Abas, Raiza A.

LLB 1B CASE DIGESTS

July 9, 2011

1.Tanada vs. Tuvera

Facts: Due process was invoked by the petitioners because the respondent said that the law becomes effective immediately upon their approval. Issue: Whether or not the right of due process of any individual has been violated. Decision: The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.

2. Consunji vs. CA
Facts: On Nov. 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his death. On May 9, 1991, Jose Juego s widow, filed in the RTC of Pasig a compalint for damages against the deceaseds employer, D.M. Consunji, Inc. The employer raised, among other defenses, the widows prior availment of the benefits from the State Insurance Fund. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the widow Maria Juego, ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff. On appeal by D.M. Consunji, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner (Consunji) is negligent and should be liable. Decision: The decision of the CA is affirmed. The claims for damages sustained by workers in the course of their employment could be filed only under the Workmens Compensation Law, to the exclusion of all further claims under other laws. The CA held that the case at bar came under exception because private resppondent was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund.

3. Brehm v. Republic
Facts: Gilbert Brehm was just a temporary residence of the Republic of the Philippines, same being effective only for he purpose of his tour of duty with the Navy, is married to Ester Mira Brehm who has a daughter, Elizabeth. Issue: Whether or not Brehm can adopt Elizabeth. Decision: Non-resident aliens are not qualified to adopt. Therefore, the petition to adopt by Brehm have been denied by the court considering Article 335 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

4. Ereneta v. Bezore
Facts: Emilio Camon is a lessee of sugar plantation Hacienda Rosario. of the plantation is owned by Petronila Alunan vda. De Santa Romana, Amparo Santa Romana and Alberta vda. De Hapon while the other half is owned by the appellants Bezore et al. Camon died and his widow Conception Ereeta filed a petition for the grant of the letters of administration of the estate of his husband. Bezore at al. filed a claim against the estate of Camon amounting to P64,165 for sugar allotments, palay, allowances and rental. Release and waiver of claims Romana et al. released Camon from all the claims that may have accrued pertaining to the 2/4 pro indiviso share in Hacienda Rosario. Issue: Whether or not the appellants have the right to claim over the estate of Camon. Decision: Appellants dont have the right to claim over the estate of Camon because of the waiver of claims made by Romana et al, who are the now owner of hacienda Rosario. The waiver is invalid, for it to be essential that a right in order to be validly waived must be in existence at the time of the waiver.

6. Quimsing v. Lachica
Facts: Owner and manager of a duly licensed cockpit, Joachin Quimsing, where the said cockpit was raided on a Thursday. By members of a City police force led by Capt. Alfredo Lachica upon the ground that it was being illegally operated by ordinances of the City of Iloilo filed a petition. Issue: Whether or not repeals by implication are favored. Decision: Repeals and even amendments by implication are not favored, whereas an affirmative answer would entail a vital amendment, amounting, for all practical purposes, to a repeal, of sections 2285 and 2286 of the Revised Administrative Code. Doubts in the interpretation thereof should be resolved in favor of the national government against the political subdivisions concerned.

7. People v. Licera
Facts: The accused was convicted of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and sanctioned for five years imprisonment. He claimed that he was a secret agent of a local authority when he was caught. Issue: Whether or not he is not liable for the said crime and to be sentenced for imprisonment considering the rule applied to the case at the bar in Macarandang or that in Mapa. Decision: Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution form that of the jurisdictions legal system.

8. Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation

Facts: Floresca et al are the heirs of the deceased employees of Philex Mining Corporation, who, while working at its copper mines underground operations at Tuba, Benguet on June 28, 1967, died as a result of the cave-in that buried them in the tunnels of the mine. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Philex, in violation of government rules and regulations, negligently and deliberately failed to take the required precautions for the protection of the lives of its men working underground. Floresca et al moved to claim their benefits pursuant to the Workmens Compensation Act before the Workmens Compensation Commission. Philex invoked that they can no longer be sued because the petitioners have already claimed benefits under the WCA. Issue: Whether or not Floresca et al can claim benefits and at the same time sue. Decision: Under the law, Floresca et al could only do either one. If they filed for benefits under the WCA then they will be stopped from proceeding with a civil case before the regular courts. Conversely, if they sued before the civil courts then they would also be estopped from claiming benefits under the WCA. The SC however ruled that Floresca et al are excused from this deficiency due to ignorance of the fact. Had they been aware of such then they may have not availed of such a remedy. However, if in case theyll win in the lower court whatever award may be granted, the amount given to them under the WCA should be deducted. The SC emphasized that if they would go strictly by the book in this case then the purpose of the law may be defeated. Idolatrous reverence for the letter of the law sacrifices the human being. The spirit of the law insures mans survival and ennobles him.

10. National Marketing Corporation v. Teczon

Facts: December 21, 1965, National Marketing Corporation filed a complaint, as successor of the Price Stabilization Corporation, against the same defendant from10 years ago. Defendant Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss the said complaint upon the ground lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of that and prescription of action. The court, then, 3

issued an order of dismissal with regards the article 13 of the civil code. However, National Marketing Corporationappealed to the court of appeals from such order. Looking at the fact that 1960 and 1964 is a leap year, they insisted that a yearmeans a calendar year and a leap year would still be counted as 1 year even if it consists of 366 days. The case reached its conclusion with the appellants theory with regards to the article 13 of the civil code. Issues: Whether or not the term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days. Decision: The term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days. However, it is said to be unrealistic and if public interest demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the revised administrative code, this may be done through legislative process and not by judicial decree.

11. Tenchavez v. Escano

Facts: Pastor Tenchavez married Vicenta Escano on Feb. 24, 1948, in Cebu City. As of June 1948, the newly-weds were already estranged. On 6/24/50, Escano left for the US. On 8/22/50, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff. In the State of Nevada on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." On 10/21050, a decree of divorce was issued by the Nevada Court. On 9/13/54, Escano married an American Russel Leo Moran IN Nevada. She now lives w/ him in California and by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8/8/58. On 7/30/55, Tenchavez filed a complaint for legal separation and damages against VE and her parents in the CFI-Cebu. Issue: Whether or not the divorce would be recognized.

Decision: At the time the divorce decree was issued, VE like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law u nder Art. 15, NCC. Philippine law, under the NCC then now in force, does not admit absolute divorce but only provides for legal separation. For Phil. courts to recognize foreign divorce decrees bet. Filipino citizens would be a patent violation of the declared policy of the State, especially in view of the 3rd par. of Art. 17, NCC. Moreover, recognition would give rise to scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens to the detriment of those members of our society whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorce outside the Phils. Therefore, a foreign divorce bet. Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the NCC, is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction.