ri$aril%, rovide the franchise. 2he so4called Contract of 3ease is arties to &e in or to have a "oint venture not, therefore, what it ur orts to &e. .oven therein are rovisions which negate its title and &etra% the true intention of the for a s%ste$. .e thus declare that the challenged Contract of 3ease violates the e#ce tion rovided for in aragra h 0, Section ( of R.A. 1o. ((B!, as a$ended &% 0.7. 0lg. GD, and is, therefore, invalid for &eing contrar% to law. 2his conclusion renders unnecessar% further discussion on the other issues raised &% the etitioners. eriod of eight %ears in the o eration and $aintenance of the on4line lotter%

TITLE: KILOSBAYAN VS. MORATO CITATION: G.R. NO. 11#91& DATE: NO:EMBER 16, 1995.

ACTS: In Jan. D*, (!!*, 7CS= and 7A8C signed an E:ui $ent 3ease Agree$ent <E3A> wherein 7A8C leased online lotter% e:ui $ent and accessories to 7CS=. <Rental of G.)Q of the gross a$ount of tic9et or at least 7)*,+++ e$ lo% its own lease, 7CS= $a% er ter$inal annuall%>. )+Q of the net recei ts is allotted to charit%. 2er$ of lease is for ? %ears. 7CS= is to ersonnel and res onsi&le for the facilities. F on the e# iration of urchase the e:ui $ent for 7D* $illion. 'e&. D(, (!!*. A etition

was filed to declare E3A invalid &ecause it is the sa$e as the Contract of 3ease 7etitionerNs ContentionE E3A was sa$e to the Contract of 3ease. It is still violative of 7CS=Ns charter. It is violative of the law regarding u&lic

&idding. It violates Sec. D<D> of Art. !4D of the (!?@ Constitution. Standing can no longer &e :uestioned &ecause it has &eco$e the law of the case Res ondentNs re l%E E3A is different fro$ the Contract of 3ease. 2here is no &idding re:uired. 2he

ower to deter$ine if E3A is advantageous is vested in the 0oard of Directors of 7CS=. 7CS= does not have funds. 7etitioners see9 to further their $oral crusade. 7etitioners do not have a legal standing &ecause the% were not contract ISSUES: .hether or not the etitioners have standing/ THE COURT!S RULING: S2ARE DECISIS cannot a l%. 2he revious ruling sustaining the standing of the arties in interest arties to the

etitioners is a de arture fro$ the settled rulings on real also a

&ecause no constitutional issues were actuall% involved. 3A. =' 2HE CASE cannot l%. Since the resent case is not the sa$e one litigated &% the arties &efore in Oilos&a%an vs. Auingona, Jr., the ruling cannot &e in an% sense &e regarded as the law of this case. 2he arties are the sa$e &ut the cases are not. RF3E =1 C=1C3FSIVE1ESS cannot still a l%. An issue actuall% and directl% assed

u on and deter$ine in a for$er suit cannot again &e drawn in :uestion in an% future action &etween the sa$e arties involving a different cause of action. 0ut the rule does not a involved. l% to issues of law at least when su&stantiall% unrelated clai$s are

.hen the second free in the second

roceeding involves an instru$ent or transaction identical with, roceeding, the Court is roceeding to $a9e an inde endent e#a$ination of the legal revious decision does not etitionerNs standing. S2A1DI1A is a conce t in

&ut in a for$ se ara&le fro$ the one dealt with in the first $atters at issue. Since E3A is a different contract, the reclude deter$ination of the a

constitutional law and here no constitutional :uestion is actuall% involved. 2he $ore ro riate issue is whether the etitioners are REA3 7AR2IES in I12ERES2.

TITLE: OYA VS. PCGG CITATION: G.R. NO. 965$1 DATE: AUGUST "$, 1993

ACTS:

2he

Re u&lic

of

the

7hili

ines

through

the

7CAA

entered

into

a Consign$ent Agree$ent with Christies of 1ew Por9, selling ?D =ld 8asters 7aintings and anti:ue silverware sei5ed fro$ 8alacanang and the 8etro olitan 8useu$ of 8anila alleged to &e art of the ill4gotten wealth of the late 7res. 8arcos, his relatives and cronies. 7rior to the auction sale, C=A :uestioned the Consign$ent Agree$ent, there was alread% o osition to the auction sale. 1evertheless, it roceeded as scheduled and the roceeds of R(),)+D,B+G.?B were turned over to the 0ureau of 2reasur%.

ISSUE: .hether or not 7CAA has "urisdiction and authorit% to enter into an agree$ent with Christies of 1ew Por9 for the sale of the artwor9s/

THE COURT!S RULING:

2he rule is settled that no :uestion involving the constitutionalit% or validit% of a law or govern$ental act $a% &e heard and decided &% the court unless there is co$ liance with the legal re:uisites for "udicial in:uir%, na$el%E that the :uestion $ust &e raised &% the ro er art%6 that there $ust &e an actual case or ossi&le o ortunit%6 controvers%6 that the :uestion $ust &e raised at the earliest

and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal :uestion $ust &e necessar% to the deter$ination of the case itself. 0ut the $ost i$ ortant are the first two <D> re:uisites. =n the first re:uisite, we have held that one having no right or interest to cannot invo9e the "urisdiction of the court as re$ised on Sec. D, Rule ), of the Rules of Court which all rotect

art%4 laintiff in an action. 2his is rovides that ever% action

$ust &e rosecuted and defended in the na$e of the real art%4in4interest, and that ersons having interest in the su&"ect of the action and in o&taining the relief laintiffs. 2he Court will e#ercise its ower of "udicial ersonal and de$anded shall &e "oined as

review onl% if the case is &rought &efore it &% a art% who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal :uestion. M3egal standingM $eans a su&stantial interest in the case such that the art% has sustained or will sustain

direct in"ur% as a result of the govern$ental act that is &eing challenged. 2he ter$ MinterestM is $aterial interest, an interest in issue and to &e affected &% the decree, as distinguished fro$ $ere interest in the :uestion involved, or a $ere incidental interest. 8oreover, the interest of the art%. 2here are certain instances however when this Court has allowed e#ce tions to the rule on legal standing, as when a citi5en &rings a case for $anda$us to rocure the enforce$ent of a u&lic dut% for the fulfill$ent of a u&lic right recogni5ed &% the Constitution, and when a ta# a%er :uestions the validit% of a govern$ental act authori5ing the dis&urse$ent of u&lic funds. art% laintiff $ust &e ersonal and not one &ased on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of so$e third and related

7etitioners clai$ that as 'ili ino citi5ens, ta# a%ers and artists dee l% concerned with the reservation and rotection of the countr%Ns artistic wealth, the% have the legal ersonalit% to restrain res ondents E#ecutive Secretar% and 7CAA fro$ acting contrar% to their u&lic dut% to conserve the artistic creations as $andated &% the (!?@ Constitution, articularl% Art. CIV, Secs. (G to (?, on Arts and Culture, and R.A. G?GB 9nown as M2he Cultural 7ro erties 7reservation and 7rotection Act,M governing the are reservation and dis osition of national and i$ ortant cultural re$ise that the u&lic ro erties collectivel% owned &% the$ and &% the ro erties. 7etitioners also anchor their case on the aintings and silverware eo le in general to u&lic

view and en"o% as great wor9s of art. 2he% allege that with the unauthori5ed act of 7CAA in selling the art ieces, etitioners have &een de rived of their right to ro ert% without due rocess of law in violation of the Constitution. 7etitionersN argu$ents are devoid of $erit. 2he% lac9 &asis in fact and in law. 2he% the$selves allege that the aintings were donated &% rivate ersons fro$ different arts of the world to the 8etro olitan 8useu$ of 8anila 'oundation, which is a non4 rofit and non4stoc9 cor orations esta&lished to ro$ote non47hili of these ine arts. 2he resident aintings legall% foundationNs chair$an was for$er 'irst 3ad% I$elda R. 8arcos, while its was 0ienvenido R. 2antoco. =n this &asis, the ownershi u&lic has &een given the o the% were Si$ilarl%, as alleged in the ortunit% to view and a laced etition, the

&elongs to the foundation or cor oration or the $e$&ers thereof, although the reciate these aintings when on e#hi&it.

ieces of anti:ue silverware were given to ersonal to the$. .hen the

the 8arcos cou le as gifts fro$ friends and dignitaries fro$ foreign countries on their silver wedding and anniversar%, an occasion 8arcos ad$inistration was to led &% the revolutionar% govern$ent, these

aintings and silverware were ta9en fro$ 8alacaLang and the 8etro olitan 8useu$ of 8anila and transferred to the Central 0an9 8useu$. 2he confiscation of these ro erties &% the A:uino ad$inistration however should not &e understood to $ean that the ownershi due of these aintings has auto$aticall% assed on the govern$ent without co$ l%ing with constitutional and statutor% re:uire$ents of rocess and "ust co$ ensation. If these ro erties were alread% ac:uired &% the govern$ent, an% constitutional or statutor% defect in their ac:uisition and their su&se:uent dis osition $ust &e raised onl% &% the ro er arties S the true owners thereof S whose authorit% to recover e$anates fro$ their are the legal owners of the artwor9s or that the valued alleged unauthori5ed dis osition. 'urther, although this action is also one of $anda$us filed &% concerned citi5ens, it does not fulfill the criteria for a $anda$us suit. In 3egas i v. Civil Service ro rietar% rights which u&licl% rotected &% statutes and the Constitution. Having failed to show that the% are ieces have &eco$e

owned, etitioners do not ossess an% clear legal right whatsoever to :uestion their

Co$$ission, this Court laid down the rule that a writ of $anda$us $a% &e issued to a citi5en onl% when the u&lic right to &e enforced and the conco$itant dut% of ositive dut% re:uired of res ondent etitionersN clai$ for the the state are une:uivoca&l% set forth in the Constitution. In the case at &ar, etitioners are not after the fulfill$ent of a officials under the (!?@ Constitution. .hat the% see9 is the en"oining of an official act &ecause it is constitutionall% infir$ed. 8oreover, continued en"o%$ent and a reciation &% the u&lic of the artwor9s is at $ost a

rivilege and is unenforcea&le as a constitutional right in this action for $anda$us. 1either can this etition &e allowed as a ta# a%erNs suit. 1ot ever% action filed &% a ta# a%er can :ualif% to challenge the legalit% of official acts done &% the govern$ent. A ta# a%erNs suit can e# enditure of ros er onl% if the govern$ental acts &eing u&lic funds u on the theor% that the ur ose of lication of such funds, etitioners are not :uestioned involve dis&urse$ent of

u&lic funds &% an officer of the state for the

ad$inistering an unconstitutional act constitutes a $isa challenging an% e# enditure involving allege to &e u&lic u&lic

which $a% &e en"oined at the re:uest of a ta# a%er. =&viousl%, ro erties. It is worth% to note that

u&lic funds &ut the dis osition of what the% etitioners ad$it that the $one%. rivate sources and not with

aintings and anti:ue silverware were ac:uired fro$

'or a court to e#ercise its

ower of ad"udication, there $ust &e an actual case of osite

controvers% S one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of o

legal clai$s susce ti&le of "udicial resolution6 the case $ust not &e $oot or acade$ic or &ased on e#tra4legal or other si$ilar considerations not cogni5a&le &% a court of "ustice. A case &eco$es $oot and acade$ic when its ur ose has &eco$e stale, such as the case &efore us. Since the ur ose of this etition for rohi&ition is to en"oin res ondent u&lic officials fro$ holding the auction sale of the artwor9s on a articular date S (( Januar% (!!( S which is long etition have &eco$e $oot and acade$ic. ast, the issues raised in the

At this

oint, however, we need to e$ hasi5e that this Court has the discretion to ara$ount u&lic interest is involved. .e find however that etition at &ar to warrant the rela#ation of the

ta9e cogni5ance of a suit which does not satisf% the re:uire$ents of an actual case or legal standing when rule. there is no such "ustification in the

TITLE: CHAVEZ VS. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY CITATION: G.R. NO. 133"5& DATE: JULY 9, "&&"

ACTS: 2he 7u&lic Estates Authorit% is the central i$ le$enting agenc% tas9ed to underta9e recla$ation are concerned. 7EA sought the transfer to A8ARI, a rivate cor oration, of the ownershi of @@.)G ro"ects nationwide. It too9 over the leasing and selling functions of the DE1R insofar as reclai$ed or a&out to &e reclai$ed foreshore lands

hectares of the 'reedo$ Islands. 7EA also sought to have D!+.(*B hectares of su&$erged areas of 8anila 0a% to A8ARI.

