1. SANTIAGO VS.

BAUTISTA
32 SCRA 188 (2970)
FACTS:
Teodoro Santiago was a Grade 6 pupil at Sero Elem. School. He was adjudged
3
rd
Honors (3
rd
placer). 3 days e!ore graduation" Teodoro and his parents sought the
in#alidation o! the ran$ing o! honor students. They !iled a %E&T'(&)&' case against
the principal and teachers who composed the committee on rating honors.
They contend that the committee acted with gra#e ause o! o!!icial discretion
ecause they claim that:
o The *
st
and +
nd
placers had ne#er een a close ri#al o! Santiago e!ore"
e,cept in Grade - only.
o That Santiago was a consistent honor student !rom Grade * to -
o that the *
st
placer was coached and tutored y grade 6 teachers during the
summer (gaining un!air ad#antage)
o The committee was composed only o! Grade 6 teachers.
o That some teachers ga#e Santos a .-/ with an intention to pull him to a
much lower ran$
o That in the Honors %erti!icate in Grade *" the word 0!irst place1 was erased
and replaced with 0second place1
o That the 2rincipal and district super#isors merely passed the uc$ to each
other to delay his grie#ances.
The respondents !iled a 3T4 claiming that the action was improper" and that
e#en assuming it was proper" the 5uestion has ecome academic (ecause the
graduation already proceeded).
&espondents also argue that there was no G)4)6E7 on the part o! the teachers
since the %ommittee on &atings is not a triunal" nor oard" e,ercising judicial
!unctions. (under &ule 6-" certiorari is a remedy against judicial !unctions)
ISSUE:
3ay judicial !unction e e,ercised in this case8 9hat is judicial power8
HELD:
) judicial !unction is an act per!ormed y #irtue o! judicial powers. The e,ercise
o! judicial !unction is the doing o! something in the nature o! the action o! the court. 'n
order !or an action !or certiorari to e,ist"
(TEST T( 4ETE&3':E 9HETHE& ) T&';<:)6 (& ;()&4 E=E&%'SES 7<4'%')6
><:%T'(:S)
*) There must e speci!ic contro#ersy in#ol#ing rights o! persons rought e!ore a
triunal !or hearing and determination. " and
+) That the triunal must ha#e the power and authority to pronounce judgment and
render a decision.
3) The triunal must pertain to that ranch o! the so#ereign which elongs to the
judiciary (or at least the not the legislati#e nor the e,ecuti#e)
't maye said that the e,ercise o! judicial !unction is to determine what the law is"
and what the legal rights o! parties are" with respect to a matter in contro#ersy.
The phrase judicial power is de!ined:
)s authority to determine the rights o! persons or property.
)uthority #ested in some court" o!!icer or persons to hear and determine when
the rights o! persons or property or the propriety o! doing an act is the suject
matter o! adjudication.
The power e,ercised y courts in hearing and determining cases e!ore them.
The construction o! laws and the adjudication o! legal rights.
The so?called %ommittee !or &ating Honor Students is neither judicial nor 5uasi?
judicial odies in the per!ormance o! its assigned tas$. 't is necessary that there e a
6)9 that gi#es rise to some speci!ic rights o! persons or property under which ad#erse
claims to such rights are made" and the contro#ersy ensuring there!rom is rought in
turn" to the triunal or oard clothed with power and authority to determine what that law
is and thereupon adjudicate the respecti#e rights o! contending parties.
There is nothing aout any rule o! law that pro#ides !or when teachers sit down to
assess indi#idual merits o! their pupils !or purposes o! rating them !or honors. 9orse
still" the petitioners ha#e not presented the pertinent pro#isions o! the Ser#ice 3anual
!or Teachers which was allegedly #iolated y the %ommittee.
The judiciary has no power to re#erse the award o! the oard o! judges. )nd !or that
matter" it would not inter!ere in literary contests" eauty contests" and similar
competitions.
2. NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE
23 SCRA 40
FACTS:
:olejas was the commissioner o! land registration. <nder &) **-*" he is entitled to
the same compensation" emoluments" and pri#ileges as those o! a 7udge o! %>'. He
appro#ed a sudi#ision plan co#ering certain areas that are in e,cess o! those co#ered
y the title.
The Secretary o! 7ustice" Teehan$ee" sent a letter to :olejas" re5uiring him to
e,plain. :olejas answered" arguing that since he has a ran$ e5ui#alent to that o! a
7udge" he could only e suspended and in#estigated in the same manner as an
ordinary 7udge" under the 7udiciary )ct. He claims that he may e in#estigated only y
the Supreme %ourt
:e#ertheless" he was suspended y the E,ecuti#e Secretary (ES)
:olejas !iled this case claiming the lac$ o! jurisdiction o! the ES and his ause o!
discretion.
ISSUE!
9hether the %ommissioner o! 6and &egistration may only e in#estigated y the
Supreme %ourt (in #iew o! his ha#ing a ran$ e5ui#alent to a judge)8
HELD!
:(.'! the law had really intended to include the general grant o! 0ran$ and
pri#ileges e5ui#alent to 7udges1" the right to e in#estigated and e suspended or
remo#ed only y the Supreme %ourt" then such grant o! pri#ileges would e
unconstitutional" since it would #iolate the doctrine o! separation o! powers ecause it
would charge the Supreme %ourt with an administrati#e !unction o! super#isory control
o#er e,ecuti#e o!!icials" simultaneously reducing pro tanto" the control o! the %hie!
E,ecuti#e o#er such o!!icials.
There is no inherent power in the E,ecuti#e or 6egislati#e to charge the 7udiciary
with administrati#e !unctions e,cept when reasonale incidental to the !ul!illment o!
judicial duties.
The judiciary cannot gi#e decisions which are merely ad#isory" nor can it
e,ercise or participate in the e,ercise o! !unctions which are essentially legislati#e or
administrati#e. The Supreme %ourt and its memers should not and cannot e re5uired
to e,ercise any power or to per!orm any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administration o! judicial !unctions.
)s such" &) **-* while con!erring the same pri#ileges as those o! a judge" did
not include and was not intended to include" the right to demand in#estigation y the
Supreme %ourt" and to e suspended or remo#ed only upon the %ourt@s
recommendation. Said rights would e #iolati#e o! the %onstitution.
The suspension o! :olejas y the ES #alid.
)lso" the resolution o! the consulta y a &egister o! 4eeds is :(T a judicial
!unction" ut an administrati#e process. 't is conclusi#e and inding only upon the
&egister o! 4eeds" :(T the parties themsel#es. E#en i! the resolution is appealale" it
does not automatically mean that they are judicial in character. Still" the resolution o! the
consultas are ut a minimal portion o! the administrati#e or e,ecuti#e !unctions.
3. "ANILA ELECTRIC CO"#AN$ %&. #ASA$ TRANS#ORTATION CO"#AN$
7 #'(). *00 (1932)
FACTS!
The case at ar relates with a petition o! the 3anila Electric %ompany (3E%" pet)"
re5uesting the memers o! the S%" sitting as a oard o! aritrators" to !i, the terms upon
which certain transportation companies shall e permitted to use the 2asig ridge o! the
3E% and the compensation to e paid to the 3E% y such transportation companies.
)ct :(. *AA6" Section **
&elates with the legal act o! the memers o! the S%" sitting as a oard o! aritrators"
to act on the petition.
ISSUE!
%oncerns the legal right o! the memers o! the S%" sitting as a oard o! aritrators
the decision o! a majority o! whom shall e !inal" to act in that capacity.
HELD!
)ct *AA6" Section ** contra#enes the ma,ims which guide the operation o! a
democratic go#ernment constitutionally estalished" and that it would e improper and
illegal !or the memers o! the S%" sitting as a oard or aritrators" the decision o! a
majority o! whom shall e !inal" to act on the petition o! the 3E%.
The decisions o! the ;oard o! )ritration shall go through the regular court system
(Trial %ourts B %ourt o! )ppeals B S%). They will e re#iewed y the lower courts and
will ultimately e re#iewed y themsel#es. The S% cannot sit as memers o! the ;oard
o! )ritration ecause it is not within their jurisdiction to decided on cases on purely
contractual situations
4. DIRECTOR OF #RISONS VS. ANG CHO KIO
33 SCRA 494
FACTS!
)ng was con#icted and was granted conditional pardon. He was ne#er to return
to the 2hilippines. 'n #iolation o! his pardon" he returned. He was recommitted y order
o! the E,ecuti#e Secretary.
He !iled a petition !or haeas corpus. &T% denied. %) also denied it. ;ut the %)
made a recommendation that )ng may e allowed to lea#e the country on the !irst
a#ailale transportation aroad.
The Solgen assailed this %) decision" claiming that the recommendation y the
%) should not e part o! the decision" ecause it gi#es the decision a political
comple,ion" ecause courts are not empowered to ma$e such recommendation" nor is
it inherent or incidental in the e,ercise o! judicial powers. The Solgen contends that
allowing con#icted aliens to lea#e the country is an act o! the state e,ercises solely in
the discretion o! the %hie! E,ecuti#e. 't is urged that the act o! sending an undesirale
alien out o! the country is political in character" and the courts should not inter!ere with"
nor attempt to in!luence" the political acts o! the 2resident.
ISSUE!
9hether the %) decision was proper8 %an it ma$e recommendations8
HELD!
:(.The case in the %) was !or haeas corpus. The only issue there was
whether the &T% correctly denied the petition. The %) was not called upon the re#iew
any sentence imposed upon )ng. The sentence against him had long ecome !inal and
in !act" he was pardoned. The opinion should ha#e een limited to the a!!irmance o! the
decision o! the &T%" and no more.
The recommendatory powers o! the courts are limited to those e,pressly
pro#ided in the law" such as )rt - &2%. (9hen an act is not punishale y law judge
should report it to the e,ecuti#e).
The %) was simply called to determine whether )ng was illegally con!ined or not
under the 4irector o! 2risons (!or #iolating the pardon). 't was improper !or the %)
justices to ma$e a recommendation that would suggest a modi!ication or correction o!
the act o! the 2resident. The matter o! whether an alien who #iolated the law may
remain or e deported is a political 5uestion that should e le!t entirely to the 2resident"
under the principle o! separation o! powers. 't is not within the pro#ince o! the judiciary
to e,press an opinion" or a suggestion that would re!lect on the wisdom or propriety o!
an action y the 2resident" which are purely political in nature.
)!ter all" courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality o! laws" ut only in
the interpretation and application o! the law. 7udges should re!rain !rom e,pressing
irrele#ant opinions in their decisions which may only re!lect un!a#oraly upon the
competence and the propriety o! their judicial actuations.
. I+ ,- LAURETA
148 SCRA 382
FACTS!
3ara#illa'llustre wrote to the justices o! the S%" complaining aout the dismissal
o! the her case (a land dispute in#ol#ing large estate) y a minute?resolution. 'llustre
claims that it was an unjust resolution delierately and $nowingly promulgated y the *
st
4i#ision" that it was railroaded with such hurry eyond the limits o! legal and judicial
ethics.
'llustre also threatened in her letter that" 0there is nothing !inal in this world. This
case is !ar !rom !inished y a long shot.1 She threatened that she would call !or a press
con!erence.
'llustre@s letter asically attac$s the participation o! 7ustice 2edro Cap in the !irst
di#ision. 't was estalished that 7ustice Cap was pre#iously a law partner o! )tty.
(rdoneD" now the Solgen and counsel !or the opponents.
The letters were re!erred to the S% en anc. The S% clari!ied that when the
minute?resolution was issued" the presiding justice then was not 7ustice Cap ut 7ustice
)ad Santos (who was aout to retire)" and that 7ustice Cap was not aware that )tty
(rdoneD was the opponents counsel. 't was also made clear that 7ustice Cap e#entually
inhiited himsel! !rom the case.
Still" 'llustre wrote letters to the other justices (:ar#asa" Herrera" %ruD)" again
with more threats to 0e,pose the $ind o! judicial per!ormance readily constituting
tra#esty o! justice.1
True to her threats" 'llustre later !iled a criminal complaint e!ore the
Tanodayan" charging the 7ustices with $nowingly rendering an unjust 3inute
&esolution. 7ustice Cap and Solgen (rdoneD were also charged o! using their in!luence
in the >irst 4i#ision in rendering said 3inute &esolution.
)tty. 6)<&ET) was the counsel o! 'llustre. He circulate copies o! the complaint
to the press" without any copy !urnished the %ourt" nor the 7ustices charged. 't was
made to appear that the 7ustices were charged with gra!t and corruption.
The Tanodayan dismissed the complaint.
:ow" the S% is charging them with contempt.
They claim that the letters were pri#ate communication" and that they did not
intend to dishonor the court.
HELD!
The letters !ormed part o! the judicial record and are a matter o! concern !or the
entire court.
There is no #indicti#e reprisal in#ol#ed here. The %ourt@s authority and duty under
the premises is unmista$ale. 't must act to preser#e its honor and dignity !rom the
scurrilous attac$s o! an irate lawyer" mouthed y his client" and to sa!eguard the morals
and ethics o! the legal pro!ession.
9e@re not con#inced that )tty6aureta had nothing to do with 'lustre@s letters" nor
with the complaint !iled with the tanodayan. )tty6aureta repeated disparaging remar$s
such as 0undue in!luence1" power!ul in!luence1 in his pleadings. This was olstered y
the report that 6aureta distriuted copies o! the complaint to the newspaper companies
in en#elopes earing his name. He was also heard o#er the radio. 6astly" as 'llustre@s
lawyer" he had control o! the proceedings.
'n short" S% resolutions are eyond in#estigation !rom other departments o! the
go#ernment ecause o! separation o! powers. The correctness o! the S% decisions are
conclusi#e upon other ranches o! go#ernment.
*. "ARCOS %&. "ANGLA#US
177 SCRA **8 (1989)
FACTS:
>erdinand E. 3arcos who was deposed !rom his seat through the E4S) people
power re#olution was !orced into e,ile in *EF6 and %oraDon %. )5uino was declared
2resident o! the &epulic under a re#olutionary go#ernment. 9hen 3arcos was dying"
he wished to return to the country along with his !amily ut 2res. )5uino stood in his
way and contended that 3arcos cannot return to the country considering that his return
would e a threat to the staility o! the go#ernment and the country@s economy.