ISSUEE .hether or not the transfer is valid/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2o allow vast areas of reclai$ed lands of the u&lic do$ain to &e transferred to 7EA as rivate lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional &an on rivate cor orations fro$ ac:uiring an% 9ind of aliena&le land of the u&lic do$ain. 2he Su re$e Court affir$ed that the (*@.?G hectares of reclai$ed lands co$ rising the 'reedo$ Islands, now covered &% certificates of title in the na$e of 7EA, are aliena&le lands of the u&lic do$ain. 2he *!D.(* hectares of su&$erged areas of u&lic do$ain. Since the of @@.)G rivate cor oration, ownershi rohi&its 8anila 0a% re$ain inaliena&le natural resources of the A$ended JVA see9s to transfer to A8ARI, a

hectares of the 'reedo$ Islands, such transfer is void for &eing contrar% to Section ), Article CII of the (!?@ Constitution which ac:uiring an% 9ind of aliena&le land of the rivate cor orations fro$ of D!+.(*B hectares of still u&lic do$ain. 'urther$ore, since the

A$ended JVA also see9s to transfer to A8ARI ownershi D, Article CII of the (!?@ Constitution which

su&$erged areas of 8anila 0a%, such transfer is void for &eing contrar% to Section rohi&its the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the u&lic do$ain. Se!ti"# $. All lands of the u&lic do$ain, waters, $inerals, coal, etroleu$, and

other $ineral oils, all forces of otential energ%, fisheries, forests or ti$&er, wildlife,

flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned &% the State. .ith the e#ce tion of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not &e alienated. 2he e# loration, develo $ent, and utili5ation of natural resources shall &e under the full control and su ervision of the State. 2he State $a% directl% underta9e such activities, or it $a% enter into co4 roduction, "oint venture, or roduction4sharing agree$ents with 'ili ino citi5ens, or cor orations or associations at least si#t% per centum of whose ca ital is owned &% such citi5ens. Such agree$ents $a% &e for a eriod not e#ceeding twent%4five %ears, renewa&le for not $ore than twent%4five %ears, and under such ter$s and conditions as $a% &e rovided &% law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water su develo $ent of water grant. 2he State shall rotect the nations $arine wealth in its archi elagic waters, l% fisheries, or industrial uses other than the ower, &eneficial use $a% &e the $easure and li$it of the

territorial sea, and e#clusive econo$ic 5one, and reserve its use and en"o%$ent e#clusivel% to 'ili ino citi5ens. 2he Congress $a%, &% law, allow s$all4scale utili5ation of natural resources &% 'ili ino citi5ens, as well as coo erative fish far$ing, with fisher$en and fish wor9ers in rivers, la9es, &a%s, and lagoons. 2he 7resident $a% enter into agree$ents with foreign4owned cor orations involving either technical or financial assistance for large4scale e# loration, develo $ent, and utili5ation of $inerals, ter$s and conditions etroleu$, and other $ineral oils according to the general rovided &% law, &ased on real contri&utions to the econo$ic riorit% to su&sistence

growth and general welfare of the countr%. In such agree$ents, the State shall ro$ote the develo $ent and use of local scientific and technical resources. 2he 7resident shall notif% the Congress of ever% contract entered into in accordance with this rovision, within thirt% da%s fro$ its e#ecution.

TITLE: GON;ALES :S. NAR:ASA CITATION: G.R. NO. 1$&#35 DATE: AUGUST 1$, "&&&

ACTS: 7etitioner Ra$on Aon5ales, in his ca acit% as a citi5en and ta# a%er, assails the constitutionalit% of the creation of the 7re arator% Co$$ission on Constitutional Refor$ <7CCR> and of the assistants. ositions of residential consultants, advisers and

2he 7CCR was created &% 7res. Estrada &% virtue of E= G) in order to stud% and reco$$end $anner ISSUE: .hether or not the etitioner has legal standing to file the case/ THE COURT!S RULING: In assailing the constitutionalit% of E= G), etitioner asserts his interest as a citi5en and ta# a%er. A citi5en ac:uires standing onl% if he can esta&lish that he has suffered so$e actual or threatened in"ur% as a result of the allegedl% illegal conduct of the govern$ent6 the in"ur% is fairl% tracea&le to the challenged action6 and the in"ur% is li9el% to &e addressed &% a favora&le action. 7etitioner has not shown that he has sustained or in danger of sustaining an% ersonal in"ur% attri&uta&le to the creation of the 7CCR and of the residential consultants, advisers and assistants. ositions of ro osed a$end$ents and;or revisions to the Constitution, and the of i$ le$enting the$.

1either does he clai$ that his rights or

rivileges have &een or are in danger of

&eing violated, nor that he shall &e su&"ected to an% enalties or &urdens as a result of the issues raised. In his ca acit% as a ta# a%er, a ta# a%er is dee$ed to have the standing to raise a constitutional issue when it is esta&lished that u&lic funds have dis&ursed in alleged contravention of the law or the Constitution. 2hus, a%ers action is ro erl% &rought onl% when there is an e#ercise &% Congress of its ta#ing or s ending ower. In the creation of 7CCR, it is a arent that there is ro riations for the no e#ercise &% Congress of its ta#ing or s ending ower. 2he 7CCR was created &%

the 7resident &% virtue of E= G) as a$ended &% E= @+. 2he a 7CCR were authori5ed &% the 7resident, not &% Congress.

2he funds used for the 7CCR were ta9en fro$ funds intended for the =ffice of the 7resident, in the e#ercise of the Chief E#ecutives ower to transfer funds ursuant to Sec. D*<*> of Art. VI of the Constitution. As to the creation of the residential consultants, advisers and assistants, the interest in this articular issue. ositions of

etitioner has not alleged the

necessar% facts so as to ena&le the Court to deter$ine if he ossesses a ta# a%ers

TITLE: UMALI VS. GUINGONA CITATION: G.R. NO. 1311"$ DATE: MARCH "1, 1999

ACTS: =s$undo F$ali the etitioner was a ointed Regional Director of the 0ureau of

Internal Revenue &% 7res 'idel V. Ra$os. He assigned hi$ in 8anila, 1ove$&er D!, (!!) to 8arch (*, (!!G and 8a9ati, 8arch (B, (!!G to August G, (!!G. =n August (, (!!G, 7resident Ra$os received a confidential $e$orandu$ against the etitioner for alleged violations of internal revenue laws, rules and regulations during his incu$&enc% as Regional Director, $ore $alfeasance, $isfeasance and nonfeasance. F on recei t of the said confidential $e$orandu$, for$er 7resident authori5ed the issuance of an =rder for the i$$ediatel% referred the reventive sus ension of the the latter to the etitioner and 7residential Co$ laint against articularl% the following

Co$$ission on Anti4Araft and Corru tion <7CAAC>, for investigation. 7etitioner was dul% infor$ed of the charges against hi$. And was directed hi$ to send in his answer, co ies of his State$ent of Assets, and 3ia&ilities for the .$., at the 7CAAC =ffice. =n August D), the etitioner filed his re:uired answer. After evaluating the evidence on record, the 7CAAC issued its Resolution of Se te$&er D), (!!G, finding a ri$a facie evidence to su ort si# <B> of the twelve <(D> charges against etitioner. =n =cto&er B, (!!G, acting u on the reco$$endation of the 7CAAC, then 7resident ast three %ears <)>, and 7ersonal Data Sheet. Initial hearing was set on August D*, (!!G, at DE++

Ra$os issued Ad$inistrative =rder 1o. (*D dis$issing

etitioner fro$ the service,

with forfeiture of retire$ent and all &enefits under the law.

ISSUES: .hether or 1ot A= 1o. (*D violated etitionerNs Right to Securit% of 2enure/ .hether or 1ot 7etitioner was denied due rocess of law/ .hether or 1ot the 7CAAC is a validl% Constituted govern$ent agenc% and whether the etitioner can raise the issue of constitutionalit% &elatedl% in its $otion for reconsideration of the trial courts decision/ .hether or 1ot the o$&uds$anNs resolution dis$issing the charges against the etitioner is still &asis for the etitionerNs dis$issal with forfeiture of &enefits as ruled in A= 1o. (*D/

THE COURT!S RULING: 7etitioner $aintains that as a career e#ecutive service officer, he can onl% &e re$oved for cause and under the Ad$inistrative Code of (!?@, B loss of confidence is not one of the legal causes or grounds for re$oval. Conse:uentl%, his dis$issal fro$ office on the ground of loss confidence violated his right to securit% of tenure, issue. 2o &e sure, etitioner theori5ed. After a careful stud%, we are of the eals ruled correctl% on the first three rocess &efore the leadings with irresisti&le conclusion that the Court of A 7CAAC. Records show that the

etitioner was not denied the right to due

etitioner filed his answer and other

res ect to his alleged violation of internal revenue laws and regulations, and he attended the hearings &efore the investigator% &od%. It is thus decisivel% clear that his rotestation of non4o&servance of due rocess is devoid of an% factual or legal &asis. 1either can it &e said that there was a violation of what securit% of tenure. According to etitioner asserts as his

etitioner, as a Regional Director of 0ureau of ort. It was

Internal Revenue, he is CES= eligi&le entitled to securit% of tenure. However, etitionerNs clai$ of CES= eligi&ilit% is ane$ic of evidentiar% su incu$&ent u on hi$ to rove that he is a CES= eligi&le &ut unfortunatel%, he failed osed &% etitioner in his

to adduce sufficient evidence on the $atter. His failure to do so is fatal. As regards the issue of constitutionalit% of the 7CAAC, it was onl%

$otion for reconsideration &efore the Regional 2rial Court of 8a9ati. It was certainl% too late to raise for the first ti$e at such late stage of the action against the etitioner was ta9en roceedings. As to last issue, it is worth% to note that in the case under consideration, the ad$inistrative rior to the institution of the cri$inal case. 2he charges included in Ad$inistrative =rder 1o. (*D were &ased on the results of investigation conducted &% the 7CAAC and not on the cri$inal charges &efore the =$&uds$an. In su$, the etition is dis$iss on the ground that the issue osted &% the etitioner dont constitute a valid legal &asis for overturning the finding and conclusion arrived at &% the Court of A However, ta9ing eals. into account the antecedent facts and circu$stances

afore$entioned, the Court, in the e#ercise of its e:uit%

owers, has decided to

consider the dis$issal of the charges against etitioner &efore the =$&uds$an, the succinct and un$ista9a&le $anifestation &% the Co$$issioner of the 0ureau of Internal Revenue that his office is no longer interested in ursuing the case, and the osition ta9en &% the Solicitor Aeneral, that there is no $ore &asis for Ad$inistrative =rder 1o. (*D, as effective and su&stantive su ervening events that cannot &e overloo9ed.

TITLE: LAUREL VS. GARCIA CITATION: G.R. NO. 9"&13 DATE: JULY "5, 199&

ACTS: 7etitioners see9 to sto the 7hili ine Aovern$ent to sell the Ro ongi 7ro ert%,

which is located in Ja an. It is one of the ro erties given &% the Ja anese Aovern$ent as re arations for da$age done &% the latter to the for$er during the war. 7etitioner argues that under 7hili alienated. ine 3aw, the su&"ect ro ert% is ro ert% of

u&lic do$inion. As such, it is outside the co$$erce of $en. 2herefore, it cannot &e

Res ondents aver that Ja anese 3aw, and not 7hili a lies.

ine 3aw, shall a

l% to the case

&ecause the ro ert% is located in Ja an. 2he% osit that the rinci le of le# situs

ISSUES: .hether or not the su&"ect ro ert% cannot &e alienated/ .hether or not 7hili ine 3aw a lies to the case at &ar/

THE COURT!S RULING: Fnder 7hili convincingl% ine 3aw, there can &e no dou&t that it is of u&lic do$inion unless it is shown that the ro ert% has &eco$e atri$onial. 2his, the ro ert% of u&lic do$inion, the Ro ongi lot is

res ondents have failed to do. As

outside the co$$erce of $an. It cannot &e alienated. .e see no reason wh% a conflict of law rule should a over the title or ownershi l% when no conflict of law

situation e#ists. A conflict of law situation arises onl% whenE <(> 2here is a dis ute of an i$$ova&le, such that the ca acit% to ta9e and transfer i$$ova&les, the for$alities of conve%ance, the essential validit% and effect of the transfer, or the inter retation and effect of a conve%ance, are to &e deter$ined6 and <D> A foreign law on land ownershi and its conve%ance is asserted to conflict with a do$estic law on the sa$e $atters. Hence, the need to deter$ine which law should a l%.

In the instant case, none of the a&ove ele$ents e#ists. 2he issues are not concerned with validit% of ownershi or title. 2here is no :uestion that the ro ert% &elongs to the 7hili ines. 2he issue is the authorit% of the ro ert% &elonging to the State. And the ine res ondent officials to validl% dis ose of validit% of the 3aw. 2he rule of le# situs does not a l%.

rocedures ado ted to effect its sale. 2his is governed &% 7hili

2he assertion that the o inion of the Secretar% of Justice sheds light on the relevance of the le# situs rule is $is laced. 2he o inion does not tac9le the aliena&ilit% of the real ro erties rocured through re arations nor the e#istence in what &od% of the authorit% to sell the$. In discussing who are ca a&le of ac:uiring the lots, the Secretar% $erel% e# lains that it is the foreign law which should deter$ine who can ac:uire the ac:uisition of lands of the owned &% 'ili inos is ina lica&le. ro erties so that the constitutional li$itation on u&lic do$ain to 'ili ino citi5ens and entities wholl%

TITLE: HACIENDA LUISITA VS. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL CITATION: G.R. NO. 1%11&1 DATE: NO:EMBER "", "&11

ACTS:

=n Jul% *, D+((, the Su re$e Court en &anc voted unani$ousl% <((4+> to DIS8ISS;DE1P the etition filed &% H3I and A''IR8 with 8=DI'ICA2I=1S the resolutions of the 7ARC revo9ing H3Is Stoc9 Distri&ution 7lan <SD7> and lacing the su&"ect lands in Hacienda 3uisita under co$ ulsor% coverage of the Co$ rehensive Agrarian Refor$ 7rogra$ <CAR7> of the govern$ent. 2he Court however did not order outright land distri&ution. Voting B4*, the Court noted that there are o erative facts that occurred in the interi$ and which the Court cannot validl% ignore. 2hus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SD7 $ust, &% a lication of the o erative fact rinci le, give wa% to the right of the original B,D!B :ualified far$ wor9ers4&eneficiaries <'.0s> to choose whether the% want to re$ain as H3I stoc9holders or Ichoose actual land distri&utionJ. It thus ordered the De art$ent of Agrarian Refor$ <DAR> to ,i$$ediatel% schedule $eetings with the said B,D!B '.0s and e# lain to the$ the effects, conse:uences and legal or signatures or na$es.2he arties thereafter filed their res ective $otions for reconsideration of the Court decision. ractical i$ lications of their choice, after which the '.0s will &e lacing their thu$&$ar9s, as the case $a% &e, over their rinted as9ed to $anifest, in secret voting, their choices in the &allot, signing their

ISSUES: .hether or not the Doctrine of = erative 'act is availa&le in this case/ .hether or not Sec. )( of RA BB*@ unconstitutional/ .hether or not the Court order that DARs co$ ulsor% ac:uisition of Hacienda 3usita cover the full B,GG) hectares allegedl% covered &% RA BB*@ and reviousl% held &% 2arlac Develo $ent Cor oration <2adeco>, and not "ust the G,!(*.@* hectares covered &% H3Is SD7/ .hether or not the date of the ,ta9ing- <for ur oses of deter$ining the "ust co$ ensation a%a&le to H3I> 1ove$&er D(, (!?!, when 7ARC a roved H3Is SD7/

.hether or not the (+4%ear eriod rohi&ition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA BB*@ la sed on 8a% (+, (!!! <since Hacienda 3uisita were laced under CAR7 coverage through the SD=A sche$e on 8a% ((, (!?!>, and thus the :ualified '.0s should now &e allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda 3uisita to third arties, whether the% have full% aid for the lands or not/

2HE CRFCIA3 ISSFEE .hether or not the ruling in the Jul% *, D+(( Decision that the :ualified '.0s &e given an o tion to re$ain as stoc9holders of H3I &e reconsidered/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he o erative fact doctrine is a lica&le in this case. lica&le in this

2he Court $aintained its stance that the o erative fact doctrine is a onl% to invalid or unconstitutional laws &ut also a

case since, contrar% to the suggestion of the $inorit%, the doctrine is not li$ited lies to decisions $ade &% the roduced acts and 7resident or the ad$inistrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. 7rior to the nullification or recall of said decisions, the% $a% have doctrine should &e a stressed that the a conse:uences that $ust &e res ected. It is on this score that the o erative fact lied to acts and conse:uences that resulted fro$ the roving the SD7 of H3I. 2he $a"orit% i$ le$entation of the 7ARC Resolution a

lication of the o erative fact doctrine &% the Court in its Jul% *,

D+(( decision was in fact favora&le to the '.0s &ecause not onl% were the% allowed to retain the &enefits and ho$e lots the% received under the stoc9 distri&ution sche$e, the% were also given the o tion to choose for the$selves whether the% want to re$ain as stoc9holders of H3I or not. 2he Court $aintained that the Court is 1=2 co$ elled to rule on the constitutionalit% of Sec. )( of RA BB*@, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest o ortunit% and that the resolution thereof is not the lis $ota of the case. 8oreover, the issue has &een rendered $oot and acade$ic since SD= is no longer one of the $odes of ac:uisition under RA !@++. 2he $a"orit% clarified that in its Jul% *, D+(( decision, it $ade no ruling in favor of the constitutionalit% of Sec. )( of RA BB*@, &ut found nonetheless that there was no a arent grave violation of the Constitution that $a% "ustif% the resolution of the issue of constitutionalit%. Since what is ut in issue &efore the Court is the ro riet% of the revocation of the

SD7, which onl% involves G,!(*.@* of agricultural land and not B,GG) has., then the Court is constrained to rule onl% as regards the G,!(*.@* of agricultural land. 1onetheless, this should not revent the DAR, under its $andate under the agrarian refor$ law, fro$ su&se:uentl% su&"ecting to agrarian refor$ other agricultural lands originall% held &% 2adeco that were allegedl% not transferred to H3I &ut were su osedl% covered &% RA BB*@.

However since the area to &e awarded to each '.0 in the Jul% *, D+(( Decision a ears too restrictive K considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and ortions of the land that are considered co$$onl%4owned &% far$ wor9ers, other

and these $a% necessaril% result in the decrease of the area si5e that $a% &e awarded er '.0 K the Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR er '.0 in case the nu$&er of ro er distri&ution of the leewa% in ad"usting the area that $a% &e awarded agricultural lands of Hacienda 3uisita

actual :ualified '.0s decreases. In order to ensure the

er :ualified '.0, and considering that

$atters involving strictl% the ad$inistrative i$ le$entation and enforce$ent of agrarian refor$ laws are within the "urisdiction of the DAR, it is the latter which shall deter$ine the area with which each :ualified '.0 will &e awarded. =n the other hand, the $a"orit% li9ewise reiterated its holding that the *++4hectare ortion of Hacienda 3uisita that have &een validl% converted to industrial use and have &een ac:uired &% intervenors Ri5al Co$$ercial 0an9ing Cor oration <RC0C> and 3uisita Industrial 7ar9 Cor oration <3I7C=>, as well as the se arate ?+.*(4 hectare SC2EC lot ac:uired &% the govern$ent, should &e e#cluded fro$ the coverage of the assailed 7ARC resolution. 2he Court however ordered that the unused &alance of the roceeds of the sale of the *++4hectare converted land and of the ?+.*(4hectare land used for the SC2EC &e distri&uted to the '.0s. 'or the ur ose of deter$ining "ust co$ ensation, the date of ,ta9ing- is 1ove$&er D(, (!?! <the date when 7ARC a 3uisita. 2o &e roved H3Is SD7> since this is the ti$e that the ossess the agricultural lands in Hacienda roval of the SD7, that is, on '.0s were considered to own and

recise, these lands &eca$e su&"ect of the agrarian refor$ coverage roval is a9in to a notice of coverage ordinaril% issued

through the stoc9 distri&ution sche$e onl% u on the a 1ove$&er D(, (!?!. Such a

under co$ ulsor% ac:uisition. =n the contention of the $inorit% <Justice Sereno> that the date of the notice of coverage Iafter 7ARCs revocation of the SD7J, that is, Januar% D, D++B, is deter$inative of the "ust co$ ensation that H3I is entitled to receive, the Court $a"orit% noted that none of the cases cited to "ustif% this osition involved the stoc9 distri&ution sche$e. 2hus, said cases do not s:uarel% a land valuation is onl% l% to the instant case. 2he foregoing notwithstanding, it &ears stressing that the DARNs reli$inar% and is not, &% an% $eans, final and conclusive u on the landowner. 2he landowner can file an original action with the R2C acting as a s ecial agrarian court to deter$ine "ust co$ ensation. 2he court has the right to review with finalit% the deter$ination in the e#ercise of what is ad$ittedl% a "udicial function. Fnder RA BB*@ and DA= (, the awarded lands $a% onl% &e transferred or conve%ed after (+ %ears fro$ the issuance and registration of the e$anci ation atent <E7> or certificate of land ownershi award <C3=A>. Considering that the E7s or C3=As have not %et &een issued to the :ualified '.0s in the instant case, the (+4%ear rohi&itive eriod has not even started. Significantl%, the rec9oning oint is the issuance of the E7 or C3=A, and not the lacing of the agricultural lands under CAR7 coverage. 8oreover, should the '.0s &e i$$ediatel% allowed the o tion to sell or

conve% their interest in the su&"ect lands, then all efforts at agrarian refor$ would &e rendered nugator%, since, at the end of the da%, these lands will "ust &e transferred to ersons not entitled to land distri&ution under CAR7. 2he Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the :ualified '.0s should &e given an o tion to re$ain as stoc9holders of H3I, inas$uch as these :ualified '.0s will never gain control over the su&"ect landsJgiven the resent ro ortion of shareholdings in H3I. 2he Court noted that the share of the '.0s in the H3I ca ital stoc9 is "ust )).D!BQ. 2hus, even if all the holders of this )).D!BQ unani$ousl% vote to re$ain as H3I stoc9holders, which is unli9el%, control will never &e in the hands of the '.0s. Control $eans the $a"orit% of IsicJ *+Q shares and other voting shares. A lus at least one share of the co$$on

l%ing the for$ula to the H3I stoc9holdings, the lus one I(J H3I share>. 2he

nu$&er of shares that will constitute the $a"orit% is D!*,((D,(+( shares <*!+,**G,DD+ total H3I ca ital shares divided &% D ((?,)!(,!@B.?* shares su&"ect to the SD7 a roved &% 7ARC su&stantiall% fall short

of the D!*,((D,(+( shares needed &% the '.0s to ac:uire control over H3I.

TITLE: DANTE LIBAN VS. GORDON CITATION: G.R. NO. 1%535" DATE: JANUARY 1#, "&11

ACTS: 7etitioners 3i&an, et al., who were officers of the 0oard of Directors of the Hue5on Cit% Red Cross Cha ter, filed with the Su re$e Court what the% st%led as ,7etition to Declare Richard J. Aordon as Having 'orfeited His Seat in the Senate- against res ondent Aordon, who was elected Chair$an of the 7hili ine 1ational Red Cross <71RC> 0oard of Aovernors during his incu$&enc% as Senator. 7etitioners alleged that &% acce ting the chair$anshi Sec. (), Article VI of the Constitution, which of the 71RC 0oard of ursuant to

Aovernors, res ondent Aordon ceased to &e a $e$&er of the Senate

rovides that ,InJo Senator . . . $a%

hold an% other office or e$ lo%$ent in the Aovern$ent, or an% su&division, agenc%, or instru$entalit% thereof, including govern$ent4owned or controlled cor orations or their su&sidiaries, during his ter$ without forfeiting his seat.- 7etitioners cited the case of Ca$ oredondo vs. 13RC, A.R. 1o. (D!+G!, decided August B, (!!!, which held that the 71RC is a A=CC, in su orting their argu$ent that

res ondent Aordon auto$aticall% forfeited his seat in the Senate when he acce ted and held the osition of Chair$an of the 71RC 0oard of Aovernors. 'or$erl%, in its Decision dated Jul% (*, D++!, the Court, voting @4*, held that the office of the 71RC Chair$an is 1=2 a govern$ent office or an office in a A=CC for ur oses of the rohi&ition in Sec. (), Article VI of the (!?@ Constitution. 2he 71RC Chair$an is elected &% the 71RC 0oard of Aovernors6 he is not a ointed &% the 7resident or &% an% su&ordinate govern$ent official. 8oreover, the 71RC is 1=2 a A=CC &ecause it is a rivatel%4owned, rivatel%4funded, and rivatel%4run charita&le organi5ation and &ecause it is controlled &% a 0oard of Aovernors four4fifths of

which are as Senator.

rivate sector individuals. 2herefore, res ondent Aordon did not forfeit

his legislative seat when he was elected as 71RC Chair$an during his incu$&enc%

2he Court however held further that the 71RC Charter, R.A. !*, as a$ended &% 7D (DBG and (BG), is void insofar as it creates the 71RC as a rivate cor oration since Section @, Article CIV of the (!)* Constitution states that ,the Congress shall not, e#ce t &% general law, rovide for the for$ation, organi5ation, or regulation of rivate cor orations, unless such cor orations are owned or controlled &% the Aovern$ent or an% su&division or instru$entalit% thereof.- 2he Court thus directed the 71RC to incor orate under the Cor oration Code and register with the Securities and E#change Co$$ission if it wants to &e a Decision readE .HERE'=RE, we declare that the office of the Chair$an of the 7hili ine 1ational rivate cor oration. 2he fall of the

Red Cross is not a govern$ent office or an office in a govern$ent4owned or controlled cor oration for ur oses of the rohi&ition in Section (), Article VI of the (!?@ Constitution. .e also declare that Sections (, D, ), G<a>, *, B, @, ?, !, (+, ((, (D, and () of the Charter of the 7hili ine 1ational Red Cross, or Re u&lic Act 1o. !*, as a$ended &% 7residential Decree 1os. (DBG and (BG), are V=ID &ecause the% create the 71RC as a rivate cor oration or grant it cor orate owers. Res ondent Aordon filed a 8otion for Clarification and;or for Reconsideration of the Decision. 2he 71RC li9ewise $oved to intervene and filed its own 8otion for 7artial Reconsideration. 2he% &asicall% :uestioned the second with regard to the ronounce$ent on the nature the constitutionalit% of so$e rovisions of the 71RC Charter. art of the Decision of the 71RC and

ISSUES: .hether or not it is correct for the Court to have assed u on and decided on the issue of the constitutionalit% of the 71RC charter/ Corollaril%E .hat is the nature of the 71RC/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he Court ARA12ED reconsideration and 8=DI'IED the dis ositive Decision &% deleting the second sentence thereof. ortion of the

1=, it was not correct for the Court to have decided on the constitutional issue &ecause it was not the ver% lis $ota of the case. 2he 71RC is sui generis in nature6 it is neither strictl% a A=CC nor a rivate cor oration. 2he issue of constitutionalit% of R.A. 1o. !* was not raised &% the arties, and was

not a$ong the issues defined in the &od% of the Decision6 thus, it was not the ver% lis $ota of the case. .e have reiterated the rule as to when the Court will consider the issue of constitutionalit% in Alvare5 v. 7IC=7 Resources, Inc., thusE 2his Court will not touch the issue of unconstitutionalit% unless it is the ver% lis $ota. It is a well4esta&lished rule that a court should not ass u on a constitutional :uestion and decide a law to &e unconstitutional or invalid, unless such :uestion is raised &% the arties and that when it is raised, if the record also resents so$e other ground u on which the court $a% IrestJ its "udg$ent, that course will &e ado ted and the constitutional :uestion will &e left for consideration until such :uestion will &e unavoida&le. 2his Court should not have declared void certain sections of the 71RC

Charter. Instead, the Court should have e#ercised "udicial restraint on this $atter, es eciall% since there was so$e other ground u on which the Court could have &ased its "udg$ent. 'urther$ore, the 71RC, the entit% $ost adversel% affected &% this declaration of unconstitutionalit%, which was not even originall% a art% to this case, was &eing co$ elled, as a conse:uence of the Decision, to suddenl% reorgani5e and incor orate under the Cor oration Code, after $ore than si#t% <B+> %ears of e#istence in this countr%. Since its enact$ent, the 71RC Charter was a$ended several ti$es, articularl% on

June ((, (!*), August (B, (!@(, Dece$&er (*, (!@@, and =cto&er (, (!@!, &% virtue of R.A. 1o. ?**, R.A. 1o. B)@), 7.D. 1o. (DBG, and 7.D. 1o. (BG), res ectivel%. 2he assage of several laws relating to the 71RCs cor orate e#istence notwithstanding the effectivit% of the constitutional roscri tion on the creation of rivate cor orations &% law is a recognition that the 71RC is not strictl% in the nature of a rivate cor oration conte$ lated &% the aforesaid constitutional &an. A closer loo9 at the nature of the 71RC would show that there is none li9e it, not "ust in ter$s of structure, &ut also in ter$s of histor%, u&lic service and official status accorded to it &% the State and the international co$$unit%. 2here is $erit in 71RCs contention that its structure is sui generis. It is in recognition of this sui generis character of the 71RC that R.A. 1o. !* has re$ained valid and effective fro$ the ti$e of its enact$ent in 8arch DD, (!G@ under the (!)* Constitution and during the effectivit% of the (!@) Constitution and the (!?@ Constitution. 2he 71RC Charter and its a$endator% laws have not &een :uestioned or challenged on constitutional grounds, not even in this case &efore the Court now.