The 3arcoses assert that their right to return to the country is guaranteed y the
;ill o! &ights o! the *EF. %onstitution and that under international law" the right o!
3arcos and his !amily to return to the 2hilippines is guaranteed y the <ni#ersal
4eclaration o! Human &ights.
ISSUE:
9hether or not" in the e,ercise o! the powers granted y the constitution" the
2resident ()5uino) may prohiit the 3arcoses !rom returning to the 2hilippines.
HELD!
The Supreme %ourt held that the president" as part o! her residual power" can
an the return o! 3arcos and his !amily to the country considering the conse5uences
which could pose a serious threat to national interest and wel!are o! the country. The
<ni#ersal 4eclaration o! Humans &ights and the 'nternational %o#enant on %i#il and
2olitical &ights treat the right to !reedom o! mo#ement and aode within the territory o! a
state" the right to lea#e a country" and the right to enter oneGs country as separate and
distinct rights.
The present %onstitution limits resort to the political 5uestion doctrine and
roadens the scope o! judicial in5uiry into areas which the %ourt" under pre#ious
constitutions" would ha#e normally le!t to the political departments to decide. ;ut
nonetheless there remain issues eyond the %ourtGs jurisdiction the determination o!
which is e,clusi#ely !or the 2resident" !or %ongress or !or the people themsel#es
through a pleiscite or re!erendum. 9e cannot" !or e,ample" 5uestion the 2residentGs
recognition o! a !oreign go#ernment" no matter how premature or impro#ident such
action may appear. 9e cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to
us that the ene!iciary is totally undeser#ing o! the grant. :or can we amend the
%onstitution under the guise o! resol#ing a dispute rought e!ore us ecause the
power is reser#ed to the people.
7. UNITED STATES %&. N(./+
418 U.S. *83 (1974)
FACTS!
) supoena was issued was issued to the 2resident &ichard :i,on o! the <nited
States. The supoena directed the 2resident to produce certain tape recordings and
document relating to his con#ersation with aides and ad#isers. The court rejected the
2resident@s claim o! asolute e,ecuti#e pri#ilege.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the 2resident can use e,ecuti#e pri#ilege as an e,cuse to
withhold e#idence that is 0demonstraly rele#ant in a criminal trial18
HELD!
The Supreme %ourt does ha#e the !inal #oice in determining constitutional
5uestions: no persons" not e#en the president o! the <nited States" is completely ao#e
the lawH and the 2resident cannot use e,ecuti#e as an e,cuse to withhold e#idence that
is demonstraly rele#ant in a criminal trial.
'n the 2hilippines" 7udicial power is also #ested in one Supreme %ourt and it is its
duty to settle contro#ersies such as presented in the case.
8. ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
FACTS!
This is a petition to 5uestion the legitimacy o! the assumption as 2resident o! the
2hilippines y 2resident Gloria 3acapagal B )rroyo.
2etitioner 7oseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the 2resident on lea#e while
respondent Gloria 3acapagal B )rroyo claims she is the 2resident.
)t aout *+:II noon o! 7anuary +I" +II*" %hie! justice 4a#ide administered the
oath to respondent )rroyo as 2resident o! the 2hilippines. )t +:3I pm" petitioner and his
!amily hurriedly le!t 3alacanang 2alace. He issued the !ollowing press statement:
ST)TE3E:T >&(3 2&ES'4E:T 7(SE2H E7E&%'T( EST&)4)
)t twel#e o@cloc$ noon today" Jice 2resident Gloria 3acapagal?)rroyo too$ her
oath as 2resident o! the &epulic o! the 2hilippines. 9hile along with many other legal
minds o! our country" ' ha#e strong and serious douts aout the legality and
constitutionality o! her proclamation as 2resident" ' do not wish to e a !actor that will
pre#ent the restoration o! unity and order in our ci#il society.
't is !or this reason that ' now lea#e 3alacaKang 2alace" the seat o! the
presidency o! this country" !or the sa$e o! peace and in order to egin the healing
process o! our nation. ' lea#e the 2alace o! our people with gratitude !or the
opportunities gi#en to me !or ser#ice to our people. ' will not shir$ !rom any !uture
challenges that may come ahead in the same ser#ice o! our country.
' call on all my supporters and !ollowers to join me in the promotion o! a
constructi#e national spirit o! reconciliation and solidarity.
3ay the )lmighty less our country and elo#ed people.
3);<H)CL
ISSUE!
9hether or not the assumption o! the Jice B 2resident on 7uly +I" +II* was
constitutional8
HELD!
Ces" 'n case o! death" permanent disaility" remo#al !rom o!!ice" or resignation o!
the 2resident" the Jice?2resident shall ecome the 2resident to ser#e the une,pired
term. 'n case o! death" permanent disaility" remo#al !rom o!!ice" or resignation o! the
2resident and Jice 2resident" the 2resident o! the Senate" or" in case o! his inaility" the
Spea$er o! the House o! &epresentati#es" shall then act as 2resident until the 2resident
or Jice?2resident shall ha#e een elected and 5uali!ied.
9. ARRO$O VS. DE VENECIA
277 SCRA 2*8 (1997)
FACTS!
) petition was !iled challenging the #alidity o! &) F+AI" which amends certain
pro#isions o! the :ational 'nternal &e#enue %ode. 2etitioners" who are memers o! the
House o! &epresentati#es" charged that there is #iolation o! the rules o! the House
which petitioners claim are constitutionally?mandated so that their #iolation is
tantamount to a #iolation o! the %onstitution.
The law originated in the House o! &epresentati#es. The Senate appro#ed it with
certain amendments. ) icameral con!erence committee was !ormed to reconcile the
disagreeing pro#isions o! the House and Senate #ersions o! the ill. The icameral
committee sumitted its report to the House. 4uring the interpellations" &ep. )rroyo
made an interruption and mo#ed to adjourn !or lac$ o! 5uorum. ;ut a!ter a roll call" the
%hair declared the presence o! a 5uorum. The interpellation then proceeded. )!ter &ep.
)rroyo@s interpellation o! the sponsor o! the committee report" 3ajority 6eader )lano
mo#ed !or the appro#al and rati!ication o! the con!erence committee report. The %hair
called out !or ojections to the motion. Then the %hair declared: 0There eing none"
appro#ed.1 )t the same time the %hair was saying this" &ep. )rroyo was as$ing" 09hat
is thatM3r. Spea$er81 The %hair and &ep. )rroyo were tal$ing simultaneously. Thus"
although &ep. )rroyo suse5uently ojected to the 3ajority 6eader@s motion" the
appro#al o! the con!erence committee report had y then already een declared y the
%hair.
(n the same day" the ill was signed y the Spea$er o! the House o!
&epresentati#es and the 2resident o! the Senate and certi!ied y the respecti#e
secretaries o! oth Houses o! %ongress. The enrolled ill was signed into law y
2resident &amos.
ISSUE!
9hether or not &) F+AI is null and #oid ecause it was passed in #iolation o! the
rules o! the House.
HELD!
&ules o! each House o! %ongress are hardly permanent in character. They are
suject to re#ocation" modi!ication or wai#er at the pleasure o! the ody adopting them
as they are primarily procedural. %ourts ordinarily ha#e no concern with their
oser#ance. They may e wai#ed or disregarded y the legislati#e ody.
%onse5uently" mere !ailure to con!orm to them does not ha#e the e!!ect o!
nulli!ying the act ta$en i! the re5uisite numer o! memers has agreed to a particular
measure. ;ut this is suject to 5uali!ication. 9here the construction to e gi#en to a rule
a!!ects person other than memers o! the legislati#e ody" the 5uestion presented is
necessarily judicial in character. E#en its #alidity is open to 5uestion in a case where
pri#ate rights are in#ol#ed.
'n the case" no rights o! pri#ate indi#iduals are in#ol#ed ut only those o! a
memer who" instead o! see$ing redress in the House" chose to trans!er the dispute to
the %ourt.
The matter complained o! concerns a matter o! internal procedure o! the House
with which the %ourt should not e concerned. The claim is not that there was no
5uorum ut only that &ep. )rroyo was e!!ecti#ely pre#ented !rom 5uestioning the
presence o! a 5uorum. &ep. )rroyo@s earlier motion to adjourn !or lac$ o! 5uorum had
already een de!eated" as the roll call estalished the e,istence o! a 5uorum. The
5uestion o! 5uorum cannot e raised repeatedly especially when the 5uorum is
o#iously present !or the purpose o! delaying the usiness o! the House.
10. INFOTECH FOUNDATION VS. CO"ELEC
G.R. N/. 19139 J0+10,2 133 2004
F045&!
(n 7une ." *EE-" %ongress passed &.). FIA6 ()n act authoriDing the %(3E6E%
to conduct a nationwide demonstration o! a computeriDed election system and pilot?test
it in the 3arch *EE6 elections in the )utonomous &egion in 3uslim 3indanao ()&33)
and !or other purposes). (n 4ecemer ++" *EE." %ongress enacted &.). FA36 ()n act
authoriDing the %(3E6E% to use an automated election system in the 3ay **" *EEF
national or local elections and in suse5uent national and local electoral e,ercises"
pro#iding !unds there!ore and !or other purposes).
(n (ctoer +E" +II+" %(3E6E% adopted its &esolution I+?I*.I a moderniDation
program !or the +IIA elections. 't resol#ed to conduct iddings !or the three phases o!
its )utomated Election System: namely" 2hase '?Joter &egistration and Jalidation
SystemH 2hase ''?)utomated %ounting and %an#assing SystemH and 2hase '''?
Electronic Transmissions.
2resident Gloria 3acapagal?)rroyo issued E( :o. *.+" which allocated the sum
o! 2 +.- illion to !und the )ES !or 3ay *I" +IIA elections. She authoriDed the release
o! an additional 2 -II million" upon the re5uest o! %(3E6E%.
The %(3E6E% issued an 0'n#itation to )pply !or Eligiility and to ;id1. There are
-. idders who participated therein. The ;ids and )wards %ommittee (;)%) !ound
32% and the Total 'n!ormation 3anagement %orporation (T'3%) eligile. ;oth were
re!erred to Technical 9or$ing Group (T9G) and the 4epartment o! Science and
Technology (4(ST).
Howe#er" the 4(ST said in its &eport on the E#aluation o! Technical 2roposals on
2hase '' that oth 32% and T'3% had otained a numer o! !ailed mar$s in technical
e#aluation. :otwithstanding these !ailures" the %(3E6E% en anc issued &esolution
:o. 6I.A" awarding the project to 32%.
9here!ore" petitioners 'n!ormation Technology >oundation o! the 2hilippines wrote
a letter to the %(3E6E% chairman ;enjamin )alos" Sr. They protested the award o!
the contract to respondent 32%. Howe#er in a letter?reply" the %(3E6E% rejected the
protest.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the %(3E6E% committed gra#e ause o! discretion in awarding
the contract to 32% in #iolation o! law and in disregard o! its own idding rules and
procedure.
H-)6!
The %ourt has e,plained that %(3E6E% !lagrantly #iolated the pulic policy on
pulic iddings (*) y allowing 32%N32E' to participate in the idding e#en though it
was not 5uali!ied to do soH and (+) y e#entually awarding the contract to 32%N32E'. 't
is clear that the %ommission !urther desecrated the law on pulic idding y permitting
the winning idder to alter the suject o! the contract" in e!!ect allowing a sustanti#e
amendment without pulic idding.
11. "055-)3 I+4. % E770 F,0+4(&4/
G.R. N/. 1**88* J1)2 303 2008
FACTS!
7immy ). <y (<y) !iled a trademar$ application with the ;ureau o! 2atents"
Trademar$sand Technology Trans!er (;2TTT) !or registration o! the trademar$
O;)&;'EO !or useon con!ectionary products" such as mil$" chocolate" candies" mil$ar
and chocolate candies 3attel" 'nc. (3attel)" !iled a :otice o! (pposition against <yGs
O;arieO trademar$ as thelatter was con!usingly similar to its trademar$ on dolls" doll
clothes and doll accessories" toys and other similar commercial products.
2ulic respondent Estrellita ;. )elardo" the 4irector o! the ;ureau o! 6egal
)!!airs" '2(" rendered a 4ecision dismissing 3attelGs opposition and gi#ing due course
to <y@s application !or the registration o! the trademar$ O;arieO used on con!ectionary
products. The 4irector held that there was no con!using similarity etween the two
competing mar$s ecause the goods were non?competing or unrelated.
3attel !iled 3& which was denied then it appealed the decision with the
4irector General.
2ulic respondent Emma %. >rancisco" the 4irector General" rendered a
4ecision denying the appeal on the ground that there was no proo! on record that 3attel
had #entured into the production o! chocolates and con!ectionary products under the
trademar$ O;arieO to enale it to pre#ent <y !rom using an identical O;arieO
trademar$ on said goodsH that the records were ere!t o! the !act that the 4irector o! the
;ureau o! Trademar$s (;(T) had already declared the suject trademar$ application
aandoned due to the non?!iling o! the 4eclaration o! )ctual <se (4)<) y <y.
ISSUE!
9hether the application is deemed withdrawn or aandoned !or !ailure to !ile the 4)<.
HELD!
<yGs declaration in his %omment and 3emorandum e!ore this %ourt that he has
not !iled the 4)< as mandated y pertinent pro#i si ons o! &.). :o. F+E3 is a
judici al admission that hehas e!!ecti#ely aandoned or withdrawn any right or
interest in his trademar$. Section *+A.+ o! &.). :o. F+E3 pro#ides: The applicant or the
registrant shall !ile a declaration o! actual use o! the mar$ with e#idence to that e!!ect"
as prescried y the &egul ations withi n three (3) years !rom the !ili ng date o!
the application.
(therwise" the applicant shall e re!used or the mar$s shall e remo#ed !rom the
&egister y the 4irector. 3oreo#er" &ule +IA o! the &ules and &egulations on Trademar$s
pro#ides: 4ecl arati on o! )ctual <se. The (!!ice wil l not re5uire any proo! o!
use in commerce in the processing o! trademar$ applications. Howe#er" without need
o! any notice !rom the (!!ice" all applicants or registrants shall !i le a declaration o!
actual use o! the mar$ wi th e#i dence to that e!!ect within three years" without
possiility o! e,tension" !rom the !iling date o! the application.
12. VILLAROSA %&.HRET
G.R. N/. 14331 8 144129
S-95-7:-, 143 2000
FACTS:
2etitioner J'66)&(S) and 2ri#ate respondent P<':T(S were the only
candidates !or the o!!ice o! &epresentati#e o! the 6one 6egislati#e 4istrict o! (ccidental
3indoro in the ** 3ay*EEF synchroniDed national and local elections. The 2ro#incial
;oard o! %an#assers proclaimed J'66)&(S) as the winning candidate with a margin o!
3"I3+ #otes. P<':T(S !iled an election protest against J'66)&(S) contesting the
results o! the election in all the FF+ precincts in the ele#en municipalities o! (ccidental
3indoro. 2etitioner is the wi!e o! 7(SE T. J'66)&(S)" who was &epresentati#e o! the
4istrict in 5uestion !or two terms" the last o! which ended on 7une 3I" *EEFH in his
certi!icate o! candidacy !or the election o! 3ay F" *EE-"7(SE T. J'66)&(S) wrote as
his 0nic$name or stage name: 7(E?7TJ.1 'n her certi!icate o! candidacy" 2rotestee wrote
07TJ1 as her 0nic$nameNstage name.1H&ET promulgated a resolution stating that with
P<':T(S@ withdrawal o! the remaining non?pilot protested precincts" P<':T(S
impliedly limited the issue to 9HETHE& (& :(T THE 07TJ1J(TES SH(<64 ;E
%(<:TE4 ': >)J(& (> 2&(TESTEE )3E6'T) %. J'66)&(S). H&ET issued
&esolution in!orming the parties that 0the Triunal ruled" y QaR #ote o! -?A o! its
memers" not to count S7TJ@ and its #ariations as #alid #otes !or 2rotestee )melita %.
Jillarosa" the same eing considered stray allots.1J'66)&(S) !iled with this %ourt a
petition !or certiorari . She alleged therein that the H&ET gra#ely aused its discretion in
(a) issuing the ao#e?mentioned resolutions that it #iolated her right to due process
when it disposed y a -?A ruling a #ital election incident without stating therein the
!indings o! !act and law on which the resolutions were asedH and () treating 07TJ1
#otes as stray and in#alid" resulting in the disen!ranchisement o! the #oters o!
(ccidental 3indoro. She argued that 07TJ1 was her designated nic$name in the o!!icial
list o! candidates sumitted y the pro#incial election super#isor to the %(3E6E% in
3anilaH it was the nic$name she used in her posters" handills and other election
propaganda throughout the campaign period. 'n her speeches during the rallies" she
urged the #oters who might ha#e !ound her !ull name di!!icult to write to simply #ote
07TJ"1 as she had decided to use that nic$name as a shortcut o! her name as a married
woman under )rticle 3.I o! the %i#il %ode.
HELD!
9e hold that J'66)&(S) was not denied due process in this regard. )s to the
limitation o! the issue" J'66)&(S) has hersel! to lame. >irst" she sought no
reconsideration o! the pronouncement o! the H&ET in its . (ctoer *EEE &esolution
that 0QwRith 2rotestant@s withdrawal o! the remaining non?pilot protested precincts"
2rotestant impliedly limited the issue to whether or not S7TJ@ #otes should e counted in
!a#or o! protestee )melita %. Jillarosa.1 Second" at the oral argument e!ore the H&ET
on E 4ecemer *EEE" J'66)&(S)@s counsel did not oject to" ut instead concurred
with" P<':T(S@ sumission that the case would rise or !all on how the Triunal would
rule on the 07TJ1 #otes.)s applied to a judicial proceeding" howe#er" it may e laid
down with certainty that the re5uirement o! due process is satis!ied i! the !ollowing
conditions are present" namelyH (*) there must e a court or triunal clothed with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter e!ore itH(+) jurisdiction must e law!ully
ac5uired o#er the person o! the de!endant or o#er the property which is the suject o!
the proceedingH (3) the de!endant must e gi#en an opportunity to e heardH and (A)
judgment must e rendered upon the law!ul hearing. The essence o! due process is the
reasonale opportunity to e heard and sumit e#idence in support o! one@s de!ense. To
e heard does not only mean #eral arguments in courtH one maye heard also through
pleadings. 9here opportunity to e heard" either through oral arguments or pleadings"
is accorded" there is no denial o! due process
13. VINU$A VS. SEC. RO"ULO
G.R. N/. 1*22303 A9,() 283 2010
FACTS:
This is an original 2etition !or %ertiorari under &ule 6- o! the &ules o! %ourt with
an application !or the issuance o! a writ o! preliminary mandatory injunction against the
(!!ice o! the E,ecuti#e Secretary" the Secretary o! the 4>)" the Secretary o! the 4(7"
and the (SG.
2etitioners are all memers o! the 3)6)C) 6(6)S" a non?stoc$" non?pro!it
organiDation registered with the SE%" estalished !or the purpose o! pro#iding aid to the
#ictims o! rape y 7apanese military !orces in the 2hilippines during the Second 9orld
9ar.
2etitioners claim that since *EEF" they ha#e approached the E,ecuti#e
4epartment through the 4(7" 4>)" and (SG" re5uesting assistance in !iling a claim
against the 7apanese o!!icials and military o!!icers who ordered the estalishment o! the
0com!ort women1 stations in the 2hilippines. ;ut o!!icials o! the E,ecuti#e 4epartment
declined to assist the petitioners" and too$ the position that the indi#idual claims o! the
com!ort women !or compensation had already een !ully satis!ied y 7apan@s
compliance with the 2eace Treaty etween the 2hilippines and 7apan.
Hence" this petition where petitioners pray !or this court to (a) declare that
respondents committed gra#e ause o! discretion amounting to lac$ or e,cess o!
discretion in re!using to espouse their claims !or the crimes against humanity and war
crimes committed against themH and () compel the respondents to espouse their
claims !or o!!icial apology and other !orms o! reparations against 7apan e!ore the
'nternational %ourt o! 7ustice ('%7) and other international triunals.
&espondents maintain that all claims o! the 2hilippines and its nationals relati#e
to the war were dealt with in the San >rancisco 2eace Treaty o! *E-* and the ilateral
&eparations )greement o! *E-6.
(n 7anuary *-" *EE." the )sian 9omen@s >und and the 2hilippine go#ernment
signed a 3emorandum o! <nderstanding !or medical and wel!are support programs !or
!ormer com!ort women. (#er the ne,t !i#e years" these were implemented y the
4epartment o! Social 9el!are and 4e#elopment.
ISSUE:
9(: the E,ecuti#e 4epartment committed gra#e ause o! discretion in not
espousing petitioners@ claims !or o!!icial apology and other !orms o! reparations against
7apan.
HELD:
2etition lac$s merit. >rom a 4omestic 6aw 2erspecti#e" the E,ecuti#e
4epartment has the e,clusi#e prerogati#e to determine whether to espouse petitioners@
claims against 7apan.
2olitical 5uestions re!er 0to those 5uestions which" under the %onstitution" are to
e decided y the people in their so#ereign capacity" or in regard to which !ull
discretionary authority has een delegated to the legislati#e or e,ecuti#e ranch o! the
go#ernment. 't is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom" not legality o! a
particular measure.1
(ne type o! case o! political 5uestions in#ol#es 5uestions o! !oreign relations. 't is
well?estalished that 0the conduct o! the !oreign relations o! our go#ernment is
committed y the %onstitution to the e,ecuti#e and legislati#eB@the political@B
departments o! the go#ernment" and the propriety o! what may e done in the e,ercise
o! this political power is not suject to judicial in5uiry or decision.1 are delicate" comple,"
and in#ol#e large elements o! prophecy. They are and should e underta$en only y
those directly responsile to the people whose wel!are they ad#ance or imperil.
;ut not all cases implicating !oreign relations present political 5uestions" and
courts certainly possess the authority to construe or in#alidate treaties and e,ecuti#e
agreements. Howe#er" the 5uestion whether the 2hilippine go#ernment should espouse
claims o! its nationals against a !oreign go#ernment is a !oreign relations matter" the
authority !or which is demonstraly committed y our %onstitution not to the courts ut
to the political ranches. 'n this case" the E,ecuti#e 4epartment has already decided
that it is to the est interest o! the country to wai#e all claims o! its nationals !or
reparations against 7apan in the Treaty o! 2eace o! *E-*. The wisdom o! such decision
is not !or the courts to 5uestion.
The 2resident" not %ongress" has the etter opportunity o! $nowing the
conditions which pre#ail in !oreign countries" and especially is this true in time o! war.
He has his con!idential sources o! in!ormation. He has his agents in the !orm o!
diplomatic" consular and other o!!icials.
The E,ecuti#e 4epartment has determined that ta$ing up petitioners@ cause
would e inimical to our country@s !oreign policy interests" and could disrupt our relations
with 7apan" therey creating serious implications !or staility in this region. >or the to
o#erturn the E,ecuti#e 4epartment@s determination would mean an assessment o! the
!oreign policy judgments y a coordinate political ranch to which authority to ma$e that
judgment has een constitutionally committed.
>rom a municipal law perspecti#e" certiorari will not lie. )s a general principle"
where such an e,traordinary length o! time has lapsed etween the treaty@s conclusion
and our consideration B the E,ecuti#e must e gi#en ample discretion to assess the
!oreign policy considerations o! espousing a claim against 7apan" !rom the standpoint o!
oth the interests o! the petitioners and those o! the &epulic" and decide on that asis
i! apologies are su!!icient" and whether !urther steps are appropriate or necessary.
'n the international sphere" traditionally" the only means a#ailale !or indi#iduals
to ring a claim within the international legal system has een when the indi#idual is
ale to persuade a go#ernment to ring a claim on the indi#idual@s ehal!. ;y ta$ing up
the case o! one o! its sujects and y resorting to diplomatic action or international
judicial proceedings on his ehal!" a State is in reality asserting its own right to ensure"
in the person o! its sujects" respect !or the rules o! international law.
9ithin the limits prescried y international law" a State may e,ercise diplomatic
protection y whate#er means and to whate#er e,tent it thin$s !it" !or it is its own right
that the State is asserting. Should the natural or legal person on whose ehal! it is
acting consider that their rights are not ade5uately protected" they ha#e no remedy in
international law. )ll they can do is resort to national law" i! means are a#ailale" with a
#iew to !urthering their cause or otaining redress. )ll these 5uestions remain within the
pro#ince o! municipal law and do not a!!ect the position internationally.
E#en the in#ocation o! jus cogens norms and erga omnes oligations will not
alter this analysis. 2etitioners ha#e not shown that the crimes committed y the
7apanese army #iolated jus cogens prohiitions at the time the Treaty o! 2eace was
signed" or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators o! international crimes is an erga
omnes oligation or has attained the status o! jus cogens.
The term erga omnes (6atin: in relation to e#eryone) in international law has
een used as a legal term descriing oligations owed y States towards the
community o! states as a whole. Essential distinction should e drawn etween the
oligations o! a State towards the international community as a whole" and those arising
#is?T?#is another State in the !ield o! diplomatic protection. ;y their #ery nature" the
!ormer are the concern o! all States. 'n #iew o! the importance o! the rights in#ol#ed" all
States can e held to ha#e a legal interest in their protectionH they are oligations erga
omnes.
The term 0jus cogens1 (literally" 0compelling law1) re!ers to norms that command
peremptory authority" superseding con!licting treaties and custom. 7us cogens norms
are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory" do not admit
derogation" and can e modi!ied only y general international norms o! e5ui#alent
authority
14. G0,4(0 %&. B/0,6 /; I+%-&57-+5& (BOI)
191 SCRA 288 3 N/%-7:-, 1990
FACTS:
>ormer ;ataan 2etrochemical %orporation (;2%)" now 6uDon 2etrochemical
%orporation" !ormed y a group o! Taiwanese in#estors" was granted y the ;(' its
ha#e its plant site !or the products 0naphta crac$er1 and 0naphta1 to ased in ;ataan. 'n
>eruary *EFE" one year a!ter the ;2% egan its production in ;ataan" the corporation
applied to the ;(' to ha#e its plant site trans!erred !rom ;ataan to ;atangas. 4espite
#igorous opposition !rom petitioner %ong. Enri5ue Garcia and others" the ;(' granted
pri#ate respondent ;2%@s application" stating that the in#estors ha#e the !inal choice as
to where to ha#e their plant site ecause they are the ones who ris$ capital !or the
project.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the ;(' committed a gra#e ause o! discretion in yielding to the
application o! the in#estors without considering the national interest
RULING!
The Supreme %ourt !ound the ;(' to ha#e committed gra#e ause o! discretion
in this case" and ordered the original application o! the ;2% to ha#e its plant site in
;ataan and the product naphta as !eedstoc$ maintained.
The ponente" 7ustice GutierreD" 7r." !irst stated the %ourt@s judicial power to settle
actual contro#ersies as pro#ided !or y Section * o! )rticle J''' in our *EF. %onstitution
e!ore he wrote the reasons as to how the %ourt arri#ed to its conclusion. He mentioned
that nothing is shown to justi!y the ;('@s action in letting the in#estors decide on an
issue which" i! handled y our own go#ernment" could ha#e een #ery ene!icial to the
State" as he rememered the word o! a great >ilipino leader" to wit: 0.. he would not
mind ha#ing a go#ernment run li$e hell y >ilipinos than one suser#ient to !oreign
dictation1.
7ustice GriKo )5uino" in her dissenting opinion" argued that the petition was not
well?ta$en ecause the *EF. 'n#estment %ode does not prohiit the registration o! a
certain project" as well as any decision o! the ;(' regarding the amended application.