2his Court $ust recogni5e the countr%s adherence to the Aeneva Convention and res ect the uni:ue the status ines of the 71RC the in consonance with its treat% of o&ligations. 2he Aeneva Convention has the force and effect of law. Fnder the Constitution, 7hili ado ts generall% acce ted rinci les international law as art of the law of the land. 2his constitutional rovision $ust &e reconciled and har$oni5ed with Article CII, Section (B of the Constitution, instead of using the latter to negate the for$er. 0% re:uiring the 71RC to organi5e under the Cor oration Code "ust li9e an% other rivate cor oration, the Decision of Jul% (*, D++! lost sight of the 71RCs s ecial status under international hu$anitarian law and as an au#iliar% of the State, designated to assist it in discharging its o&ligations under the Aeneva Conventions. 2he 71RC, as a 1ational Societ% of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 8ove$ent, can neither ,&e classified as an instru$entalit% of the State, so as not to lose its character of neutralit%- as well as its inde endence, nor strictl% as a rivate cor oration since it is regulated &% international hu$anitarian law and is treated as an au#iliar% of the State. Although the 71RC is neither a su&division, agenc%, or instru$entalit% of the govern$ent, nor a A=CC or a su&sidiar% thereof so $uch so that res ondent, under the Decision, was correctl% allowed to hold his osition as Chair$an thereof concurrentl% while he served as a Senator, such a conclusion does not i so facto i$ l% that the 71RC is a , rivate cor oration- within the conte$ lation of the rovision of the Constitution, that $ust &e organi5ed under the Cor oration Code. 2he sui generis character of 71RC re:uires us to a involving the 71RC on a case4to4case &asis. In su$, the 71RC en"o%s a s ecial status as an i$ ortant all% and au#iliar% of the govern$ent in the hu$anitarian field in accordance with its co$$it$ents under international law. 2his Court cannot all of a sudden refuse to recogni5e its e#istence, es eciall% since the issue of the constitutionalit% of the 71RC Charter was never raised &% the arties. It &ears e$ hasi5ing that the 71RC has res onded to al$ost all national disasters since (!G@, and is widel% 9nown to rovide a su&stantial ortion of the countr%s &lood re:uire$ents. Its hu$anitarian wor9 is un aralleled. 2he Court should not sha9e its e#istence to the core in an unti$el% and drastic $anner that would not onl% have negative conse:uences to those who de end on it in ti$es of disaster and ar$ed hostilities &ut also have adverse effects on the i$age of the 7hili ines in the international co$$unit%. 2he sections of the 71RC Charter that were declared void $ust therefore sta%. 2hus, R.A. 1o. !* re$ains valid and constitutional in its entiret%. 2he Court 8=DI'IED the dis ositive ortion of the Decision &% deleting the second sentence, to now read as followsE roach controversies

.HERE'=RE, we declare that the office of the Chair$an of the 7hili

ine 1ational

Red Cross is not a govern$ent office or an office in a govern$ent4owned or controlled cor oration for ur oses of the rohi&ition in Section (), Article VI of the (!?@ Constitution.

TITLE: SERRANO DE AGBAYANI VS. PNB CITATION: 3# SCRA $" DATE: APRIL "9, 19%1

ACTS: Ag&a%ani o&tained a loan 7G*+ fro$ 710 secured &% a RE8, which was to $ature * %ears later. 'ifhteen %ears later, 710 sought to foreclose the RE8. co$ laint clai$ing that it was &arred &% o&tained an in"unction against the sheriff. He filed a rescri tion. She also clai$s that she

710 argued that the clai$ has not %et

rescri&ed if the

eriod fro$ the ti$e of

issuance of E=)D to the ti$e when RA )GD was issued should &e deducted. E+ )D was issued in (!G* K roviding for de&t $oratoriu$ and RA )GD was issued in (!G? 4 e#tension of the de&t $oratoriu$.

2he RA )GD was declared void and since it was an e#tension of E= )D, E= )D was li9ewise nullified. Here, RA )GD <the de&t $oratoriu$ law> continued E= )D, sus ending the later declared a%$ent of de&ts &% war sufferers. However RA )GD could not unconstitutional &ecause it violates the non4i$ air$ent ass of the test of validit%. <I thin9 what Justice 'ernando was sa%ing is that the law was contractual o&ligations clause in the constitution>.

710 clai$s that this

eriod should &e deducted fro$ the

rescri tive

eriod since

during this ti$e the &an9 too9 no legal ste s for the recover% of the loan. As such, the action has not %et rescri&ed.

ISSUE: .hether or not the action is rescri&e/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he general rule is that an unconstitutional act &ecause it suffers fro$ infir$it%, cannot &e a source of legal rights or duties. .hen the courts declare a law to &e inconsistent with the Constitution, the for$er shall &e void and the latter shall govern. However, rior to the declaration of nullit% of such challenged legislative act $ust ro riate case declares its invalidit%, it is entitled to o&edience resu$ed to &e valid in all recisel% rior to its &eing nullified, its e#istence as a fact

have &een in force and had to &e co$ lied with. 2his is so as until after the "udiciar%, in an a and res ect. Such legislative act was in o eration and res ects. It is now acce ted that

$ust &e rec9oned with. 2his is $erel% to reflect the awareness that a legislative act is valid, a the

&ecause the "udiciar% is the govern$ental organ which has the final sa% on whether eriod of ti$e $a% have ela sed &efore it can e#ercise ower of "udicial review that $a% lead to a declaration of nullit%. It would e to

de rive the law of its :ualit% of fairness and "ustice then, if there &e no recognition of what had trans ired rior to such ad"udication. 2he ast cannot alwa%s &e erased &% "udicial declaration. <=7ERA2IVE 'AC2 rior to its &eing ad"udged void is an

D=C2RI1E>. 2he e#istence of a statute

o erative fact to which legal conse:uences are attached. During the ? %ear run. 2hus, the eriod that E= )D and RA )GD were in force, rescri tive rescri tion did not rior to such

eriod was tolled in the $eanti$e

ad"udication of invalidit%.

TITLE: SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO

CITATION: 1#3 SCRA 1$5 DATE: M'/(- 1$, 199&

ACTS: Rosalie 2esoro of 7asa% Cit% in a sworn state$ent filed with the 7=EA, charged etitioner with illegal recruit$ent. 7u&lic res ondent Att%. 'erdinand 8ar:ue5 sent etitioner a telegra$ directing hi$ to a o erate a recruit$ent agenc%, sei5ure of the docu$ents and ear to the 7=EA regarding the co$ laint etitioner had no license to against hi$. =n the sa$e da%, after 9nowing that

u&lic res ondent Ad$inistrator 2o$as Achacoso ara hernalia &eing used or intended to &e used as etitioner hasS Co$$itted;are

issued a Closure and Sei5ure =rder 1o. (D+* to etitioner. It stated that there will a the $eans of co$$itting illegal recruit$ent, it having verified that recruit and de lo% wor9ers for overseas e$ lo%$ent6 <D>

<(> 1o valid license or authorit% fro$ the De art$ent of 3a&or and E$ lo%$ent to co$$itting acts rohi&ited under Article )G of the 1ew 3a&or Code in relation to

Article )? of the sa$e code. A tea$ was then tas9ed to i$ le$ent the said =rder. 2he grou , acco$ anied &% $edia$en and 8andalu%ong olice$en, went to etitioners residence. 2he% served the order to a certain 8rs. 'or a Sala5ar, who let the$ in. 2he tea$ confiscated assorted costu$es. 7etitioner filed with 7=EA a letter re:uesting for the return of the sei5ed ro erties, &ecause she was not given rior notice and hearing. 2he said =rder violated due Rights, and the rocess. She also alleged that it violated sec D of the 0ill of ro erties were confiscated against her will and were done with

unreasona&le force and inti$idation.

ISSUE: .hether or 1ot the 7hili ine =verseas E$ lo%$ent Ad$inistration <or the

Secretar% of 3a&or> can validl% issue warrants of search and sei5ure <or arrest> under Article )? of the 3a&or Code/

THE COURT!S RULING: Fnder the new Constitution, ,no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e#ce t u on roduce, and ro&a&le cause to &e deter$ined articularl% descri&ing the ersonall% &% the "udge after ersons or e#a$ination under oath or affir$ation of the co$ lainant and the witnesses he $a% lace to &e searched and the things to &e sei5ed-. 8a%ors and rosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of

sei5ure or arrest. 2he Closure and Sei5ure =rder was &ased on Article )? of the 3a&or Code. 2he Su re$e Court held, ,.e reiterate that the Secretar% of 3a&or, not &eing a "udge, $a% no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities $ust go through the "udicial rocess. 2o that e#tent, we declare Article )?, aragra h <c>, of the 3a&or Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. 2he ower of the 7resident to order the arrest of aliens for de ortation is, o&viousl%, e#ce tional. It <the ower to order arrests> cannot &e $ade to e#tend to other cases, li9e the one at &ar. Fnder the Constitution, it is the sole do$ain of the courts.- 'urther$ore, the search and sei5ure order was in the nature of a general warrant. 2he court held that the warrant is null and void, &ecause it $ust identif% s ecificall% the things to &e sei5ed.

.HERE'=RE, the etition is ARA12ED. Article )?, aragra h <c> of the 3a&or Code is declared F1C=1S2I2F2I=1A3 and null and void. 2he res ondents are =RDERED to return all $aterials sei5ed as a result of the i$ le$entation of Search and Sei5ure =rder 1o. (D+*.

TITLE: PEOPLE VS. RAMOS CITATION: "96 SCRA 5#9 DATE: AUGUST 1&, 1999

ACTS: =cto&er (B, (!!* K Eli5a&eth 2. Ra$os filed a cri$inal co$ laint for ra e against 'eliciano 8. Ra$os. It was alleged that the a ellant was a&le to er etrate the felon% against the $inor through the use of force and inti$idation in its e#ecution Eli5a&eth Ra$os, a $inor of (G %ears old, was ra ed &% her father while her &rothers and sisters were slee ing near&%. She was warned not to re ort the $atter to an%one or else he would 9ill her. 2he ra e was discovered onl% when she suffered an a&ortion of the fetus that she was carr%ing in her wo$&. F on filing of the charges in the R2C 'eliciano changed his residence to 2uai, Caga%an and an alias warrant of arrest was issued. 8arch DB, (!!B 'eliciano was arrested in 2uao, Caga%an while he was feeding the duc9s. After the rosecution has resented their evidence 'eliciano wanted to change his

lea to guilt% and he was allowed &% the court to do so. 'eliciano Ra$os was sentenced to death &% the R2C of 7angasinan.

ISSUES: .hether or not he can clai$ the $itigating circu$stance of voluntar% surrender/ .hether or not his lea of guilt% can &e ta9en as a $itigating circu$stance/ .hether or not the @ new attendant circu$stances instituted &% RA @B*! can &e considered as aggravating circu$stance/ .hether or not the accused can &e convicted for :ualified ra e/

THE COURT!S RULING:

1=. 2here was no voluntar% surrender &ecause he arrested &%

olice A&an.

According to A&an 'eliciano ,went with hi$- when he showed the warrant of arrest. 2he e#ecution of warrant of arrest against 'eliciano entailed e# enses of a&out 7D,*++ Surrender is voluntar% when it is done &% an accused s ontaneousl% and $ade in such a $anner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionall% to the authorities, either &ecause he ac9nowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the$ the trou&le and e# ense necessaril% incurred in his search and ca ture. 'eliciano tried to evade arrest &% changing his residence. law. 1=. His lea of guilt% was $ade after the evidence against hi$ was ortunit%, indicating re entance on the resented. It lea of guilt% art of the 2he a ellant was

arrested and he was actuall% ta9en and held in custod% under the authorit% of the

was $ade out of fear of conviction T not &ased on his conscience. A $ust &e $ade at the first o accused.

A lea of guilt% $ade after the arraign$ent and after the trial had &egun does not entitle the accused to have such lea considered as a $itigating circu$stance 1=. RA @B*! in A))* in the R7C rovided for the @ new attendant circu$stances. arta9e the nature of :ualif%ing eriod of the

7eo le vs. Aarcia K attendant circu$stance

circu$stances and not $erel% aggravating circu$stance, since the% increase the enalties &% the degrees. Aggravating circu$stance affect onl% the enalt% and does not increase it to a higher degree. 7eo le vs. 0a%ot K :ualif%ing circu$stance or an inherent aggravating

circu$stance should not &e $ista9en for a generic aggravating circu$stance in the cri$e of ro&&er%. the $a#i$u$ Aeneric aggravating circu$stance, not offset &% $itigating enalt% which should &e i$ osed u on the accused to rescri&ed &% law. A ro er and e#clusive na$e &ut also circu$stance, increases the

eriod, &ut without e#ceeding the li$it

:ualif%ing circu$stance K gives the cri$e its for said cri$es.

i$ oses on the author thereof no other enalt% &ut that s eciall% rescri&ed &% law

Ra e with the concurrence of $inorit% of the victi$ and her relationshi aggressor gives a different character of ra e which raised the i$ osa&le fro$ reclusion circu$stance. er ertua to the higher and su re$e art% and relationshi enalt% of death. $inorit% of the offended

with the enalt% ResultE

to the offender s ecial :ualif%ing

1=. Cannot &e convicted of :ualified ra e &ecause he wasnt ro erl% infor$ed that he is &eing accused of :ualified ra e.

Ever% ele$ent which the offense is co$ osed $ust &e alleged in the co$ laint or infor$ation. 7erson cannot &e convicted of an offense higher than that which he is charged in the co$ laint or infor$ation on which he is tried. In Aarcia it was held that it would &e a denial of the right of the accused to &e infor$ed of the charges against hi$ and, conse:uentl%, a denial of due he is charged with si$ le ra e and &e convicted of its :ualified for$ rocess, if unisha&le

with death although the attendant circu$stance :ualif%ing the offense and resulting in ca ital unish$ent was not alleged in the indict$ent on which he was arraigned. 2he general rinci les of cri$inal law rovide that aggravating circu$stances, even if not alleged in the infor$ation, $a% &e the defense and $a% &e a $erel% for$s art of the roven during the trial over o&"ection of reciated in i$ osing the sentence. Such evidence

roof of the actual co$$ission of the offense and its

consideration &% the courts do not violate the constitutional right of the accused to &e infor$ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi$. TITLE: PEOPLE VS. MATEO CITATAION: G.R. NO. 1$%6%#-#% DATE: JULY %, "&&$

ACTS: .here life and li&ert% are at sta9e, all can ever &e overdone. A "udg$ent. If the Court of A corres onding final dis osition. =n =cto&er )+, (!!B, ten <(+> infor$ations, one for each count of ra e, were filed against a ellant Efren 8ateo. 2he lower court found 8ateo guilt% &e%ond reasona&le dou&t, i$ osing the enalt% of reclusion er etua. 2he Solicitor Aeneral, however, assails the factual findings of the trial court and reco$$ends an ac:uittal of the a ellant. ossi&le avenues to deter$ine his guilt or eals on,

innocence $ust &e accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts rior deter$ination &% the Court of A eals should affir$ the articularl%, the factual issues, would $ini$i5e the ossi&ilit% of an error of enalt% of death, reclusion

er etua or life i$ rison$ent, it could then render "udg$ent i$ osing the enalt% as the circu$stances so warrant, refrain fro$ entering "udg$ent and elevate the entire records of the case to the Su re$e Court for its

ISSUE:

.hether or not the case should directl% &e forwarded to the Su re$e Court &% virtue of the e# ress rovision in the constitution on auto$atic a enalt% i$ osed is reclusion er etua, life i$ rison$ent or death/ eal where the

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he case is RE8A1DED, and all ertinent records are ordered to &e forwarded to the Court of A F eals for a ro riate action and dis osition. ellate review over all er etua or life

until now, the Su re$e Court has assu$ed the direct a

cri$inal cases in which the

enalt% i$ osed is death, reclusion

i$ rison$ent <or lower &ut involving offenses co$$itted on the sa$e occasion or arising out of the sa$e occurrence that gave rise to the $ore serious offense for which the 2he enalt% of death, reclusion er etua, or life i$ rison$ent is i$ osed>. ractice finds "ustification in the (!?@ Constitution K Article VIII, Section *. 2he

Su re$e Court shall have the following owersE ,<D> Review, revise, reverse, $odif%, or affir$ on a eal or certiorari, as the law or

the Rules of Court $a% rovide, final "udg$ents and orders of lower courts inE ,<d> All cri$inal cases in which the higher.2he sa$e constitutional article has evidentl% &een a thesis for Article G@ of the Revised 7enal Code, as a$ended &% Section DD of Re u&lic Act 1o. @B*!, as well as rocedural rules contained in Section ) of Rule (DD, Section (+ of Rule (DD, Section () of rule (DG and Section ) of Rule (D* of the Rules of Court. It $ust &e stressed, however, that the constitutional not necessaril% adding an inter$ediate a In rovision is not reclusive in character, and it does ower, fro$ revent the Court, in the e#ercise of its rule4$a9ing eal or review in favor of the accused. enalt% i$ osed is reclusion er etua or

assing, during the deli&erations a$ong the $e$&ers of the Court, there has oint of guilt or innocence of ear to &e ellant. So$e are convinced that the evidence would a roof of guilt

&een a $ar9ed a&sence of unani$it% on the crucial herein a

sufficient to convict6 so$e would acce t the reco$$endation of ac:uittal fro$ the Solicitor Aeneral on the ground of inade:uate &e%ond reasona&le reciation of dou&t. Indeed, the occasion &est de$onstrates the t% ical dile$$a, i.e., the RECE12 JFRIS7RFDE1CE K CRI8I1A3 3A. deter$ination and a auto$atic review cases6 %et, it is the Court of A direct $andate to review factual issues. ri$aril% factual $atters, which the Su re$e Court has had to face with in eals that has a tl% &een given the

.hile the 'unda$ental 3aw re:uires a $andator% review &% the Su re$e Court of cases where the enalt% i$ osed is reclusion er etua, life i$ rison$ent, or death, nowhere, however, has it rescri&ed an inter$ediate review. If onl% to ensure enalt% of death, reclusion er etua, or life ut$ost circu$s ection &efore the

i$ rison$ent is i$ osed, the Court now dee$s it wise and co$ elling to rovide in these cases a review &% the Court of A eals &efore the case is elevated to the ossi&le avenues to Su re$e Court. .here life and li&ert% are at sta9e, all evaluation of the facts can ever &e overdone. A A eals on, error of "udg$ent. If the Court of A reclusion the corres onding final dis osition. Statistics would disclose that within the eleven4%ear of the death eriod since the re4i$ osition

deter$ine his guilt or innocence $ust &e accorded an accused, and no care in the rior deter$ination &% the Court of ossi&ilit% of an enalt% of death, articularl%, the factual issues, would $ini$i5e the eals should affir$ the

er etua, or life i$ rison$ent, it could then render "udg$ent i$ osing enalt% as the circu$stances so warrant, refrain fro$ entering

"udg$ent and elevate the entire records of the case to the Su re$e Court for its

enalt% law in (!!) until June D++G, the cases where the "udg$ent of

death has either &een $odified or vacated consist of an astounding @(.@@Q of the total of death enalt% cases directl% elevated &efore the Court on auto$atic review that translates to a total of si# hundred fift%4one <B*(> out of nine hundred seven <!+@> a ellants saved fro$ lethal in"ection.

Fnder the Constitution Article VIII, Section *, the ower to a$end rules of rocedure is constitutionall% vested in the Su re$e Court. 7rocedural $atters, first and fore$ost, fall $ore s:uarel% within the rule4$a9ing Court than the law4$a9ing allowing an inter$ediate review &% the Court of A such a rocedural $atter. 7ertinent rerogative of the Su re$e eals, a su&ordinate a ellate ower of Congress. 2he rule here announce additionall%

court, &efore the case is elevated to the Su re$e Court on auto$atic review, is rovisions of the Revised Rules on Cri$inal 7rocedure, $ore a articularl% Section ) and Section (+ of Rule (DD, Section () of

rule (DG, Section ) of rule (D*, and an% other rule insofar as the% rovide for direct eals fro$ the Regional 2rial Courts to the Su re$e Court in cases where the enalt% i$ oses is death, reclusion er etua, or life i$ rison$ent, as well as the

resolution of the Su re$e Court en &anc, dated (! Se te$&er (!!*, in ,Internal Rules of the Su re$e Court- incases si$ilarl% involving the death enalt%, are to &e dee$ed $odified accordingl%.

TITLE: VILLAVERT VS. DESIERTO CITATION: G.R. NO. 133%15 DATE: EBRUARY "3, "&&&

ACTS: 2his is a etition for review on certiorari under Rule G* of the Rules of Court, in

relation to Sec. D@ of RA B@@+ <2he =$&uds$an Act of (!?!>, see9ing the annul$ent of the 8e$orandu$J of the De ut% =$&uds$an4Visa%as dated (@ Jul% (!!@, in Ad$. Case 1o. =804VIS4AD84!*4++??, a which reco$$ended the dis$issal of roved &% the =$&uds$an, ine Charit% etitioner fro$ the 7hili

Swee sta9es =ffice <7CS=>, Ce&u, as well as the order dated )+ Januar% (!!? den%ing etitioners $otion for reconsideration. 7etitioner Douglas R. Villavert is a Sales T 7ro$otion Su ervisor of 7CS= Ce&u 0ranch res onsi&le for the sale and dis osal of 7CS= swee sta9es tic9ets withdrawn &% hi$, which are alread% considered sold. As Villavert is not e# ected to sell all withdrawn tic9ets on his own, he is allowed &% the 7CS= to consign tic9ets to tic9et outlets and;or to engage the hel haw9ers. of sales agents, usuall% sidewal9 eddlers and

ISSUE: .hether or not the Sec. )+ Art. VI violates the Constitution/

THE COURT!S RULING: In 'a&ian, Sec. D@ of RA B@@+, which authori5es an a eal to this Court fro$

decisions of the =ffice of the =$&uds$an in ad$inistrative disci linar% cases, was declared violative of the rescri tion in Sec. )+, Art. VI, of the Constitution against a law which increases the a consent. In addition, the Court noted that Rule G* of the (!!@ Rules of Civil 7rocedure recludes a eals fro$ :uasi4"udicial agencies, li9e the =ffice of the =$&uds$an, eals fro$ decisions of the =ffice of the eals under to the Su re$e Court. Conse:uentl%, a ellate "urisdiction of this Court without its advice and

=$&uds$an in ad$inistrative cases should &e ta9en to the Court of A Rule G), as reiterated in the su&se:uent case of 1a$uhe v. =$&uds$an.

An% a

eal &% wa% of etition for review fro$ a decision or final resolution or order

of the =$&uds$an in ad$inistrative cases, or s ecial civil action relative to such decision, resolution or order filed with the Court after (* 8arch (!!! shall no longer &e referred to the Court of A res ectivel%. As the instant etition was filed rior to (* 8arch (!!!, its referral for final eals, &ut $ust &e forthwith DE1IED or DIS8ISSED,

dis osition to the Court of A

eals is still in order.

2he case was RE'ERRED to the Court of A

eals as a etition for review under Rule

G) of the (!!@ Rules of Civil 7rocedure to &e dis osed of in accordance with law.

TITLE: YAO VS. CA CITATION: G.R. NO. 13"$"# DATE : OCTOBER "$, "&&&

ACTS:

In (!@), Constancio 8aglana, resident of 7ri$e .hite Ce$ent Cor oration, sent an offer letter to Pao Oa Sin 2rading. 2he offer states that 7ri$e .hite is willing to sell G*,+++ &ags of ce$ent at 7DG.)+ er &ag. 2he offer letter was received &% Pao Oa ursuant to the letter, he Sins $anager, Henr% Pao. Pao acce ted the letter and

sent a chec9 in the a$ount of 7DG),+++.++ e:uivalent to the value of (+,+++ &ags of ce$ent. However, the 0oard of Directors of 7ri$e .hite re"ected the offer letter sent &% 8aglana &ut it considered Paos acce tance letter as a new contract offer hence the 0oard sent a letter to Pao telling hi$ that 7ri$e .hite is instead willing to sell onl% (+,+++ &ags to Pao Oa Sin and that he has ten da%s to re l%6 that if no re l% is $ade &% Pao then the% will consider it as an acce tance and that thereafter 7ri$e .hite shall de osit the 7DG)9 chec9 in its account and then deliver the ce$ents to Pao Oa Sin. Henr% Pao never re lied. 3ater, Pao Oa Sin sued 7ri$e .hite to co$ el the latter to co$ l% with what Pao Oa Sin considered as the true contract, i.e., G*,+++ &ags at 7DG.)+ in &ehalf of 7ri$e .hite, such contracts are still su&"ect to a .hites 0oard, and then it still re:uires further a er &ag. 7ri$e roval &% 7ri$e .hite in its defense averred that although 8aglana is e$ owered to sign contracts roval &% the 1ational Invest$ent

and Develo $ent Cor oration <1IDC>, a govern$ent owned and controlled cor oration &ecause 7ri$e .hite is a su&sidiar% of 1IDC. Henr% Pao asserts that the letter fro$ 8aglana is a &inding contract &ecause it was $ade under the a arent authorit% of 8aglana. 2he trial court ruled in favor of Pao eals reversed the trial court. Oa Sin. 2he Court of A

ISSUE: .hether or not the resident of a cor oration is clothed with a the 0oard. arent

authorit% to enter into &inding contracts with third ersons without the authorit% of

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he 0oard $a% enter into contracts through the resident. 2he resident $a% onl% enter into contracts u on authorit% of the 0oard. Hence, an% agree$ent signed &% the resident is su&"ect to a roval &% the 0oard. Fnli9e a general $anager <li9e arent authorit% to enter into ersons. 'urther, if indeed the &%4laws of 7ri$e .hite arent authorit%, this was not roven &% Pao Oa Sin. the case of 'rancisco vs ASIS>, the resident has no a &inding contracts with third did rovide 8aglana with a

As a rule, a the a

arent authorit% $a% result fro$ <(> the general $anner, &% which the ower to act or, in other words,

cor oration holds out an officer or agent as having ac:uiescence in his acts of a 2hese are not resent in this case.

arent authorit% with which it clothes hi$ to act in general or <D> articular nature, with actual or constructive owers.