She stated that the !act that petitioner disagrees with ;(' does not ma$e the ;(' wrong
in its decision" and that petitioner should ha#e appealed to the 2resident o! the country
and not to the %ourt" as pro#ided !or y Section 36 o! the *EF. 'n#estment %ode.
7ustice 3elencio?Herrera" in another dissenting opinion" stated that the
%onstitution does not #est in the %ourt the power to enter the realm o! policy
considerations" such as in this case.
1. ECHEGARA$ VS. SECRETAR$
G.R. N/. 132*01 O45/:-, 123 1998
FACTS!
The S% a!!irmed the con#iction o! petitioner 6eo Echegaray y 2ilo !or the crime o!
rape o! the *I year?old daughter o! his common?law spouse and the imposition upon
him o! the death penalty !or the said crime.
He !iled an 3>& and a supplemental 3>& raising !or the !irst time the issue o!
the constitutionality o! &epulic )ct :o. .6-E and the death penalty !or rape. The %ourt
denied oth motions.

'n the meantime" %ongress had seen it !it to change the mode o! e,ecution o! the
death penalty !rom electrocution to lethal injection" and passed &epulic )ct :o. F*.."
): )%T 4ES'G:)T':G 4E)TH ;C 6ETH)6 ':7E%T'(: )S THE 3ETH(4 (>
%)&&C':G (<T %)2'T)6 2<:'SH3E:T" )3E:4':G >(& THE 2<&2(SE
)&T'%6E F* (> THE &EJ'SE4 2E:)6 %(4E" )S )3E:4E4 ;C SE%T'(: +A (>
&E2<;6'% )%T :(. .6-E.
The con#ict !iled a 2etition !or prohiition !rom carrying out the lethal injection
against him under the grounds that it constituted cruel" degrading" or unusual
punishment" eing #iolati#e o! due process" a #iolation o! the 2hilippinesG oligations
under international co#enants" an undue delegation o! legislati#e power y %ongress"
an unlaw!ul e,ercise y respondent Secretary o! the power to legislate" and an unlaw!ul
delegation o! delegated powers y the Secretary o! 7ustice to respondent 4irector.
'n his motion to amend" the petitioner added e5ual protection as a ground.
The (!!ice o! the Solicitor General stated that this %ourt has already upheld the
constitutionality o! the 4eath 2enalty 6aw" and has repeatedly declared that the death
penalty is not cruel" unjust" e,cessi#e or unusual punishmentH e,ecution y lethal
injection" as authoriDed under &.). :o. F*.. and the 5uestioned rules" is constitutional"
lethal injection eing the most modern" more humane" more economical" sa!er and
easier to apply (than electrocution or the gas chamer)H the 'nternational %o#enant on
%i#il and 2olitical &ights does not e,pressly or impliedly prohiit the imposition o! the
death penaltyH &.). :o. F*.. properly delegated legislati#e power to respondent
4irectorH and that &.). :o. F*.. con!ers the power to promulgate the implementing
rules to the Secretary o! 7ustice" Secretary o! Health and the ;ureau o! %orrections.
The %ommission on Human &ights !iled a 3otion !or 6ea#e o! %ourt to 'nter#ene andNor
)ppear as )micus %uriae with the attached 2etition to 'nter#ene andNor )ppear as
)micus %uriae. They alleged similarly with Echegaray@s arguments.
The petitioner !iled a reply similar to his !irst arguments. The court ga#e due
course to the petition.
%oncisely put" petitioner argues that &.). :o. F*.. and its implementing rules do
not pass constitutional muster !or: (a) #iolation o! the constitutional proscription against
cruel" degrading or inhuman punishment" () #iolation o! our international treaty
oligations" (c) eing an undue delegation o! legislati#e power" and (d) eing
discriminatory.
ISSUE!
*. 's it a #iolation o! the constitutional proscription against cruel" degrading or
inhuman punishment8
+. 's it a #iolation o! our international treaty oligations8
3. 3. 's it an undue delegation o! legislati#e power8
A. A. 's it discriminatory and contrary to law8
HELD!
:o *
st
three issues. Ces to last. 2etition denied.
&atio:
*. 2etitioner contends that death y lethal injection constitutes cruel" degrading and
inhuman punishment considering that (*) &.). :o. F*.. !ails to pro#ide !or the drugs to
e used in carrying out lethal injection" the dosage !or each drug to e administered"
and the procedure in administering said drugNs into the accusedH (+) &.). :o. F*.. and
its implementing rules are uncertain as to the date o! the e,ecution" time o! noti!ication"
the court which will !i, the date o! e,ecution" which uncertainties cause the greatest pain
and su!!ering !or the con#ictH and (3) the possiility o! Ootched e,ecutionsO or mista$es
in administering the drugs renders lethal injection inherently cruel.
:ow it is well?settled in jurisprudence that the death penalty per se is not a cruel"
degrading or inhuman punishment.
Harden #. 4irector o! 2risons? Opunishments are cruel when they in#ol#e torture or a
lingering deathH ut the punishment o! death is not cruel" within the meaning o! that
word as used in the constitution. 't implies there something inhuman and ararous"
something more than the mere e,tinguishment o! li!e.O 9ould the lac$ in particularity
then as to the details in#ol#ed in the e,ecution y lethal injection render said law Ocruel"
degrading or inhumanO8 The %ourt elie#es not. >or reasons discussed" the
implementing details o! &.). :o. F*.. are matters which are properly le!t to the
competence and e,pertise o! administrati#e o!!icials.
2etitioner contends that Sec. *6 o! &.). :o. F*.. is uncertain as to which OcourtO will !i,
the time and date o! e,ecution" and the date o! e,ecution and time o! noti!ication o! the
death con#ict. )s petitioner already $nows" the OcourtO which designates the date o!
e,ecution is the trial court which con#icted the accused. The procedure is that the
Ojudgment is entered !i!teen (*-) days a!ter its promulgation" and *I days therea!ter" the
records are remanded to the court elow including a certi!ied copy o! the judgment !or
e,ecution. :either is there any uncertainty as to the date o! e,ecution nor the time o!
noti!ication. )s to the date o! e,ecution" Section *- o! the implementing rules must e
read in conjunction with the last sentence o! Section * o! &.). :o. F*.. which pro#ides
that the death sentence shall e carried out Onot earlier than one (*) year nor later then
eighteen (*F) months !rom the time the judgment imposing the death penalty ecame
!inal and e,ecutory" without prejudice to the e,ercise y the 2resident o! his e,ecuti#e
clemency powers at all times.O Hence" the death con#ict is in e!!ect assured o! eighteen
(*F) months !rom the time the judgment imposing the death penalty ecame !inal and
e,ecutor wherein he can see$ e,ecuti#e clemency and attend to all his temporal and
spiritual a!!airs.
2etitioner !urther contends that the in!liction o! Owanton painO in case o! possile
complications in the intra#enous injection that respondent 4irector is an untrained and
untested person inso!ar as the choice and administration o! lethal injection is
concerned" renders lethal injection a cruel" degrading and inhuman punishment. This is
unsustantiated.
>irst. 2etitioner has neither alleged nor presented e#idence that lethal injection re5uired
the e,pertise only o! phleotomists and not trained personnel and that the drugs to e
administered are unsa!e or ine!!ecti#e. 2etitioner simply cites situations in the <nited
States wherein e,ecution y lethal injection allegedly resulted in prolonged and
agoniDing death !or the con#ict" without any other e#idence whatsoe#er.
Second. 2etitioner o#erloo$ed Section *" third paragraph o! &.). :o. F*.. which
re5uires that all personnel in#ol#ed in the e,ecution proceedings should e trained prior
to the per!ormance o! such tas$. 9e must presume that the pulic o!!icials entrusted
with the implementation o! the death penalty will care!ully a#oid in!licting cruel
punishment.
Third. )ny in!liction o! pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the
e,ecution o! death penalty and does not !all within the constitutional proscription against
cruel" degrading and inhuman punishment. O'n a limited sense" anything is cruel which
is calculated to gi#e pain or distress" and since punishment imports pain or su!!ering to
the con#ict" it may e said that all punishments are cruel. ;ut o! course the %onstitution
does not mean that crime" !or this reason" is to go unpunished.O The cruelty against
which the %onstitution protects a con#icted man is cruelty inherent in the method o!
punishment" not the necessary su!!ering in#ol#ed in any method employed to e,tinguish
li!e humanely.
9hat is cruel and unusual Ois not !astened to the osolete ut may ac5uire meaning as
pulic opinion ecomes enlightened y a humane justiceO and Omust draw its meaning
!rom the e#ol#ing standards o! decency that mar$ the progress o! a maturing society.O
+. 'nternational %o#enant on %i#il )nd 2olitical &ights states:
+. 'n countries which ha#e not aolished the death penalty" sentence o! death may e
imposed only !or the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in !orce at the time
o! the commission o! the crime and not contrary to the pro#isions o! the present
%o#enant and to the %on#ention on the 2re#ention and 2unishment o! the %rime o!
Genocide. This penalty can only e carried out pursuant to a !inal judgment rendered
y a competent court.O
The punishment was suject to the limitation that it e imposed !or the Omost serious
crimesO.
'ncluded with the declaration was the Second (ptional 2rotocol to the 'nternational
%o#enant on %i#il and 2olitical &ights" )iming at the )olition o! the 4eath 2enalty was
adopted y the General )ssemly on 4ecemer *-" *EFE. The 2hilippines neither
signed nor rati!ied said document.
3. &.). :o. F*.. li$ewise pro#ides the standards which de!ine the legislati#e policy"
mar$ its limits" map out its oundaries" and speci!y the pulic agencies which will apply
it. 't indicates the circumstances under which the legislati#e purpose may e carried
out. &.). :o. F*.. speci!ically re5uires that Othe death sentence shall e e,ecuted
under the authority o! the 4irector o! the ;ureau o! %orrections" endea#oring so !ar as
possile to mitigate the su!!erings o! the person under the sentence during the lethal
injection as well as during the proceedings prior to the e,ecution.O >urther" Othe 4irector
o! the ;ureau o! %orrections shall ta$e steps to ensure that the lethal injection to e
administered is su!!icient to cause the instantaneous death o! the con#ict.O The
legislature also mandated that Oall personnel in#ol#ed in the administration o! lethal
injection shall e trained prior to the per!ormance o! such tas$.O The %ourt cannot see
that any use!ul purpose would e ser#ed y re5uiring greater detail. The 5uestion raised
is not the de!inition o! what constitutes a criminal o!!ense" ut the mode o! carrying out
the penalty already imposed y the %ourts. 'n this sense" &.). :o. F*.. is su!!iciently
de!inite and the e,ercise o! discretion y the administrati#e o!!icials concerned is"
canaliDed within an$s that $eep it !rom o#er!lowing.
Howe#er" the &ules and &egulations to 'mplement &epulic )ct :o. F*.. su!!er serious
!laws that could not e o#erloo$ed. To egin with" something asic appears missing in
Section *E o! the implementing rules which pro#ides a manual !or the e,ecution
procedure. 't was supposed to e con!idential.
The %ourt !inds in the !irst paragraph o! Section *E o! the implementing rules a
#acuum. The Secretary o! 7ustice has practically adicated the power to promulgate
the manual on the e,ecution procedure to the 4irector o! the ;ureau o! %orrections" y
not pro#iding !or a mode o! re#iew and appro#al. ;eing a mere constituent unit o! the
4epartment o! 7ustice" the ;ureau o! %orrections could not promulgate a manual that
would not ear the imprimatur o! the administrati#e superior" the Secretary o! 7ustice as
the rule?ma$ing authority under &.). :o. F*... Such apparent adication o!
departmental responsiility renders the said paragraph in#alid.
A. 2etitioner contends that Section *. o! the 'mplementing &ules is unconstitutional !or
eing discriminatory as well as !or eing an in#alid e,ercise o! the power to legislate y
respondent Secretary. 2etitioner insists that Section *. amends the instances when
lethal injection may e suspended" without an e,press amendment o! )rticle F3 o! the
&e#ised 2enal %ode" as amended y section +- o! &.). :o. .6-E.
OSE%. *.. S<S2E:S'(: (> THE E=E%<T'(: (> THE 4E)TH SE:TE:%E.
E,ecution y lethal injection shall not e in!licted upon a woman within the three years
ne,t !ollowing the date o! the sentence or while she is pregnant" nor upon any person
o#er se#enty (.I) years o! age. 'n this latter case" the death penalty shall e commuted
to the penalty o! reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties pro#ided in )rticle AI
o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode.O
2etitioner contends that Section *. is unconstitutional !or eing discriminatory as well
as !or eing an in#alid e,ercise o! the power to legislate y respondent Secretary.
2etitioner insists that Section *. amends the instances when lethal injection may e
suspended" without an e,press amendment o! )rticle F3 o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode" as
amended y section +- o! &.). :o. .6-E" stating that the death sentence shall not e
in!licted upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one (*) year a!ter deli#ery" nor
upon any person o#er se#enty years o! age.
9hile )rticle F3 o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode" as amended y Section +- o! &epulic )ct
:o. .6-E" suspends the implementation o! the death penalty while a woman is pregnant
or within one (*) year a!ter deli#ery" Section *. o! the implementing rules omits the one
(*) year period !ollowing deli#ery as an instance when the death sentence is
suspended" and adds a ground !or suspension o! sentence no longer !ound under
)rticle F3 o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode as amended" which is the three?year reprie#e a!ter
a woman is sentenced. This addition is" in petitionerGs #iew" tantamount to a gender?
ased discrimination sans statutory asis" while the omission is an impermissile
contra#ention o! the applicale law.
;eing merely an implementing rule" Section *. a!orecited must not o#erride" ut instead
remain consistent and in harmony with the law it see$s to apply and implement.
1*. T/,,-4079/ %&. "<SS
*49 SCRA 482
FACTS!
;arangay ;eda Torrecampo !iled a petition !or injunction in the Supreme %ourt
regarding the c?- &oad E,tension 2roject !or the said project would result to injury to the
petioner and F million residents o! 3etro 3anila. The project would endanger the health
o! residents !or a5ueducts responsile !or the water supply in the area could e
damaged.
ISSUE!
9hether or not Torrecampo is entitled !or injunction.