9nowledge thereof, whether within or without the sco e of his ordinar%

Also, the su&se:uent letter &% 7ri$e .hite to Pao Oa Sin is &inding &ecause Pao Oa Sins failure to res ond constitutes an acce tance, which was not contested &% Henr% Pao during trial. er stated in the letter itself K

TITLE: FR. MARTINEZ VS. CA

CITATION: G.R. NO. 1"35$% DATE: MAY "1, "&&1

ACTS: So$eti$e in 'e&ruar% (!?(, rivate res ondents Aodofredo De la 7a5 and his sister 8anuela De la 7a5, $arried to 8a#i$o Hi olito, entered into an oral contract with etitioner Rev. 'r. Dante 8artine5, then Assistant arish riest of Ca&anatuan Cit%, for the sale of 3ot 1o. ())@4A4) at the Villa 'e Su&division in Ca&anatuan Cit% for the su$ of 7(*,+++.++. 2he lot is located along 8aharli9a Road near the 8unici al Hall of Ca&anatuan Cit%. At the ti$e of the sale, the lot was still registered in the na$e of Claudia De la 7a5, $other of alread% sold it to rivate res ondents, although the latter had rivate res ondent 8anuela de la 7a5 &% virtue of a Deed of

A&solute Sale dated 8a% DB, (!@B <E#h. 1;E#h. D4Veneracion>. 7rivate res ondent 8anuela su&se:uentl% registered the sale in her na$e on =cto&er DD, (!?( and was issued 2C2 1o. 24G+G!B <E#h. !>. .hen the land was offered for sale to their $other, since was agreed that etitioner, rivate res ondents De la 7a5 were acco$ anied &% etitioner dealt with the De la 7a5es as a fa$il% and not a%$ent of 7),+++.++ to rivate

individuall%. He was assured &% the$ that the lot &elonged to 8anuela De la 7a5. It etitioner would give a down a%$ent, res ondents De la 7a5 and that the &alance would &e giving the 7),+++.++ down on the lot after securing a &uilding a%a&le &% install$ent. After

etitioner started the construction of a house er$it fro$ the Cit% Engineers =ffice on A ril a%ing the real estate ta#es on said

D), (!?(, with the written consent of the then registered owner, Claudia de la 7a5 <E#h. 0;E#h, (>. 7etitioner li9ewise &egan ro ert% <E#h. D, D4(, D4D>. Construction on the house was co$ leted on =cto&er B, (!?( <E#h. V>. Since then, etitioner and his fa$il% have $aintained their residence there.

ISSUE: .hether or not rivate res ondents Veneracion are &u%ers in good faith of the

lot in dis ute as to $a9e the$ the a&solute owners thereof in accordance with Art. (*GG of the Civil Code on dou&le sale of i$$ova&le ro ert%/ .hether or not a%$ent of the a ellate doc9et fee within the eriod to a eal

is not necessar% for the

erfection of the a

eal after a notice of a

eal has

&een filed within such eriod/

.hether or not the resolution of the Court of A

eals den%ing

etitioners

$otion for reconsideration is contrar% to the constitutional re:uire$ent that a denial of a $otion for reconsideration $ust state the legal reasons on which it is &ased/

THE COURT!S RULING: It is a arent fro$ the first and second assign$ent of errors that etitioner is

assailing the findings of fact and the a

reciation of the evidence $ade &% the trial

courts and later affir$ed &% the res ondent court. .hile, as a general rule, onl% :uestions of law $a% &e raised in a etition for review under Rule G* of the Rules of Court, review $a% nevertheless &e granted under certain e#ce tions, na$el%E <a> when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel% on s eculation, sur$ises, or con"ectures6 <&> when the inference $ade is $anifestl% $ista9en, a&surd, or i$ ossi&le6 <c> where there is a grave a&use of discretion6 <d> when the "udg$ent is &ased on a $isa rehension of facts6 <e> when the findings of fact are conflicting6 eals, in $a9ing its findings, went &e%ond the issue of the ellant and a ellee6 <g> eals are contrar% to those of the trial court6 <h> etition as well as in the osed a&sence of arties <f> when the Court of A

case and the sa$e is contrar% to the ad$issions of &oth a when the findings of the Court of A

when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of s ecific evidence on which the% are &ased6 <i> when the facts set forth in the finding of fact of the Court of A A eals is etitioners $ain and re l% &riefs are not dis uted &% the res ondents6 <"> when the re$ised on the su evidence &ut is contradicted &% the evidence on record6 and <9> when the Court of eals $anifestl% overloo9ed certain relevant facts not dis uted &% the and which, if ro erl% considered, would "ustif% a different conclusion. In this case, the Court of A eals &ased its ruling that rivate res ondents rivate

Veneracion are the owners of the dis uted lot on their reliance on concerning Code

res ondent Aodofredo De la 7a5s assurance that he would ta9e care of the $atter etitioners occu anc% of the dis uted lot as constituting good faith. ro ert% is the su&"ect of a dou&le sale, erson ac:uiring it who in good faith first erson who in erson who ro ert% is 2his case, however, involves dou&le sale and, on this $atter, Art. (*GG of the Civil rovides that where i$$ova&le shall &e transferred <(> to the ownershi

recorded it to the Registr% of 7ro ert%6 <D> in default thereof, to the good faith was first in

ossession6 and <)> in default thereof, to the

resents the oldest title. 2he re:uire$ent of the law, where title to the recording in good faith. 2o &e entitled to onl% rove riorit%, the second

recorded in the Register of Deeds, is two4foldE ac:uisition in good faith and urchaser $ust not rior recording of his title &ut that he acted in good faith, i.e., without

9nowledge or notice of a

rior sale to another. 2he

resence of good faith should

&e ascertained fro$ the circu$stances surrounding the urchase of the land. a. .ith regard to the first sale to rivate res ondents Veneracion, rivate

res ondent Re%naldo Veneracion testified that on =cto&er (+, (!?(, (? da%s &efore the e#ecution of the first Deed of Sale with Right to Re urchase, he ins ected the re$ises and found it vacant. However, this is &elied &% the testi$on% of Engr. 'eli# D. 8inor, then &uilding ins ector of the De art$ent of 7u&lic .or9s and Highwa%s, that he conducted on =cto&er B, (!?( an ocular ins ection of the lot in dis ute in the erfor$ance of his duties as a &uilding ins ector to $onitor the rogress of the construction of the &uilding su&"ect of the &uilding er$it issued in favor of etitioner on A ril D), (!?(, and that he found it (++ Q co$ leted <E#h. V>. In the a&sence of contrar% evidence, he is to &e resu$ed to have regularl% erfor$ed his official dut%. 2hus, as earl% as =cto&er, (!?(, urchased. &. 2he Court of A &etween the eals failed to deter$ine the nature of the first contract of sale rivate res ondents Veneracion ro ert% the% alread% 9new that there was construction &eing $ade on the

rivate res ondents &% considering their conte$ oraneous and

su&se:uent acts. 8ore s ecificall%, it overloo9ed the fact that the first contract of sale &etween the rivate res ondents shows that it is in fact an e:uita&le $ortgage. 2he re:uisites for considering a contract of sale with a right of re urchase as an e:uita&le $ortgage are <(> that the arties entered into a contract deno$inated as a contract of sale and <D> that their intention was to secure an e#isting de&t &% wa% of $ortgage. A contract of sale with right to re urchase gives rise to the resu$ tion that it is an e:uita&le $ortgage in an% of the following casesE <(> when the rice of a sale with a right to re urchase is unusuall% inade:uate6 <D> when the ossession as lessee or otherwise6 <)> when, u on or after the eriod of a% the vendor re$ains in

e# iration of the right to re urchase, another instru$ent e#tending the hi$self a art of the urchase rice6 <*> when the vendor &inds hi$self to

rede$ tion or granting a new eriod is e#ecuted6 <G> when the urchaser retains for ta#es on the thing sold6 <B> in an% other case where it $a% &e fairl% inferred that the real intention of the de&t or the $ortgage. In this case, the following circu$stances indicate that the 7rivate res ondents Veneracion never too9 actual rivate res ondents arties is that the transaction shall secure the a%$ent of a erfor$ance of an% other o&ligation. In case of dou&t, a contract

ur orting to &e a sale with right to re urchase shall &e construed as an e:uita&le

intended the transaction to &e an e:uita&le $ortgage and not a contract of saleE <(> ossession of the three lots6 <D> eriod &etween the first 7rivate res ondents De la 7a5 re$ained in ossession of the 8elencio lot which was co4owned &% the$ and where the% resided6 <)> During the

sale and the second sale to effort to ta9e had e# ired and never o&"ected.

rivate res ondents Veneracion, the% never $ade an% ro erties6 and <G> when the eriod of rede$ tion

ossession of the

rivate res ondents Veneracion were infor$ed &% the De la 7a5es erson for 7D++,+++.++, the% urchase the two lots re ared to 2o the contrar%, the% offered to

that the% are offering the lots for sale to another

for7(?+,+++.++ when the% found that a certain 8r. 2ecson was &oth

urchase it for the sa$e a$ount. 2hus, it is clear fro$ these circu$stances that rivate res ondents never intended the first sale to &e a contract of sale, &ut $erel% that of $ortgage to secure a de&t of 7(*+,+++.++. .ith regard to the second sale, which is the true contract of sale &etween the arties, it should &e noted that this Court in several cases, has ruled that a urchaser who is aware of facts which should ut a reasona&le $an u on his guard cannot turn a &lind e%e and later clai$ that he acted in good faith. 7rivate res ondent Re%naldo hi$self ad$itted during the re4trial conference in the 82C in Civil Case 1o. !*D) <for e"ect$ent> that etitioner was alread% in ossession of the ro ert% in dis ute at the ti$e the second Deed of Sale was e#ecuted on June (, (!?) and registered on 8arch G, (!?G. He, therefore, 9new that there were alread% occu ants on the ro ert% as earl% as (!?(. 2he fact that there are than the vendors, in actual he never tal9ed to the assurance of res ondents on in:uir% as to the nature of etitioners right over the ersons, other ut rivate ro ert%. 0ut ossession of the dis uted lot should have

etitioner to verif% the nature of his right. He $erel% relied on rivate res ondent Aodofredo De la 7a5, who was not even the

owner of the lot in :uestion, that he would ta9e care of the $atter. 2his does not $eet the standard of good faith. c. 2he a deter$ine ellate courts reliance on Arts. ()*@ and ()*? of the Civil Code to rivate res ondents Veneracions lac9 of 9nowledge of etitioners

ownershi of the dis uted lot is erroneous. Art. ()*@ and Art. ()*?, in relation to Art. (G+)<D> of the Civil Code, re:uires that the sale of real ro ert% $ust &e in writing for it to &e enforcea&le. It need not &e ut in writing, either of the contracting arties notari5ed. If the sale has not &een

can co$ el the other to o&serve such re:uire$ent. 2his is what etitioner did when he re eatedl% de$anded that a Deed of A&solute Sale &e e#ecuted in his favor &% rivate res ondents De la 7a5. 2here is nothing in the a&ove rovisions which re:uire that a contract of sale of realt% $ust &e e#ecuted in a an% event, it has &een shown that of the dis uted lot. D.7etitioner contends that the 82C in Civil Case 1o. !*D) <for e"ect$ent> erred in den%ing etitioners 8otion for E#ecution of the Judg$ent, which the latter filed on u&lic docu$ent. In

rivate res ondents Veneracion had 9nowledge

of facts which would ut the$ on in:uir% as to the nature of etitioners occu anc%

June B, (!?!, a

two %ears after

rivate res ondents Veneracion filed a notice of ellate doc9et fee. He

eal with the 82C on 8arch ), (!?@ without a%ing the a

avers that the trial courts denial of his $otion is contrar% to this Courts ruling in the cases of Re u&lic v. Director of 3ands, and Aranas v. Endona in which it was held that where the a ellate doc9et fee is not aid in full within the regle$entar% eala&le as the a%$ent of eriod, the decision of the 82C &eco$es final and not a

doc9et fee is not onl% a $andator% &ut also a "urisdictional re:uire$ent. 7etitioners contention has no $erit. 2he case of Re u&lic v. Director of 3ands deals with the re:uire$ent for a eals fro$ the Courts of 'irst Instance, the Social eals. Securit% Co$$ission, and the Court of Agrarian Relations to the Court of A

2he case of Aranas v. Endona, on the other hand, was decided under the (!BG Rules of Court and rior to the enact$ent of the Judiciar% Reorgani5ation Act of (!?( <0.7. 0lg. (D!> and the issuance of its Interi$ Rules and Auidelines &% this Court on Januar% ((, (!?). Hence, these cases are not a =n the other hand, in Santos v. Court of A a a eal fee is re:uired to &e aid in case of an a court to the regional trial court, it is not a lica&le to the $atter at issue. eals, it was held that although an eal ta9en fro$ the $unici al trial erfection of an rere:uisite for the

eal under UD+ and UD)IGGJ of the Interi$ Rules and Auidelines issued &% this Fnder these sections, there are onl% two re:uire$ents for the eal, to witE <a> the filing of a notice of a eal within the eal &% an% art%.

Court on Januar% ((, (!?) i$ le$enting the Judiciar% Reorgani5ation Act of (!?( <0.7. 0lg. (D!>. regle$entar% Even in the erfection of an a

eriod6 and <&> the e# iration of the last da% to a rocedure for a ellate doc9et fees.

eal to the regional trial courts, nothing is $entioned

a&out the a%$ent of a

Indeed, this Court has ruled that, in a &eing discretionar% on the

ealed cases, the failure to a% the a ellate court. 2hus,

ellate

doc9et fee does not auto$aticall% result in the dis$issal of the a art of the a Veneracions failure to a% the a

eal, the dis$issal rivate res ondents eal.

ellate doc9et fee is not fatal to their a

).7etitioner contends that the resolution of the Court of A state the legal &asis thereof. 2his contention is li9ewise without $erit. Art. VIII, Sec. (G of the Constitution rovides that ,1o

eals den%ing his $otion

for reconsideration was rendered in violation of the Constitution &ecause it does not

etition for review or $otion

for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall &e refused due course or denied without stating the &asis therefor.- 2his re:uire$ent was full% co$ lied with when the Court of A eals, in den%ing reconsideration of its decision, stated in its etitioner had not resolution that it found no reason to change its ruling &ecause

raised

an%thing

new.