HELD!
Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction !or judicial re#iew does not apply to
matters concerning the e,ecuti#e ranch.
17. LIBAN VS. GORDON
*39 SCRA 709
FACTS!
2etitioners are o!!icers o! the ;oard o! 4irectors o! the P% &ed %ross %hapter
while &espondent is the %hairman o! the 2hilippine :ational &ed %ross (2:&%) ;oard
o! Go#ernors. 2etitioners allege that y accepting the chairmanship o! the 2:&% ;oard
o! Go#ernors" respondent has ceased to e a memer o! the Senate.
The 2:&% %hairman is elected y the 2:&% ;oard o! Go#ernorsH he is not
appointed y the 2resident or y any suordinate go#ernment o!!icial. 3oreo#er" the
2:&% is :(T a G(%% ecause it is a pri#ately?owned" pri#ately?!unded" and pri#ately?
run charitale organiDation and ecause it is controlled y a ;oard o! Go#ernors !our?
!i!ths o! which are pri#ate sector indi#iduals. There!ore" respondent Gordon did not
!or!eit his legislati#e seat when he was elected as 2:&% %hairman during his
incumency as Senator.
The %ourt howe#er held !urther that the 2:&% %harter" &.). E-" is #oid inso!ar
as it creates the 2:&% as a pri#ate corporation.
ISSUE:
9as it correct !or the %ourt to ha#e passed upon and decided on the issue o! the
constitutionality o! the 2:&% charter8 %orollarily: 9hat is the nature o! the 2:&%8
HELD!
QThe %ourt G&):TE4 reconsideration and 3(4'>'E4 the dispositi#e portion o! the
4ecision y deleting the second sentence thereo!.R
:(" it was not correct !or the %ourt to ha#e decided on the constitutional issue
ecause it was not the #ery lis mota (cause o! action) o! the case. The 2:&% is sui
generis in natureH it is neither strictly a G(%% nor a pri#ate corporation.

The issue o! constitutionality o! &.). :o. E- was not raised y the parties" and
was not among the issues de!ined in the ody o! the 4ecisionH thus" it was not the #ery
lis mota o! the case.

18. BA$AN "UNA VS. RO"ULO
*41 SCRA 244
FACTS!
2etitioner ;ayan 3una is a duly registered party?list group estalished to
represent the marginaliDed sectors o! society. &espondent ;las >. (ple" now deceased"
was the Secretary o! >oreign )!!airs during the period material to this case. &espondent
)lerto &omulo was impleaded in his capacity as then E,ecuti#e Secretary.
&ome Statute o! the 'nternational %riminal %ourt. Ha#ing a $ey determinati#e
earing on this case is the &ome Statute estalishing the 'nternational %riminal %ourt
('%%) with the power to e,ercise its jurisdiction o#er persons !or the most serious crimes
o! international concern and shall e complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions
The serious crimes ad#erted to co#er those considered gra#e under international
law" such as genocide" crimes against humanity" war crimes" and crimes o! aggression.
(n 4ecemer +F" +III" the &2" through %harge dU )!!aires Enri5ue ). 3analo" signed
the &ome Statute which" y its terms "is suject to rati!ication" acceptance or appro#al
y the signatory states. )s o! the !iling o! the instant petition" only E+ out o! the *3E
signatory countries appear to ha#e completed the rati!ication" appro#al and concurrence
process. The 2hilippines is not among the E+.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the petitioner has locus standi.
HELD!
2etitioner" through its three party?list representati#es" contends that the issue o!
the #alidity or in#alidity o! the )greement carries with it constitutional signi!icance and is
o! paramount importance that justi!ies its standing. %ited in this regard is what is usually
re!erred to as the emergency powers cases" in which ordinary citiDens and ta,payers
were accorded the personality to 5uestion the constitutionality o! e,ecuti#e issuances.
6ocus standi is Oa right o! appearance in a court o! justice on a gi#en 5uestion.O
Speci!ically" it is Oa party@s personal and sustantial interest in a case where he has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a resultO o! the act eing challenged" and Ocalls
!or more than just a generaliDed grie#ance.O
6ocus standi" howe#er" is merely a matter o! procedure and it has een
recogniDed that" in some cases" suits are not rought y parties who ha#e een
personally injured y the operation o! a law or any other go#ernment act" ut y
concerned citiDens" ta,payers" or #oters who actually sue in the pulic interest.
%onse5uently" in a catena o! cases" this %ourt has in#arialy adopted a lieral
stance on locus standi.
'n the case at ar" petitioner@s representati#es ha#e complied with the 5uali!ying
conditions or speci!ic re5uirements e,acted under the locus standi rule. )s citiDens"
their interest in the suject matter o! the petition is direct and personal. )t the #ery least"
their assertions 5uestioning the )greement are made o! a pulic right" i.e." to ascertain
that the )greement did not go against estalished national policies" practices" and
oligations earing on the State@s oligation to the community o! nations.
)t any e#ent" the primordial importance to >ilipino citiDens in general o! the issue
at hand impels the %ourt to rush aside the procedural arrier posed y the traditional
re5uirement o! locus standi. The %ourt may rela, the standing re5uirements and allow a
suit to prosper e#en where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right o!
judicial re#iew.
19. "AGALONA VS. ER"ITA
* SCRA 47*
FACTS!
The antecedent !acts o! this case emerged upon the passing o! &epulic )ct
3IA6 in *E6*. The law@s purpose is to demarcate the maritime aselines o! the
2hilippines as it was deemed to e an archipelago. &) 3IA6 stood unchallenged until
+IIE" when %ongress amended it and passed &) E-++. This amending law shortened
one aseline and determined new ase points o! the archipelago. 3oreso" it has
identi!ied the Valayaan 'sland Group and the Scarorough Shoal" as Oregimes o!
islandsO" generating their own maritime Dones.
The petitioners !iled a case assailing the constitutionality o! &) E-++. To their
opinion" the law has e!!ecti#ely reduced the maritime territory o! the country. 9ith this"
)rticle ' o! the *EF. %onstitution will e #iolated. The petitioners also worried that that
ecause o! the suggested changes in the maritime aselines will allow !or !oreign
aircra!ts and #essels to tra#erse the 2hilippine territory !reely. 'n e!!ect" it steps on the
state@s so#ereignty and national security. 3eanwhile" the %ongress insisted that in no
way will the amendments a!!ect any pertinent power o! the state. 't also de!erred to
agree that the law impliedly relin5uishes the 2hilippines claims o#er Saah. 6astly" they
ha#e 5uestioned the normati#e !orce o! the notion that all the waters within the
rectangular oundaries in the Treaty o! 2aris. :ow" ecause this treaty still has
undetermined contro#ersies" the %ongress elie#es that in the perspecti#e o!
international law" it did not see any inding oligation to honor it. Thus" this case o!
prayer !or writs o! certiorari and prohiition is !iled e!ore the court" assailing the
constitutionality o! &) E-++.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the &) E-++ is unconstitutional
HELD!
The %ourt dismissed the case. 't upheld the constitutionality o! the law and made
it clear that it has merely demarcated the country@s maritime Dones and continental
shel#es in accordance to <:%6(S '''. Secondly" the %ourt !ound that the !ramewor$ o!
the regime o! islands suggested y the law is not incongruent with the 2hilippines@
enjoyment o! territorial so#ereignty o#er the areas o! Valayaan Group o! 'slands and the
Scarorough. Third" the court reiterated that the claims o#er Saah remained e#en with
the adoption o! the amendments. >urther" the %ourt importantly stressed that the
aseline laws are mere mechanisms !or the <:%6(S ''' to precisely descrie the
delimitations. 't ser#es as a notice to the international !amily o! states and it is in no way
a!!ecting or producing any e!!ect li$e enlargement or diminution o! territories.
9ith regard to the petitioners@ assertion that &) E-++ has con#erted the internal
waters into archipelagic waters" the %ourt did not appear to e persuaded. 'nstead" the
%ourt suggested that the political ranches o! Go#ernment can pass domestic laws that
will aid in the competent security measures and policies that will regulate innocent
passage. Since the %ourt emphasiDed innocent passage as a right ased on customary
law" it also elie#es that no state can #alidly in#o$e so#ereignty to deny a right
ac$nowledged y modern states.
'n the case o! archipelagic states such as ours" <:%6(S ''' re5uired the
imposition o! innocent passage as a concession in lieu o! their right to claim the entire
waters landward aseline. 't also made it possile !or archipelagic states to e
recogniDed as a cohesi#e entity under the <:%6(S '''.
Hacienda 6uisita 'nc. (H6') #. 2residential )grarian &e!orm %ouncil (2)&%)" et
al." G.&. :o. *.**I*" :o#emer ++" +I**
20. HACIENDA VS. #ARC
GR NO. 1711013 NOVE"BER 223 2011
FACTS!
(n 7uly -" +I**" the Supreme %ourt en anc #oted unanimously (**?I) to
4'S3'SSN4E:C the petition !iled y H6' and )>>'&3 with 3(4'>'%)T'(:S the
resolutions o! the 2)&% re#o$ing H6'@s Stoc$ 4istriution 2lan (S42) and placing the
suject lands in Hacienda 6uisita under compulsory co#erage o! the %omprehensi#e
)grarian &e!orm 2rogram (%)&2) o! the go#ernment.
The %ourt howe#er did not order outright land distriution. Joting 6?-" the %ourt
noted that there are operati#e !acts that occurred in the interim and which the %ourt
cannot #alidly ignore. Thus" the %ourt declared that the re#ocation o! the S42 must" y
application o! the operati#e !act principle" gi#e way to the right o! the original 6"+E6
5uali!ied !arm wor$ers?ene!iciaries (>9;s) to choose whether they want to remain as
H6' stoc$holders or Qchoose actual land distriutionR. 't thus ordered the 4epartment o!
)grarian &e!orm (4)&) to 0immediately schedule meetings with the said 6"+E6 >9;s
and e,plain to them the e!!ects" conse5uences and legal or practical implications o! their
choice" a!ter which the >9;s will e as$ed to mani!est" in secret #oting" their choices in
the allot" signing their signatures or placing their thummar$s" as the case may e"
o#er their prited names.1
The parties therea!ter !iled their respecti#e motions !or reconsideration o! the %ourt
decision.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the %ourt can order that 4)&@s compulsory ac5uisition o!
Hacienda 6usita co#er the !ull 6"AA3 hectares allegedly co#ered y &) 66-. and
pre#iously held y Tarlac 4e#elopment %orporation (Tadeco)" and not just the A"E*-..-
hectares co#ered y H6'@s S428
H-)6!
:(" the %ourt %)::(T order that 4)&@s compulsory ac5uisition o! Hacienda
6usita co#er the !ull 6"AA3 hectares and not just the A"E*-..- hectares co#ered y H6'@s
S42.
QSince what is put in issue e!ore the %ourt is the propriety o! the re#ocation o! the S42"
which only in#ol#es A"E*-..- has. o! agricultural land and not 6"AA3 has." then the %ourt
is constrained to rule only as regards the A"E*-..- has. o! agricultural land.
:onetheless" this should not pre#ent the 4)&" under its mandate under the agrarian
re!orm law" !rom suse5uently sujecting to agrarian re!orm other agricultural lands
originally held y Tadeco that were allegedly not trans!erred to H6' ut were supposedly
co#ered y &) 66-..
Howe#er since the area to e awarded to each >9; in the 7uly -" +I** 4ecision
appears too restricti#e B considering that there are roads" irrigation canals" and other
portions o! the land that are considered commonly?owned y !armwor$ers" and these
may necessarily result in the decrease o! the area siDe that may e awarded per >9; B
the %ourt reconsiders its 4ecision and resol#es to gi#e the 4)& leeway in adjusting the
area that may e awarded per >9; in case the numer o! actual 5uali!ied >9;s
decreases. 'n order to ensure the proper distriution o! the agricultural lands o!
Hacienda 6uisita per 5uali!ied >9;" and considering that matters in#ol#ing strictly the
administrati#e implementation and en!orcement o! agrarian re!orm laws are within the
jurisdiction o! the 4)&" it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each
5uali!ied >9; will e awarded.
(n the other hand" the majority li$ewise reiterated its holding that the -II?
hectare portion o! Hacienda 6uisita that ha#e een #alidly con#erted to industrial use
and ha#e een ac5uired y inter#enors &iDal %ommercial ;an$ing %orporation (&%;%)
and 6uisita 'ndustrial 2ar$ %orporation (6'2%()" as well as the separate FI.-*?hectare
S%TE= lot ac5uired y the go#ernment" should e e,cluded !rom the co#erage o! the
assailed 2)&% resolution. The %ourt howe#er ordered that the unused alance o! the
proceeds o! the sale o! the -II?hectare con#erted land and o! the FI.-*?hectare land
used !or the S%TE= e distriuted to the >9;s.
21. SANA VS. CESB
G& :o. *E+E+6" :o#emer *-" +I**
FACTS!
(n A )ugust +I*I" petitioner )tty. Elias (mar ). Sana (petitioner) !iled the
present petition" contending that E( FF3 and the suse5uent appointment o! the *3
e,ecuti#e o!!icials to %ES( ran$ are #oid !or #iolating the constitutional an on midnight
appointment under Section *-" )rticle J'' o! the %onstitution. 2etitioner theoriDes that
appointments to positions and ran$s in the %ES are 0e,ecuti#e1 in nature and" i! made
within the period pro#ided under Section *-" )rticle J''" !all under its prohiition.
2etitioner sumits that %ES; &esolution :o. F.I circum#ents Section *-" )rticle J'' y
distinguishing the terms 0appoint1 and 0appointment.1 He contends that %ES;
&esolution :o. F.I cannot gi#e new meaning to presidential issuances" laws" and the
%onstitution.
'n its %omment" the %ES; prays !or the dismissal o! the petition as the issue it
raises was rendered moot y E( 3@s re#ocation o! E( FF3. )lternati#ely" the %ES;
de!ends the #esting o! %ES( ran$ to the *3 o!!icials ased on an opinion gi#en y )tty.
>erdinand &a!anan (&a!anan)" head o! the %ommission on Elections (%(3E6E%) 6aw
4epartment" that 0the appointment to a %ESQ(R ran$ is not e5ui#alent to an appointment
to an o!!ice since the latter entails the con!erment o! an authority to e,ercise the
!unctions o! an o!!ice whereas the !ormer is merely a completion o! a pre#ious
appointment.1 &a!anan !urther opined that such #esting o! %ES( ran$ is #alid ecause
it 0does not contemplate any hiring or appointment since it in#ol#es only the con!erment
o! a ran$ rather than a selection !or a position.1
The %ES; agrees with &a!anan@s #iew" in#o$ing )rticle 'J" 2art '''" paragraph (c)
o! the 'ntegrated &eorganiDation 2lan ('&2)" which states that 0QaRppointment to
appropriate classes in the %areer E,ecuti#e Ser#ice shall e made y the 2resident
!rom a list o! career e,ecuti#e eligiles recommended y the ;oard. Such appointments
shall e made on the asis o! ran$.1 :e#ertheless" the %ES; sumits that the grant o!
%ES( ran$ ''' or higher to lawyers in the e,ecuti#e ser#ice under E( FF3 is 0not
automatic1 ecause this needs prior guidelines !rom the %ES;. The %ES; points out
that 2resident )rroyo did not con!er %ES( ran$ to any o!!icial ased on E( FF3.
)lternati#ely" the (SG argues that E( FF3 is unconstitutional !or
eing #iolati#e o! Section *-" )rticle J'' o! the %onstitution. The (SG adds that e#en i!
E( FF3 is #alid" it does not automatically con!er %ES( ran$ to lawyers holding %ES
positions.
ISSUE!
9hether or not E( FF3 and E( F.I is unconstitutional.
HELD!
9e dismiss the petition on the threshold ground o! mootness.
The petition seeks a review of the constitutionality of EO 883 and CESB
Resolution No. 8! for "ein# repu#nant to Section $%& 'rticle ()) of the
Constitution. 't the ti*e this petition was filed& however& +resident ',uino had
already issued EO 3 revokin# EO 883 e-pressly .under Section $/ and CESB
Resolution No. 8! i*pliedly .under Section 0/. EO 883 and CESB Resolution No.
8! havin# ceased to have any force and effect& the Court finds no reason to
reach the *erits of the petition and pass upon these issuances1 validity. To do so
would trans#ress the re,uire*ent of case and controversy as precondition for
the Court1s e-ercise of 2udicial review. .'rt. ()))3 4udicial 5epart*ent S.$/
True& this Court had rela-ed the case and controversy re,uire*ent to resolve
*oot issues. )n those instances& however& the issues presented were #rounded
on peculiar set of facts #ivin# rise to i*portant constitutional ,uestions capa"le
of repetition yet evadin# review or indicatin# intent on the part of potential or
actual parties to place a constitutional ,uestion "eyond the a*"it of 2udicial
review "y perfor*in# acts renderin# *oot an incipient or
pendin# 2usticia"le controversy. .'rt. ()))3 4udicial 5epart*ent S.$/
These !actors do not otain here. The 5uestion whether an appointment to a
%ES( ran$ o! an e,ecuti#e o!!icial amounts to an 0appointment1 !or purposes o! the
constitutional an on midnight appointment" while potentially recurring" holds no
certainty o! e#ading judicial re#iew as the 5uestion can e decided e#en eyond the
appointments?an period under Section *-" )rticle J'' o! the %onstitution.
'ndeed" petitioner does not allege to ha#e su!!ered any #iolation o! a right #ested
in him under E( FF3. He was not among the *3 o!!icials granted %ES( ran$ing y
2resident )rroyo. The %ES; itsel! stated that 0no con!erment o! %ES( ran$ was e#er
made y 2resident Q)rroyoR in relation to E( FF3.1 Hence" !or the %ourt to ne#ertheless
reach the merits o! this petition and determine the constitutionality o! E( FF3 and %ES;
&esolution :o. F.I despite their un5uestioned repeal and the asence o! any resulting
prejudice to petitioner@s rights is to depart !rom its constitutional role o! settling 0actual
contro#ersies in#ol#ing rights which are legally demandale and en!orceale.1
22. G07:/0 %&. T-%-&
*2 SCRA *90
FACTS!
This is a petition to nulli!y the sale o! shares o! stoc$ o! 2hilippine
Telecommunications 'n#estment %orporation (2T'%) y the go#ernment o! the &epulic
o! the 2hilippines" acting through the 'nter?)gency 2ri#atiDation %ouncil ('2%)" to 3etro
2aci!ic )ssets Holdings" 'nc. (32)H)" an a!!iliate o! >irst 2aci!ic %ompany 6imited (>irst
2aci!ic)" a Hong Vong?ased in#estment management and holding company and a
shareholder o! the 2hilippine 6ong 4istance Telephone %ompany (264T).
The petitioner 5uestioned the sale on the ground that it also in#ol#ed an indirect
sale o! *+ million shares (or aout 6.3 percent o! the outstanding common shares) o!
264T owned y 2T'% to >irst 2aci!ic. 9ith the this sale" >irst 2aci!ic@s common
shareholdings in 264T increased !rom 3I.. percent to 3. percent" therey increasing
the total common shareholdings o! !oreigners in 264T to aout F*.A./. This" according
to the petitioner" #iolates Section **" )rticle ='' o! the *EF. 2hilippine %onstitution which
limits !oreign ownership o! the capital o! a pulic utility to not more than AI/.
ISSUE!
9hether or not petitioner@s choice o! remedy is proper.
HELD!
:o. Howe#er" since the threshold and purely legal issue on the de!inition o! the
term 0capital1 i Sec. **" )rt. ='' o! the %onstitution has !ar?reaching implications to the
national economy. The courts treats the petition !or declaratory relie! as one !or
mandamus. 't is well?settles that this court may treat a petition !or declaratory relie! as
one !or mandamus i! the issue in#ol#ed has !ar?reaching implications.
23. "0+5,1&5- S2&5-7&3 I+4. %. CA
G.R. N/&. 8*40=41 N/%-7:-, *3 1989
F045&!
3antruste System" 'nc. (3S') entered into an interim lease agreement with
the 4e#elopment ;an$ o! the 2hilippines W owner o! the ;ay#iew 2laDa Hotel W
wherein the !ormer would operate the hotel !or 0a minimum o! three months or until such
time that the said properties are sold to 3S' or other third parties y 4;2.
(n 4ecemer F" *EF6 the 2resident issued 2roclamation :o. -I entitled
06aunching a 2rogram !or the E,peditious 4isposition or 2ri#atiDation o! %ertain
Go#ernment %orporations andNor the (ac5uired) )ssets thereo!" and creating a
%ommittee on 2ri#atiDation and the )sset 2ri#atiDation Trust.1 The ;ay#iew Hotel
properties were among the go#ernment assets 'denti!ied !or pri#atiDation and were
conse5uently trans!erred !rom 4;2 to )2T !or disposition.
To e!!ect the disposition o! the property" the 4;2 noti!ied 3S' that it was terminating the
0interim lease agreement.1 'n a certi!icate signed y Ernesto S. Salgado" 2resident and
%hairman o! the ;oard o! herein pri#ate respondent the latter agreed to the termination.
(ctoer ." *EF. the )2T sent a letter to 3S' through 3r. Salgado granting
the latter an e,tension o! thirty days !rom (ctoer *F within which to e!!ect the deli#ery
o! the ;ay#iew 2rince Hotel to )2T. The e,tension was gi#en to allow (3S') to wind up
its a!!airs and to !acilitate a smooth turn?o#er o! the !acilities to its new owners without
necessarily interrupting the hotel@s regular operation. The signature o! 3r. Salgado
appears on the lower le!t hand o! the letter under the word 0%(:>(&3E.1
)2T@s response to this demand was e5ually !irm. 't in!ormed 3S' that )2T
has 0. . . not !ound any stipulation tending to support your claim that 3antruste System"
'nc." as lessee" has ac5uired ... priority right to the purchase o! ;ay#iew Hotel . . .1 The
Trust also pointed out that the 02re?;idding %on!erence1 !or the sale o! the hotel has
already een conducted such that !or )2T to !a#oraly consider your (3S'@s) re5uest
would not e in consonance with law" e5uity and !air play.
(n (ctoer +F" Salgado" spea$ing !or 3S'" wrote )2T in!orming the latter o! the
alleged 0legal lien1 o#er the hotel to the amount o! 2*I"III"III (should e
2*+"III"III). 3oreo#er" he demanded that the Trust consider 3S' a 0#ery pre!erred1
idder. :e#ertheless" on :o#emer A" *EF. herein pri#ate respondent allegedly
prepared to sumit its id to the )2T !or 2E-"III"III.II in cash or 2*+I"III"III in
installment terms.
(n the same occasion" howe#er" 3S' as$ed the Trust !or clari!ication on the
!ollowing points: (*) whether )2T had a clean title o#er the propertyH (+) whether the
Trust $new the hotel had ac$ ta,esH (3) who should pay the ta, arrearsH and (A)
whether 3S'@S ad#ances made in ehal! o! 4;2 would e treated as part o! the id
o!!er.
(n :o#emer *3" *EF*" herein pri#ate respondent !iled a complaint with
respondent lower court W doc$eted as %i#il %ase :o. *F3*E W praying among others
!or: (*) the issuance o! a restraining order enjoining )2T !rom appro#ing the winning id
and awarding the ;ay#iew property to pri#ate petitioners" and !rom ejecting 3S' !rom
the property or !rom terminating the contract o! leaseH (+) the award o! the ;ay#iew
property in !a#or o! 3S' as the highest idder. (n 4ecemer *-" *E3." the lower court"
as already said" granted the writ o! preliminary injunction.
ISSUE!
9hether or not Sec. 3* o! 2roclamation :o. -I?) is unconstitutional as it
impinges upon judicial power in #iolation o! Sec. *" )rt. J''' o! the %onstitution
HELD!
Section 3* o! 2roclamation :o. -I?) does not in!ringe any pro#ision o! the
%onstitution. 't does not impair the inherent power o! courts 0to settle actual
contro#ersies which are legally demandale and en!orceale and to determine whether
or not there has een a gra#e ause o! discretion amounting to lac$ or e,cess o!
jurisdiction on the part o! any ranch or instrumentality o! the go#ernment1 (Sec. *" )rt.
J'''" *EF. %onstitution). The power to de!ine" prescrie and apportion the jurisdiction o!
the #arious courts elongs to the legislature" e,cept that it may not depri#e the Supreme
%ourt o! its jurisdiction o#er cases enumerated in Section -" )rticle J''' o! the
%onstitution (Sec. +" )rt. J'''" *EF. %onstitution).
The 2resident" in the e,ercise o! her legislati#e power under the >reedom
%onstitution" issued 2roclamation :o. -I?) prohiiting the courts !rom issuing
restraining orders and writs o! injunction against the )2T and the purchasers o! any
assets sold y it" to pre#ent courts !rom inter!ering in the discharge" y this
instrumentality o! the e,ecuti#e ranch o! the Go#ernment" o! its tas$ o! carrying out
0the e,peditious disposition and pri#atiDation o! certain go#ernment corporations andNor
the assets thereo!@ (2roc. :o. -I)" asent any gra#e ause o! discretion amounting to
e,cess or lac$ o! jurisdiction on its part. This proclamation" not eing inconsistent with
the %onstitution and not ha#ing een repealed or re#o$ed y %ongress" has remained
operati#e (Sec. 3" )rt. =J'''" *EF. %onstitution).
9hile the judicial power may appear to e per#asi#e" the truth is that under the
system o! separation o! powers set up in the %onstitution" the power o! the courts o#er
the other ranches and instrumentalities o! the Go#ernment is limited only to the
determination o! 0whether or not there has een a gra#e ause o! discretion (y them)
amounting to lac$ or e,cess o! jurisdiction1 in the e,ercise o! their authority and in the
per!ormance o! their assigned tas$s (Sec. *" )rt. J'''" *EF. %onstitution). %ourts may
not sustitute their judgment !or that o! the )2T" nor loc$" y an injunction" the
discharge o! its !unctions and the implementation o! its decisions in connection with the
ac5uisition" sale or disposition o! assets trans!erred to it.
24. "ALAGA VS. #ENACHOS3 J,.
+*3 S%&) (*EE+)
FACTS!
The 'loilo State %ollege o! >isheries ('S%(>) through its 2re?5uali!ications" ;ids
and )wards %ommittee (2;)%) caused the pulication in the :o#emer +-" +6 and +F"
*EFF issues o! the 9estern Jisayas 4aily an 'n#itation to ;id !or the construction o! a
3icro 6aoratory ;uilding at 'S%(>. The notice announced that the last day !or the
sumission o! pre?5uali!ication re5uirements was on 4ecemer +" *EFF" and that the
ids would e recei#ed and opened on 4ecemer *+" *EFF at 3 oGcloc$ in the a!ternoon.
2etitioners 3alaga and :ajarro" doing usiness under the name o! ;E
%onstruction and ;est ;uilt %onstruction" respecti#ely" sumitted their pre?5uali!ication
documents at two oGcloc$ in the a!ternoon o! 4ecemer +" *EFF. 2etitioner (cceana
sumitted his own 2&E?%* on 4ecemer -" *EFF. )ll three o! them were not allowed to
participate in the idding as their documents were considered late.
(n 4ecemer *+" *EFF" the petitioners !iled a complaint with the 'loilo &T%
against the o!!icers o! 2;)% !or their re!usal without just cause to accept them resulting
to their non?inclusion in the list o! pre?5uali!ied idders. They sought to the resetting o!
the 4ecemer *+" *EFF idding and the acceptance o! their documents. They also
as$ed that i! the idding had already een conducted" the de!endants e directed not to
award the project pending resolution o! their complaint.
On the sa*e date& 4ud#e 6e"a,uin issued a restrainin# order prohi"itin#
+B'C fro* conductin# the "iddin# and award the pro2ect. The defendants filed a
*otion to lift the restrainin# order on the #round that the court is prohi"ited fro*
issuin# such order& preli*inary in2unction and preli*inary *andatory in2unction
in #overn*ent infrastructure pro2ect under Sec. $ of +.5. $8$8. They also
contended that the preli*inary in2unction had "eco*e *oot and acade*ic as it
was served after the "iddin# had "een awarded and closed.