2hus,

its

resolution

den%ing

etitioners

$otion

for

reconsideration statesE 'or resolution is the 8otion for Reconsideration of =ur Decision filed &% the etitioners. Evidentl%, the $otion oses nothing new. 2he oints and argu$ents raised &% the

$ovants have &een considered and

assed u on in the Decision sought to &e

reconsidered. 2hus, .e find no reason to distur& the sa$e. .HERE'=RE, the $otion is here&% DE1IED.

TITLE: MACEDA VS. VAS%UEZ CITATION: ""1 SCRA $6$ DATE: APRIL "", 1993

ACTS: Res ondent 1a oleon A&iera of 7A= filed a co$ laint &efore the =ffice of the =$&uds$an against A&iera alleged that etitioner R2C Judge 0onifacio San5 8aceda. Res ondent etitioner 8aceda has falsified his certificate of service &%

certif%ing that all civil and cri$inal cases which have &een su&$itted for decision for a eriod of !+ da%s have &een deter$ined and decided on or &efore Januar% )(,

(!?!, when in truth and in fact,

etitioner 8aceda 9new that no decision had &een

rendered in * civil and (+ cri$inal cases that have &eensu&$itted for decision. Res ondent A&iera alleged that etitioner 8aceda falsified his certificates of service for (@ $onths.

ISSUE: .hether or not the investigation $ade &% the =$&uds$an constitutes an encroach$ent into the SCs constitutional dut% of su ervision over all inferior courts/

THE COURT!S RULING: A "udge who falsifies his certificate of service is ad$inistrativel% lia&le to the SC for serious $isconduct and under Sec. (, Rule (G+ of the Rules of Court, and cri$inall% lia&le to the State under the Revised 7enal Code for his felonious act. In the a&sence of an% ad$inistrative action ta9en against hi$ &% the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation &eing conducted &% the =$&uds$an encroaches into the Courts ower of ad$inistrative su ervision over all courts and its ersonnel, in violation of the doctrine of se aration of owers. Art. VIII, Sec. B of the Constitution e#clusivel% vests in the SC ad$inistrative su ervision over all courts and court ersonnel, fro$ the 7residing Justice of the CA ower, it is onl% the down to the lowest $unici al trial court cler9. 0% virtue of this ta9e the thereof.

SC that can oversee the "udges and court ersonnels co$ liance with all laws, and ro er ad$inistrative action against the$ if the% co$$it an% violation 1o other &ranch of govern$ent $a% intrude into this ower,

without running afoul of the doctrine of se aration of owers.

.here a cri$inal co$ laint against a "udge or other court e$ lo%ee arises fro$ their ad$inistrative duties, the =$&uds$an $ust defer action on said co$ laint and refer the sa$e to the SC for deter$ination whether said "udge or court e$ lo%ee had acted within the sco e of their ad$inistrative duties.

TITLE: NOBLE AS VS. TEEHANKEE CITATION: "3 SCRA $&5 DATE: APRIL "9, 196#

ACTS: 1o&le"as was the co$$issioner of land registration. Fnder RA ((*(, he is entitled to the sa$e co$ ensation, e$olu$ents, and rivileges as those of a Judge of C'I. He a roved a su&division lan covering certain areas that are in e#cess of those covered &% the title.

2he Secretar% of Justice, 2eehan9ee, sent a letter to 1o&le"as, re:uiring hi$ to e# lain. 1o&le"as answered, arguing that since he has a ran9 e:uivalent to that of a Judge, he could onl% &e sus ended and investigated in the sa$e $anner as an ordinar% Judge, under the Judiciar% Act. He clai$s that he $a% &e investigated onl% &% the Su re$e Court.

1evertheless, he was sus ended &% the E#ecutive Secretar% <ES>. 1o&le"as filed this case clai$ing the lac9 of "urisdiction of the ES and his a&use of discretion.

ISSUE: .hether the Co$$issioner of 3and Registration $a% onl% &e investigated &% the Su re$e Court <in view of his having a ran9 e:uivalent to a "udge>/

THE COURT!S RULING: If the law had reall% intended to include the general grant of ,ran9 and rivileges

e:uivalent to Judges-, the right to &e investigated and &e sus ended or re$oved onl% &% the Su re$e Court, then such grant of rivileges would &e unconstitutional, since it would violate the doctrine of se aration of owers because it would char#e the Supreme Court with an administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials, simultaneously reducin# pro tanto, the control of the Chief .xecutive over such officials' 2here is no inherent "udicial duties. 2he "udiciar% cannot give decisions which are $erel% advisor%, nor can it e#ercise or artici ate in the e#ercise of functions which are essentiall% legislative or ad$inistrative. 2he Su re$e Court and its $e$&ers should not and cannot &e re:uired to e#ercise an% ower or to erfor$ an% trust or to assu$e an% dut% not ertaining to or connected with the ad$inistration of "udicial functions. As such, RA ((*( while conferring the sa$e rivileges as those of a "udge, did not ower in the E#ecutive or 3egislative to charge the Judiciar%

with ad$inistrative functions e#ce t when reasona&le incidental to the fulfill$ent of

include and was not intended to include, the right to de$and investigation &% the Su re$e Court, and to &e sus ended or re$oved onl% u on the Courts reco$$endation. Said rights would &e violative of the Constitution.

2he sus ension of 1o&le"as &% the E#ecutive Secretar% valid. Also, the resolution of the consult a &% a Register of Deeds is 1=2 a "udicial function, &ut an ad$inistrative rocess. It is conclusive and &inding onl% u on the eala&le, Register of Deeds, 1=2 the arties the$selves. Even if the resolution is a resolution of the consult are a $ini$al functions.

it does not auto$aticall% $ean that the% are "udicial in character. Still, the ortion of the ad$inistrative or e#ecutive

TITLE: MANILA ELECTRIC CO. VS. PASAY TRANS. CITATION: 5% PHIL 6&& DATE: 193"

ACTS: 2he reli$inar% and &asic :uestion resented &% the etition of the 8anila Electric

Co$ an%, re:uesting the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators, to fi# the ter$s u on which certain trans ortation co$ anies shall &e er$itted to use the 7asig &ridge of the 8anila Electric Co$ an% and the co$ ensation to &e aid to the 8anila Electric Co$ an% &% such trans ortation co$ anies, relates to the validit% of section (( of Act 1o. (GGB and to the legal right of the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators, to act on the etition. Act 1o. (GGB a&ove referred to is entitled. MAn Act granting a franchise to Charles 8. Swift to construct, $aintain, and o erate an electric railwa%, and to construct, $aintain, and o erate an electric light, heat, and ower s%ste$ fro$ a oint in the Cit% of 8anila in an easterl% direction to the osition was entered to the etition &% a town of 7asig, in the 7rovince of Ri5al.M = nu$&er of u&lic utilit% o erators.

ISSUE: .hether or not SEC. (( of AC2 1o. (GGB is valid/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he law calls for ar&itration which re resents a $ethod of the artiesN own choice. A su&$ission to ar&itration is a contract. 2he arties to an ar&itration agree$ent $a% not oust the courts of "urisdiction of the $atters su&$itted to ar&itration. 2hese are fa$iliar rules which find su .e can also for such ort in articles (?D+ and (?D( of the Civil Code. rivate contract for su&$ission to arties to a articular franchise.

erceive a distinction &etween a

ar&itration and agree$ents to ar&itrate falling within the ter$s of a statute enacted ur ose and affecting others than the Here, however, whatever else $a% &e said in e#tenuation, it re$ains true that the decision of the &oard of ar&itrators is $ade final, which if literall% enforced would leave a u&lic utilit%, not a art% to the contract authori5ed &% Act 1o. (GGB, without recourse to the courts for a "udicial deter$ination of the :uestion in dis ute. .e run counter to this dile$$a. Either the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators, e#ercise "udicial functions, or the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as &oard of ar&itrators, e#ercise ad$inistrative or :uasi "udicial functions. 2he first case would a ear not to fall within the "urisdiction resu ose the granted the Su re$e Court. Even conceding that it does, it would

right to &ring the $atter in dis ute &efore the courts, for an% other construction

would tend to oust the courts of "urisdiction and render the award a nullit%. 0ut if this &e the ro er construction, we would then have the ano$al% of a decision &% the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators, ta9en therefro$ to the courts and eventuall% co$ing &efore the Su re$e Court, where the Su re$e Court would review the decision of its $e$&ers acting as ar&itrators. ta2he resent etition also furnishes an a t illustration of another ano$al%, for we find the Su re$e Court as a court as9ed to deter$ine if the $e$&ers of the court $a% &e constituted a &oard of ar&itrators, which is not a court at all. 2he Su re$e Court of the 7hili ine Islands re resents one of the three divisions of ower and "udicial ower onl% which is

ower in our govern$ent. It is "udicial

e#ercised &% the Su re$e Court. Just as the Su re$e Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usur ations &% an% other de art$ent of the govern$ent, so should it as strictl% confine its own s here of influence to the owers e# ressl% or &% i$ lication conferred on it &% the =rganic Act. 2he Su re$e Court and its $e$&ers should not and cannot &e re:uired to e#ercise an% ower or to erfor$ an% trust or to assu$e an% dut% not ertaining to or connected with the ad$inistering of "udicial functions. 2he =rganic Act rovides that the Su re$e Court of the 7hili ine Islands shall

ossess and e#ercise "urisdiction as heretofore "urisdiction as shall hereafter &e

rovided and such additional

rescri&ed &% law <sec. DB>. .hen the =rganic Act

s ea9s of the e#ercise of M"urisdictionM &% the Su re$e Court, it could not onl% $ean the e#ercise of M"urisdictionM &% the Su re$e Court acting as a court, and could hardl% $ean the e#ercise of M"urisdictionM &% the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators. 2here is an i$ ortant distinction &etween the Su re$e Court as an entit% and the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court. A &oard of ar&itrators is not a McourtM in an% ro er sense of the ter$, and ossesses none of the "urisdiction which the =rganic Act conte$ lates shall &e e#ercised &% the Su re$e Court.law h aw Confir$ing the decision to the &asic :uestion at issue, the Su re$e Court holds that section (( of Act 1o. (GGB contravenes the $a#i$s which guide the o eration of a de$ocratic govern$ent constitutionall% esta&lished, and that it would &e i$ ro er and illegal for the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court, sitting as a &oard of ar&itrators, the decision of a $a"orit% of who$ shall &e final, to act on the etition of the 8anila Electric Co$ an%. As a result, the $e$&ers of the Su re$e Court decline to roceed further in the $atter.

TITLE: DE LLANA VS. ALBA CITATION: 11" SCRA "9 DATE: M'/(- 1", 19#"

ACTS: In (!?(, 07 (D!, entitled ,An Act Reorgani5ing the Judiciar%, A ro riating 'unds

therefore and for =ther 7ur oses-, was assed. De la 3lana was assailing its validit% &ecause, first of all, he would &e one of the "udges that would &e re$oved &ecause of the reorgani5ation and second, he said such law would contravene the constitutional rovision which rovides the securit% of tenure of "udges of the courts, He averred that onl% the SC can re$ove "udges 1=2 Congress.

ISSUE: .hether or not Judge De 3a 3lana can &e validl% re$oved &% the legislature &% such statute <07 (D!>/

THE COURT!S RULING: 2he SC ruled the following wa%E ,8oreover, this Court is e$ owered ,to disci line "udges of inferior courts and, &% a vote of at least eight $e$&ers, order their dis$issal.- 2hus it ossesses the co$ etence to re$ove "udges. Fnder the Judiciar% Act, it was the 7resident who was vested with such ower. Re$oval is, of course, to &e distinguished fro$ ter$ination &% virtue of the a&olition of the office. 2here can &e no tenure to a non4e#istent office. After the a&olition, there is in law no occu ant. In case of re$oval, there is an office with an occu ant who would there&% lose his osition. It is in that sense that fro$ the stand oint of strict law, the :uestion of an% i$ air$ent of securit% of tenure does not arise. 1onetheless, for the incu$&ents of inferior courts a&olished, the effect is one of se aration. As to its effect, no distinction e#ists &etween re$oval and the a&olition of the office. Realisticall%, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to &e a $e$&er of the "udiciar%. In the i$ le$entation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would &e in accordance with acce ted rinci les of constitutional construction that as far as incu$&ent "ustices and "udges are concerned, this Court &e consulted and that its view &e accorded the fullest consideration.