(n 7anuary +" *EFE" the trial court li!ted the restraining order and denied the
petition !or preliminary injunction. 't declared that the uilding sought to e constructed
at the 'S%(> was an in!rastructure project o! the go#ernment !alling within the co#erage
o! the suject law.
HELD!
't was pre#iously declared the prohiition pertained to the issuance o! injunctions
or restraining orders y courts against administrati#e acts in contro#ersies in#ol#ing
!acts or the e,ercise o! discretion in technical cases. The %ourt oser#ed that to allow
the courts to judge these matters would distur the smooth !unctioning o! the
administrati#e machinery. (n issues de!initely outside o! this dimension and in#ol#ing
5uestions o! law" courts could not e pre#ented y any law (in this case" 2.4. :o. 6I-)
!rom e,ercising their power to restrain or prohiit administrati#e acts.
2. L190+>4/ %&. CA
1*0 SCRA 848
FACTS!
2&% issued &esolution :o. *I- as parts o! its O)dditional 'nstructions to
E,aminees"O to all those applying !or admission to ta$e the licensure e,aminations in
accountancy.
2etitioners" all re#iewees preparing to ta$e the licensure e,aminations in
accountancy" !iled with the &T% a complaint !or injunction with a prayer with the
issuance o! a writ o! a preliminary injunction against respondent 2&% to restrain the
latter !rom en!orcing the ao#e?mentioned resolution and to declare the same
unconstitutional.
ISSUE!
9hether or not courts o! general jurisdiction ha#e authority o#er administrati#e
agencies depend on the statutes go#erning the suject.
HELD!
9here the statute designates the court ha#ing jurisdiction other than courts o!
general jurisdiction" then courts o! general jurisdiction do not ha#e authority. ;ut where
there is silence" the general rule applies.
2*. RADIO<EALTH3 INC. VS AGREGADO (190)
FACTS!
) 9ester Teletal$ and 9ester Telephone Spea$er were ought !or 2ho -F-
and installed in the second and third !loor o! the 3alacanang )nne, which houses the
Supreme %ourt.
The %hairman o! the 2roperty &e5uisition %ommittee (appointed y the
2resident) disappro#ed o! the purchase and its installation in#o$ing E( 3I+ which
discontinues open mar$et purchases.
2etitioners also contend that 7udicial !unctions do not include purchase o!
property.
&adiowealth" 'nc. (#endor) is now re5uesting that the payment e appro#ed
howe#er" the )uditor o! theS% re!used to countersign the warrant !or payment.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the 7udicial 4epartment can ma$e purchases without the prior
appro#al o! the E,ecuti#e8
HELD!
CES" they can.
&4:
>ound in a ruling in Tarlac JS Gale
)ll three departments are co?e5ual and co?important" each is independent !rom
the other and cannot control or inter!ere with each other in the e,ercise o! special
!unctions.
7udiciary has the power to maintain its e,istence and do whate#er is necessary
to preser#e their integrity" maintain their dignity and ensure e!!ecti#eness in the
administration o! justice.
(!!icials o! the go#ernment who owe duty to the court under the law cannot
depri#e the courts o! anything #ital to their !unctions.
(!!icials and oards are duty?ound to construct or purchase o!!ices or court
rooms and !urnish them. They also ha#e to insure that the character o! these
rooms would permit the court to e,ercise its !unctions in a reasonaly e!!ecti#e
manner.
'n case o! con!lict to" the court shall o#erpower the o!!icials as they will e the
ultimate 0judge1 in determining what is necessary !or its e!!iciency.
(!!icials ha#e the power to assign a particular room or court room to the %ourt o!
>irst 'nstance and change the assignments pro#ided that the new rooms are
reasonale ade5uate.
%ourts ha#e the power to re!use dispossession o! the room i! they deem that the
new room would e inade5uate in the e,ercise o! their duties.
'! oard re!uses to !urnish the articles mentioned y law" then the court would
ha#e the power either to purchase things directly or y proper proceedings to
compel the o!!icials to per!orm their duties to the law.
E,ecuti#e does not ha#e power o#er the purchase o! oo$s and other o!!ice
e5uipment needed !or the con#enient transaction o! its usiness.
%ourt could not maintain its independence and dignity i! it e,ecuti#e could
determine what the courts should ha#e. They are o! e5ual !ooting when it comes
to the re5uisition o! !or !i,tures" e5uipment and supplies.

27. B-+>?/+ %&. D,()/+
208 SCRA 133
FACTS!
The petitioners are retired 7ustices o! the Supreme %ourt and %ourt o! )ppeals
who are currently recei#ing monthly pensions under &.). :o. E*I as amended y &.).
:o. *.E.. Section 3?)" which authoriDes said pensions" o! &.). :o. *.E. was repealed
y 2resident 3arcos. The legislature saw the need to re?enact said &.).s to restore said
retirement pensions and pri#ilege. 2resident )5uino" howe#er" #etoed House ;ill :o.
*6+E. as well as portions o! Section * and the entire Section A o! the Special 2ro#isions
!or the Supreme %ourt o! the 2hilippines and the 6ower %ourts (G)) o! >C *EE+).
ISSUES!
*. 9hether the 2resident may #eto certain pro#isions o! the General )ppropriations )ct.
+. 9hether the 5uestioned #eto impairs the >iscal )utonomy guaranteed to the
7udiciary
HELD!
*. The act o! the E,ecuti#e in #etoing the particular pro#isions is an e,ercise o! a
constitutionally #ested power. ;ut e#en as the %onstitution grants the power" it also
pro#ides limitations to its e,ercise. The E,ecuti#e must #eto a ill in its entirety or not at
all. He or she is" there!ore" compelled to appro#e into law the entire ill" including its
undesirale parts. 't is !or this reason that the %onstitution has wisely pro#ided the 0item
#eto power1 to a#oid ine,pedient riders !rom eing attached to an indispensale
appropriation or re#enue measure. 9hat was done y the 2resident was the #etoing o!
a pro#ision and not an item.
+. Section 3" )rticle J''' o! the %onstitution pro#ides !or the >iscal )utonomy o! the
7udiciary. The #eto o! the speci!ic pro#isions in the G)) is tantamount to dictating to the
7udiciary how its !unds should e utiliDed" which is clearly repugnant to !iscal autonomy.
The !reedom o! the %hie! 7ustice to ma$e adjustments in the utiliDation o! the !unds
appropriated !or the e,penditures o! the judiciary" including the use o! any sa#ings !rom
any particular item to co#er de!icits or shortages in other items o! the judiciary is
withheld. 2ursuant to the %onstitutional mandate" the 7udiciary must enjoy !reedom in
law. 't $nows its priorities just as it is aware o! the !iscal restraints. The %hie! 7ustice
must e gi#en a !ree hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is
needed" which is pro#ided !or in Section +-(-)" )rticle J' o! the %onstitution.
28. . FORTICH VS. CORONA
312 SCRA 71 (1999)
FACTS!
%oncerns the 3& o! the court@s resolution dated :o#emer *." *EEF and motion
to re!er the case to the %ourt en anc. 'n pre#ious case" the %ourt #oted two?two on the
separate motions !or reconsideration" as a result o! which the decision was
a!!irmed. The %ourt noted in a resolution dated 7anuary +." *EEE that the mo#ants ha#e
no legal personality to see$ redress e!ore the %ourt as their motion to inter#ene was
already denied and that the motion to re!er the case to the %ourt en anc is a$in to
a second 3& which is prohiited. 'n this motion" oth respondents and inter#ene ors
prayed that the case e re!erred to the case in anc inasmuch as their earlier 3& was
resol#ed y a #ote o! two?two" the re5uired numer to carry a decision under the
%onstitution (3 #otes) was not met.
ISSUE!
9hether or not !ailure to meet the three #otes justi!ies the re!erral o! the case to
the court en anc
HELD!
:o. ) care!ul reading o! the constitutional pro#ision re#eals the intention o! the
!ramers to draw a distinction etween cases" on the one hand" and matters" on the
other hand" such that cases are 0decided1 while matters" which include motions" are
0resol#ed1. (therwise put" the word 0decided1 must re!er to 0cases1H while the word
0resol#ed1 must re!er to 0matters1" applying the rule o! redden do singula singulis. 9ith
this interpretation" it is clear that only cases are re!erred to the %ourt en anc !or
decision whene#er the re5uired numer o! #otes is not otained. %on#ersely" the rule
does not apply where" as in this case" the re5uired three #otes is not otained in the
resolution o! a 3&. Hence" the second sentence o! the pro#ision spea$s only o! 0case1
and not 0matter1. The reason is simple. )rticle J'''" Section A(3) pertains to the
disposition o! cases y a di#ision. '! there is a tie in the #oting" there is no decision. The
only way to dispose o! the case then is to re!er it to the %ourt en anc. (n the
other hand" i! a case has already een decided y the di#ision and the losing party !iles
a 3&" the !ailure o! the di#ision to resol#e the motion ecause o! a tie in the #oting does
not lea#e the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in #iew o!
the !ailure o! the memers o! the di#ision to muster the necessary #ote !or its
reconsideration. Puite plainly" i! the #oting results in a tie" the motion !or reconsideration
is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and must there!ore e deemed
a!!irmed. Such was the ruling o! this %ourt in the &esolution o! :o#emer *." *EEF
29. #-/9)- V&. D2
18 SCRA 111
FACTS!
2at. 2adilla reported along with ;enny 4y" with calier .3F as suspect to the
shooting incident at O;ennyGs ;ar"O at Sitio )ngol" 3anoc?3anoc 3alay" )$lan (;oracay)
situated on the 'sland which caused the death o! %hristian 6angel 2hilippe" tourist" +A
years old and a Swiss nationale. He was charged with the 3urder 9ith the <se o!
<nlicensed !irearms. )ppellant alleges that he carried the #ictim to the shore to e
rought to the hospital to sa#e the latter" and who !acilitated the surrender to 2at.
2adilla a gun which his helper !ound the !ollowing morning while cleaning the ar.
)ccused posted ail which was granted. The accused denied ha#ing made any oral
con!ession alleging that he went to 2at. 2adilla not to report the incident ut to state that
a oy helper in the ar had !ound a gun on the sand !loor while cleaning and that 2at.
2adilla pic$ed up the gun !rom the ar at his re5uest. The )ccused argues that e#en i!
he did ma$e such a con!ession" the same would e inadmissile in e#idence. He was
!ound guilty in the &T%. Hence the appeal.
ISSUE!
9hether or :ot the lower court correct in saying that the constitutional procedure
on custodial interrogation is not applicale in the instant case.
HELD!
CES. )ppellantGs assertion that the gun he had surrendered was merely !ound y
a oy helper while cleaning the ar deser#es no credence !or" i! it were so" it would
ha#e een asurd !or him to ha#e placed himsel! under police custody in the early
morning a!ter the incident. Sworn %omplaint !or O3urder with <se o! <nlicensed
>irearmO signed y the %hie! o! 2olice also attests to )ppellantGs oral con!ession. That
%omplaint !orms part o! the record o! the proceedings e!ore the 3unicipal %ircuit Trial
%ourt o! ;uruanga" )$lan" and is prima !acie e#idence o! the !acts therein stated.
)ppellantGs #oluntary surrender implies no #iolation as Ono warrant o! arrest is issued !or
the apprehension o! the accused !or the reason that he is already under police custody
e!ore the !iling o! the complaint.O 9hat was told y the )ccused to 2at" 2adilla was a
spontaneous statement not elicited through 5uestioning" ut gi#en in ordinary manner.
:o written con!ession was sought to e presented in e#idence as a result o! !ormal
custodial in#estigation.
30. #EO#LE VS. EBIO
GR N/. 147703 S-95-7:-, 293 2004
FACTS!
This re!ers to the 3otion !or &econsideration !iled y the accused Gerry Eio y
Hermida o! the %ourtGs 4ecision dated (ctoer *A" +II+. The per curiam 4ecision
a!!irmed the judgment o! the &egional Trial %ourt o! Sorsogon" Sorsogon !inding the
accused guilty eyond reasonale dout o! raping his ele#en?year old daughter" and
sentencing him to death. 'n his motion !or reconsideration" the accused calls the
attention o! the %ourt to the !act that only se#en out o! the !ourteen 7ustices sitting in the
%ourt signed the 4ecision. The other se#en 7ustices were on o!!icial lea#e at the time.
ISSUE!
9hether the #otes o! only se#en 7ustices o! the %ourt sitting en banc can #alidly
impose the death penalty and whether there is a need !or a 5uorum when it sits en
banc.
HELD:
)rticle J''' Section A o! the *EF. %onstitution pro#ides the composition o! the
%ourt and the numer o! #otes re5uired to render a decision" thus:
(*) The Supreme %ourt shall e composed o! a %hie! 7ustice and !ourteen
)ssociate 7ustices. 't may sit en banc or in its discretion" in di#isions o! three" !i#e" or
se#en memers. )ny #acancy shall e !illed within ninety days !rom the occurrence
thereo!.
(+) )ll cases in#ol#ing the constitutionality o! a treaty" international or e,ecuti#e
agreement" or law" which shall e heard y the Supreme %ourt en banc, and all other
cases which under the &ules o! %ourt are re5uired to e heard en banc, including those
in#ol#ing the constitutionality" application or operation o! presidential decrees"
proclamations" orders" instructions" ordinances" and other regulations" shall e decided
with the concurrence o! a majority o! the memers who actually too$ part in the
delierations on the issues in the case and #oted thereon.
(3) %ases or matters heard y a di#ision shall e decided or resol#ed with the
concurrence o! a majority o! the 3emers who actually too$ part in the delierations on
the issues in the case and #oted thereon" and in no case" without the concurrence o! at
least three o! such 3emers. 9hen the re5uired numer is not otained" the case shall
e decided en banc: 2ro#ided" that no doctrine or principle o! law laid down y the %ourt
in a decision rendered en banc or in di#ision may e modi!ied or re#ersed e,cept y the
court sitting en banc.