1o fear need &e entertained that there is a failure to accord res ect to the &asic rinci le that this Court does not render advisor% o inions. 1o :uestion of law is involved. If such were the case, certainl% this Court could not have its sa% onl% &% wa% of deciding a case where the $atter has &een ut in issue. 1either is there an% intrusion into who shall &e a it ointed to the vacant ositions created &% the reorgani5ation. 2hat re$ains in the hands of the E#ecutive to who$ ro erl% &elongs. 2here is no de arture therefore fro$ the tried and tested wa%s reclude an% lausi&ilit% to the charge that in the e#ercise of the conceded ower of re$oval of the resent of "udicial ower. Rather what is sought to &e achieved &% this li&eral inter retation is to ower of reorgani5ing the inferior courts, the rior to the action ta9en &% either of the two de art$ents. Even then, it could do so &ut

incu$&ents vested in this 2ri&unal is ignored or disregarded. 2he challenged Act would thus &e free fro$ an% unconstitutional taint, even one not readil% discerni&le e#ce t to those redis osed to view it with distrust. 8oreover, such a construction rinci le that in the choice of alternatives would &e in accordance with the &asic for$er is to &e referred.-

&etween one which would save and another which would invalidate a statute, the

TITLE: YNOT VS. IAC CITATION: DATE: MARCH "&, 19#% ACTS: 2he etitioner had trans orted si# cara&aos in a u$ &oat fro$ 8as&ate to Iloilo olice station co$$ander rovides 1$# SCRA 659

on Januar% (), (!?G, when the% were confiscated &% the

of 0arotac 1uevo, Iloilo, for violation of E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB4A which

that ,the cara&ao or cara&eef trans orted in violation of this E#ecutive =rder as a$ended shall &e su&"ect to confiscation and forfeiture &% the govern$ent, to &e distri&uted to charita&le institutions and other si$ilar institutions as the Chair$an of the 1ational 8eat Ins ection Co$$ission $a% a% see fit, in the case of cara&eef, and to deserving far$ers through dis ersal as the Director of Ani$al Industr% $a% see fit, in the case of cara&aos-. 2he etitioner sued for recover%, and the Regional 2rial Court of Iloilo Cit% issued a

writ of re levin u on his filing of a su ersedes &ond of 7(D,+++.++. After considering the $erits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the cara&aos and, since the% could no longer &e roduced, ordered the confiscation of the &ond. 2he court also declined to rule on the constitutionalit% of the e#ecutive order, as raise &% the etitioner, for lac9 of authorit% and also for its resu$ed validit%. 2he etitioner a ealed the decision to the Inter$ediate A ellate Court,) which etition for review on

u held the trial court, and he has now co$e &efore us in this certiorari. ISSUES:

.hether or not e#ecutive order no. BDB4A is unconstitutional due $isa

lication of

olice ower, violation of due rocess, and undue delegation of legislative ower/ THE COURT!S RULING:

2he

rotection of the general welfare is the

articular function of the rocess. 2he olice

olice

ower

which &oth restraints and is restrained &% due defined as the ro$otion of the general welfare. It is this

ower is si$ l% ro ert% for the

ower inherent in the State to regulate li&ert% and

ower that is now invo9ed &% the

govern$ent to "ustif% E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB4A, a$ending the &asic rule in E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB, rohi&iting the slaughter of cara&aos e#ce t under certain conditions. 2o "ustif% the State in thus inter osing its authorit% in &ehalf of the u&lic, it $ust a ear, first, that the interests of the u&lic generall%, as distinguished fro$ those of a ur ose, and not undul% o articular class, re:uire such interference6 and

second, that the $eans are reasona&l% necessar% for the acco$ lish$ent of the ressive u on individuals.

In the light of the tests $entioned, we hold with the 2ori&io Case that there is no dou&t that &% &anning the slaughter of these ani$als e#ce t where the% are at least seven %ears old if $ale and eleven %ears old if fe$ale u on issuance of the necessar% er$it, the e#ecutive order will &e conserving those still fit for far$ wor9 or &reeding and reventing their i$ rovident de letion. 0ut while conceding that the a$endator% $easure has the sa$e lawful su&"ect as the original e#ecutive order, we cannot sa% with e:ual certaint% that it co$ lies with the second re:uire$ent, vi5., that there &e a lawful $ethod. .e note that to strengthen the original $easure, E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB4A i$ oses an a&solute &an not on the slaughter of the cara&aos &ut on their $ove$ent, roviding that Mno cara&ao regardless of age, se#, shall &e trans orted fro$ one h%sical condition or ur ose <sic> and no cara&eef rohi&ition rovince to another.M 2he o&"ect of the

esca es us. 2he reasona&le connection &etween the $eans e$ lo%ed and the ur ose sought to &e achieved &% the :uestioned $easure is $issing. .e do not see how the rohi&ition of the inter4 rovincial trans ort of cara&aos can rovince than in another. =&viousl%, revent their slaughter there, an% l% to it as otherwise, so sa%s ur ose of reventing their

revent their indiscri$inate slaughter, considering that the% can &e 9illed an%where, with no less difficult% in one retaining the cara&aos in one As for the cara&eef, the $ore than $oving the$ to another rovince will not

rovince will $a9e it easier to 9ill the$ there.

rohi&ition is $ade to a

e#ecutive order, it could &e easil% circu$vented &% si$ l% 9illing the ani$al. However, if the $ove$ent of the live ani$als for the slaughter cannot &e rohi&it their transfer as, not to &e fli ant dead $eat. rohi&ited, it should follow that there is no reason either to

Even if a reasona&le relation &etween the $eans and the end were to &e assu$ed, we would still have to rec9on with the sanction that the $easure a lies for

violation of the the

rohi&ition. 2he

enalt% is outright confiscation of the cara&ao or enalt%

cara&eef &eing trans orted, to &e $eted out &% the e#ecutive authorities, usuall% olice onl%. In the 2ori&io Case, the statute was sustained &ecause the rescri&ed was fine and i$ rison$ent, to &e i$ osed &% the court after trial and conviction of the accused. Fnder the challenged $easure, significantl%, no such trial is rescri&ed, and the ro ert% &eing trans orted is i$$ediatel% i$ ounded &% the olice and declared, &% the $easure itself, as forfeited to the govern$ent. 2his $easure de rives the individual due rocess as granted &% the Constitution. 2he due rocess clause was 9e t intentionall% vague so it would re$ain also

convenientl% resilient. 2his was felt necessar% &ecause due rocess is not, li9e so$e rovisions of the funda$ental law, an Miron ruleM la%ing down an i$ laca&le and i$$uta&le co$$and for all seasons and all ersons. 'le#i&ilit% $ust &e the &est rocess clause was $eant to rotection as virtue of the guarant%. 2he ver% elasticit% of the due the changing ti$es and circu$stances $a% re:uire. Aware of this, the courts have also hesitated to ado t their own s ecific descri tion of due rocess lest the% confine the$selves in a legal strait"ac9et that will de rive the$ of the el&ow roo$ the% $a% need to var% the $eaning of the clause whenever indicated. 2he $ini$u$ re:uire$ents of due rocess are notice and hearing which, generall% s ea9ing, $a% not &e dis ensed with &ecause the% are intended as a safeguard against official ar&itrariness. It is a gratif%ing co$$entar% on our "udicial s%ste$ that the "uris rudence of this countr% is rich with a guarant% as la%. It has alread% &een re$ar9ed that there are occasions when notice and hearing $a% &e validl% dis ensed with notwithstanding the usual re:uire$ent for these $ini$u$ guarantees of due rocess. It is also conceded that su$$ar% action $a% roceedings as rocedural due rocess is not &e validl% ta9en in ad$inistrative lications of this roof of our fealt% to the rule of law and the ancient rudi$ents of fair

$a9e it ada t easil% to ever% situation, enlarging or constricting its

necessaril% "udicial onl%. In the e#ce tional cases acce ted, however if there is a "ustification for the o$ission of the right to a i$$ediac% of the correct it. In the case &efore us, there was no such etitionerNs offense ere$ tor% treat$ent. 2he ressure of ti$e or action calling for the ro erties involved were not even ini$ical roved first in a revious hearing, to wit, the ro&le$ sought to &e corrected and the urgenc% of the need to

er se as to re:uire their instant destruction. 2here certainl% was no reason wh% the rohi&ited &% the e#ecutive order should not have &een court of "ustice, with the accused &eing accorded all the rights safeguarded to hi$ under the Constitution. Considering that, as we held in 7esigan v. Angeles, D(

E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB4A is enal in nature, the violation thereof should have &een ronounced not &% the olice onl% &ut &% a court of "ustice, which alone would have had the authorit% to i$ ose the conviction of the accused. 2o su$ u olice then, we find that the challenged $easure is an invalid e#ercise of the ur ose of the law and, worse, is undul% o ressive. rescri&ed enalt%, and onl% after trial and

ower &ecause the $ethod e$ lo%ed to conserve the cara&aos is not

reasona&l% necessar% to the

Due rocess is violated &ecause the owner of the ro ert% confiscated is denied the right to &e heard in his defense and is i$$ediatel% conde$ned and confer$ent on the ad$inistrative authorities of the the su against the doctrine of se aration of delegation of legislative unished. 2he ower to ad"udge the guilt of

osed offender is a clear encroach$ent on "udicial functions and $ilitates owers. 2here is, finall%, also an invalid ro erties ar&itraril% ta9en. 'or these owers to the officers $entioned therein who are granted

unli$ited discretion in the distri&ution of the

reasons, we here&% declare E#ecutive =rder 1o. BDB4A unconstitutional.

TITLE: MARCELINO VS. CRUZ CITATION: DATE& Ma'!( )*+ ),*1"1 SCRA 51

ACTS: =n +G Aug (!@*, 8arcelino was convicted for ra e. =n the sa$e date, the attorne%s of &oth arties in the cri$inal case $oved for ti$e within which to su&$it their ro$ulgation of the decision in its res ective $e$oranda. =n the date set for

finalit%, 8arcelinos counsel $oved for ost one$ent. 2he court ignored his $otion.

ISSUE: .hether or not Judge Cru5 had resolved the case within the allotted eriod/

THE COURT!S RULING:

2he date of

ro$ulgation of a decision could not serve as the rec9oning date rovides that ,u on the effectivit% of this constitution, the

&ecause the sa$e necessaril% co$es at a later date. Section (( <(>, Art (+ of the (!?@ Constitution $a#i$u$ eriod within which case or $atter shall &e decided or resolved fro$ the ractice, the Su re$e Court is rovided for &% "udges of

date of its su&$ission shall &e6 (? $onths for the Su re$e Court, (D $onths for the inferior courts and ) $onths for lower courts. In a li&eral when it co$es to this rovision. It had various stands de ending u on ro er lication and for valid or $eritorious reasons which are the lower courts in which e#tension $a% &e given to resolve such cases. AR2. VIII, Section (*. <(> All cases or $atters filed after the effectivit% of this Constitution $ust &e decided or resolved within twent%4four $onths fro$ date of su&$ission for the Su re$e Court, and, unless reduced &% the Su re$e Court, twelve $onths for all lower collegiate courts, and three $onths for all other lower courts. <D> A case or $atter shall &e dee$ed su&$itted for decision or resolution u on the filing of the last leading, &rief, or $e$orandu$ re:uired &% the Rules of Court or &% the court itself. <)> F on the e# iration of the corres onding signed &% the Chief Justice or the eriod, a certification to this effect

residing "udge shall forthwith &e issued and a

co % thereof attached to the record of the case or $atter, and served u on the arties. 2he certification shall state wh% a decision or resolution has not &een rendered or issued within said eriod. <G> Des ite the e# iration of the a lica&le $andator% eriod, the court, without

re"udice to such res onsi&ilit% as $a% have &een incurred in conse:uence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or $atter su&$itted thereto for deter$ination, without further dela%.

AR2. CVIII, Section (D. 2he Su re$e Court shall, within one %ear after the ratification of this Constitution, ado t a s%ste$atic resolution of cases or $atters lan to e# edite the decision or lan shall &e ado ted for all ending in the Su re$e Court or the lower courts

rior to the effectivit% of this Constitution. A si$ilar s ecial courts and :uasi4"udicial &odies.

Section (). 2he legal effect of the la se, &efore the ratification of this Constitution, of the a lica&le eriod for the decision or resolution of the cases or $atters su&$itted for ad"udication &% the courts, shall &e deter$ined &% the Su re$e Court as soon as ractica&le.

Section (G. 2he rovisions of aragra hs <)> and <G>, Section (* of Article VIII of this Constitution shall a l% to cases or $atters filed &efore the ratification of this lica&le eriod la ses after such ratification. Constitution, when the a

TITLE: DE ROMA VS. CA CITATION: 15" SCRA "&5 DATE: JULY "3, 19#%

ACTS: Candeleria De Ro$a ado ted two daughters, 0uha% and Rosalinda. She died intestate. .hen ad$inistration ground that certain dis uted. 2he 2C issued an order in favor of 0uha% &ecause when Candelaria donated the ro erties to 0uha% she said in the Deed of Donation ,sa a$a$agitan ng roceedings was ongoing, 0uha% was a ointed ad$inistratri# and filed an inventor% of the estate. = osed &% Rosalinda on the

ro erties donated &% their $other to 0uha% and fruits thereof

had not &een included. 2he 7arcels of 3and totaled 7(+,D!@.*+ and the value is not

ag&i&iga% na din a $a&a&awing $uli- which the 2C inter reted as a

rohi&ition to

collate and &esides the legiti$es of the two daughters were not i$ aired. =n a eal, it was reversed as it $erel% descri&ed the donation as irrevoca&le not an

e# ress rohi&ition to collate.

ISSUE: .hether or not these lands are su&"ect to collation/

THE COURT!S RULING:

2he ertinent Civil Code rovisions areE A/). 1&61. Ever% co$ ulsor% heir, who succeeds with other co$ ulsor% heirs, $ust &ring into the $ass of the estate an% ro ert% or right which he $a% have received fro$ the decedent, during the lifeti$e of the latter, &% wa% of donation, or an% other gratuitous title, in order that it $a% &e co$ uted in the deter$ination of the legiti$e of each heir, and in the account of the artition. <(+)*a>

A/). 1&6". Collation shall not ta9e

lace a$ong co$ ulsor% heirs if the donor

should have so e# ressl% rovided, or if the donee should re udiate the inheritance, unless the donation should &e reduced as inofficious. <(+)B>

2he SC affir$ed the a e#e$ t the donated the 1CC.

ellate courts decision and that it $erel% descri&ed the rovisions of

donation as irrevoca&le. 2he 'act that a donation is irrevoca&le does not necessaril% ro erties fro$ collation as re:uired under the

Aiven the recise language of the deed of donation the decedent donor would have included an e# ress a lied. rohi&ition to collate if that had &een the donors intention. A&sent such indication of that intention, the rule not the e#e$ tion should &e