There is no 5uestion that the %ourtGs 4ecision in this case was concurred in y
majority o! the memers o! the %ourt who actually too$ part in the delierations. 't was
in !act unanimously signed y the se#en 7ustices who were present during the
delierations. The issue now is whether the se#en constitute a 5uorum o! the *A?
memer %ourt.
The term O5uorumOG has een de!ined as Othat numer o! memers o! the ody
which" when legally assemled in their proper places" will enale the ody to transact its
proper usiness" or" in other words" that numer that ma$es a law!ul ody and gi#es it
power to pass a law or ordinance or do any other #alid corporate act.O
*
The 5uestion o!
the numer o! judges necessary to authoriDe the transaction o! usiness y a court is as
a general rule to e determined !rom the %onstitution or statutory pro#isions creating
and regulating the courts" and as a general rule a majority o! the memers o! a court is
a O5uorumO !or the transaction o! usiness and the decision o! cases.
+
The %onstitution is clear on the 5uorum when the %ourt meets y 4i#ision. There
should e at least three memers present !or the 4i#ision to conduct its usiness. This
may e deduced !rom paragraph 3 o! Section A )rticle J'''. There is no similar
pronouncement" howe#er" when the %ourt meets en banc. The second paragraph o!
)rticle J''' Section A o! the *EF. %onstitution does not e,pressly state the numer o!
7ustices re5uired to e present to constitute a 5uorum o! the %ourt en banc. The
delierations o! the *EF. %onstitution are also silent on what constitutes a 5uorum when
the %ourt is composed o! only !ourteen memers. 'n case o! dout in a criminal case"
especially where the death penalty is imposed" the dout should e resol#ed in !a#or o!
the accused.
Thus" in this case" considering that the li!e o! the accused is at sta$e" we deem it
wise to resumit the case to the %ourt en banc !or re?delieration.
IN VIE< <HEREOF" the %ourt resol#es to &E%)66 the 4ecision dated (ctoer
*A" +II+ and &ES<;3'T the case to the %ourt en banc !or &E?4E6';E&)T'(:.
31. FIRESTONE CERA"ICS V. CA
GR N/. 127243 J1+- 283 2000
FACTS!
The go#ernment !iled a case to annul the certi!icate o! title o! 4 co#ering
!orestland. = wanted to inter#ene elie#ing that i! 4@s title would e annulled and a!ter
declassi!ication o! the !orestland to alienale land" then his title o#er a portion o! the
property would ecome #alid. C also wanted to inter#ene ecause the cancellation o!
4@s title would allegedly pa#e the way !or his !ree patent application.
ISSUE!
9hether = and C should e allowed to inter#ene.
HELD!
:o. 'nter#ention is not a matter o! right ut may e permitted y the courts when
the applicant shows that he is 5uali!ied to inter#ene as pro#ided under Sec. * o! &ule
*E. The legal interest o! the inter#enor must e o! direct and immediate character and
not merely contingent or e,pectant so that he will either gain or lose y the direct
operation o! the judgment. = and C merely ha#e a collateral interest in the suject
matter o! the litigation" thus" allowing inter#ention would not e justi!ied.
32. TANO %. SOCRATES
278 SCRA 14 (997)
FACTS!
The petitioners !iled a petition !or certiorari and prohiition assailing the
constitutionality o!:(*) (rdinance :o. *-?E+ enti tled:
O ): (&4':):%E ;)::':G THE SH'23E:T (> )66 6'JE>'SH ):4
6(;STE& (<TS'4E 2<E&T( 2&':%ES) %'TC >&(3 7):<)&C *" *EE3 T(
7):<)&C *"*EEF ):4 2&(J'4':G E=E32T'(:S" 2E:)6T'ES ):4 >(& (THE&
2<&2(SES THE&E(>O(+) (!!ice (rder :o. +3" re5uiring any person engaged
or intending to engage in any usiness" trade" occupation" calling or pro!ession or
ha#ing in his possession any o! the articles !or which a permit is re5uired to e had" to
otain !irst a 3ayor@s and authoriDing and directing to chec$ or conduct necessary
inspections on cargoes containing li#e !ish and loster eing shipped out !rom 2uerto
2rincesaand"(3) &esolution :o. 33" (rdinance :o. + entitled: O) &ES(6<T'(: 2&(H'
;'T':G THE%)T%H':G" G)THE&':G" 2(SSESS':G" ;<C':G" SE66':G ):4 SH'2
3E:T (> 6'JE 3)&':E%(&)6 49E66':G )P<)T'% (&G):'S3S1
The petitioners contend that the said (rdinances depri#ed them o! due
process o! law" their li#el ihood" and undul y restri cted them !rom the practi ce
o! their trade" in #iolation o! Secti on +" )rticl e ='' and Sections + and . o!
)rticl e =''' o! the *EF. %onstitution and that the 3ayor had the asolute
authori ty to determine whether or not to issue the permi t. They al so claim
that i t too$ away their right to earn thei r li #elihood in law!ul waysH and inso!ar
as the )i rline Shippers )ssoci ation are concerned" they were undul y
pre#ented !rom pursuing their #ocati on and entering Ointo contracts whi ch are
proper" necessary" and essential to carry out their usi ness endea#ors to a
success!ul conclusi on 2uli c respondents Go#ernor Socrates
and 3emers o! the Sangguni ang 2anl alawi gan o! 2alawan de!ended the
#al idi ty o! (rdinance :o. +" Series o! *EE3" as a #al id e,ercise o! the
2ro#i ncial Go#ernmentG s power under the general wel!are clauseH they
li $ewise maintai ned that there was no #i olati on o! the due process and e5ual
protecti on cl auses o! the %onsti tuti on.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the (rdinances in 5uestion are unconstitutional
HELD!
'n light then o! the principles o! decentraliDation and de#olution enshrined in the
6G% and the powers granted therein to local go#ernment units under Section *6 (the
General 9el!are %lause)" and under Sections *AE" AA.(a) (*) (#i)" A-F (a) (*) (#i) and
A6F (a) (*) (#i)" which un5uestionaly in#ol#e the e,ercise o! police power" the #alidity o!
the 5uestioned (rdinances cannot e douted.XXXSec. *6.General 9el!are
. W E#ery local go#ernment unit shall e,ercise the powers e,pressly granted" those
necessarily implied there!rom" as well as powers necessary" appropriate" or incidental
!or its e!!icient and e!!ecti#e go#ernance" and those which are essential to the promotion
o! the general wel!are. 9ithin their respecti#e territorial jurisdictions" local go#ernment
units shall ensure and support" among other things" the preser#ation and enrichment o!
culture" promote health and sa!ety" enhance the right o! the people to a alanced
ecology " encourage and support the de#elopment o! appropriate and sel!?reliant
scienti!ic and technological capailities" impro#e pulic morals" enhance economic
prosperity and social justice" promote !ull employment among their residents" maintain
peace and order" and preser#e the com!ort and con#enience o! their inhaitants.
(emphasis supplied).'t is clear to the %ourt that oth (rdinances ha#e two principal
ojecti#es or purposes: (*) to estalish a Oclosed seasonO !or the species o! !ish
or a5uatic animals co#ered therein !or a period o! !i#e yearsH and (+) to protect the coral
in the marine waters o! the %ity o! 2uerto 2rincesa and the 2ro#ince o! 2alawan !rom
!urther destruction due to illegal !ishing acti#ities.

't imposes upon the sangguniang ayan" the sangguniang panlungsod" and the
sangguniangpanlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to OQpRrotect the en#ironment
and impose appropriate
penalties!or acts which endanger the en#ironment such as dynamite !ishing and other !o
rms o! destructi#e!ishing . . . and such other acti#ities which result in pollution"
acceleration o! eutrophication o! ri#ers andla$es or o! ecological imalance.O

The petition is dismissed.
33. LINA VS. #URISI"A
82 SCRA 344 (1978)
FACTS!
6ualhati 6ina was a oo$$eeper at 2J;. 2etitioner !iles !or mandamus to compel
%aanos (2resident o! 2hil. Jeterans ;an$) to restore 6ina to her position. 6ina claims
she was remo#ed !rom o!!ice y %aanos who acted in gadalej. 't appeared !rom the
anne,es o! the amended petition that 6ina was dismissed y %aanos pursuant to 6('
Y *3 N 6(' Y *E !or eing notoriously undesirale. The &T% dismissed the petition.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the remo#al o! 6ina was pursuant to 6(' issued y the 2resident
pursuant to 2roclamation *IF*" the #alidity or legality o! said act is eyond the power o!
the courts to re#iew" much less modi!y" or re#erse. This is one o! the e,press limitations
upon the power o! the %ourts in GE:E&)6 (&4E& Y 3 y 2resident 3arcos.
HELD!
The petitioner@s right to redress is eyond dispute. 9hen the &T% in#o$ed
General (rder Y3" it was nothing short o! an unwarranted adication o! judicial authority.
The judge was apparently unaware that the %ourt has always deemed General (rder Y
3 as practically inoperati#e e#en in the light o! 2roclamation *IF*. There is unanimity
among <s in the #iew that it is !or the %ourt rather than the E,ecuti#e to determine
whether or not 9e ma$e ta$e cogniDance o! any gi#en case in#ol#ing the #alidity o! the
acts o! the E,ecuti#e purportedly under the authority o! martial law proclamations.
34. A+>0,0 %. E)-45/,0) C/77(&&(/+
*3 #HIL 139 (193*)
FACTS!
'n the elections o! Sept *." *E3-" )ngara" and the respondents" 2edro Cnsua et
al. were candidates #oted !or the position o! memer o! the :ational )ssemly !or the
!irst district o! the 2ro#ince o! Tayaas. (n (ct ." *E3-" )ngara was proclaimed as
memer?elect o! the :) !or the said district. (n :o#emer *-" *E3-" he too$ his oath o!
o!!ice. (n 4ec 3" *E3-" the :) in session assemled" passed &esolution :o. F
con!irming the election o! the memers o! the :ational )ssemly against whom no
protest had thus !ar een !iled. (n 4ec F" *E3-" Cnsua" !iled e!ore the Electoral
%ommission a 03otion o! 2rotest1 against the election o! )ngara. (n 4ec E" *E3-" the
E% adopted a resolution" par. 6 o! which !i,ed said date as the last day !or the !iling o!
protests against the election" returns and 5uali!ications o! memers o! the :)"
notwithstanding the pre#ious con!irmation made y the :). )ngara !iled a 3otion to
4ismiss arguing that y #irtue o! the :) proclamation" Cnsua can no longer protest.
Cnsua argued ac$ y claiming that E% proclamation go#erns and that the E% can ta$e
cogniDance o! the election protest and that the E% cannot e suject to a writ o!
prohiition !rom the S%.
ISSUE!
9hether or not E% acted without or in e,cess o! jurisdiction in ta$ing cogniDance
o! the election protest.
HELD!
The S% ruled in !a#or o! )ngara. That the Electoral %ommission is an
independent constitutional creation with speci!ic powers and !unctions to e,ecute and
per!orm" closer !or purposes o! classi!ication to the legislati#e than to any o! the other
two departments o! the go#ernment. That the Electoral %ommission is the sole judge o!
all contests relating to the election" returns and 5uali!ications o! memers o! the
:ational )ssemly.
3. "040&(0+/ %&. N05(/+0) H/1&(+> A15'/,(52 (NHA)
224 SCRA 23* (1993)
FACTS!
2etitioner see$s to ha#e this %ourt declare as unconstitutional Sections +F and
AA o! &epulic )ct :o. .+.E" otherwise $nown as the <ran 4e#elopment and Housing
)ct o! *EE+. He predicates his locust standi on his eing a consultant o! the 4epartment
o! 2ulic 9or$s and Highways (429H) pursuant to a %ontract o! %onsultancy on
(peration !or &emo#al o! (structions and Encroachments on 2roperties o! 2ulic
4omain (e,ecuted immediately a!ter his retirement on + 7anuary *EE+ !rom the
2hilippine :ational 2olice) and his eing a ta,payer. )s to the !irst" he alleges that said
Sections +F and AA Ocontain the seeds o! a ripening contro#ersy that ser#e as
drawac$O to his Otas$s and duties regarding demolition o! illegal structuresOH ecause o!
the said sections" he Ois unale to continue the demolition o! illegal structures which he
assiduously and !aith!ully carried out in the past.O

)s a ta,payer" he alleges that Ohe has
a direct interest in seeing to it that pulic !unds are properly and law!ully disursed.O

(n *A 3ay *EE3" the Solicitor General !iled his %omment to the petition. He
maintains that" the instant petition is de#oid o! merit !or non?compliance with the
essential re5uisites !or the e,ercise o! judicial re#iew in cases in#ol#ing the
constitutionality o! a law. He contends that there is no actual case or contro#ersy with
litigants asserting ad#erse legal rights or interests" that the petitioner merely as$s !or an
ad#isory opinion" that the petitioner is not the proper party to 5uestion the )ct as he
does not state that he has property Oeing s5uatted uponO and that there is no showing
that the 5uestion o! constitutionality is the #ery lis mota presented. He argues that
Sections +F and AA o! the )ct are not constitutionality in!irm.
ISSUE!
9hether or not 2etitioner has legal standing.
HELD!
't is a rule !irmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality o! an
act o! the legislature will not e determined y the courts unless that" 5uestion is
properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination
o! the case" i.e." the issue o! constitutionality must e #ery lis mota presented.

To
reiterate" the essential re5uisites !or a success!ul judicial in5uiry into the constitutionality
o! a law are: (a) the e,istence o! an actual case or contro#ersy in#ol#ing a con!lict o!
legal rights susceptile o! judicial determination" () the constitutional 5uestion must e
raised y a proper property" (c) the constitutional 5uestion must e raised at the
opportunity" and (d) the resolution o! the constitutional 5uestion must e necessary to
the decision o! the case.
E
) proper party is one who has sustained or is in danger o!
sustaining an immediate injury as a result o! the acts or measures complained o!.
't is easily discernile in the instant case that the !irst two (+) !undamental
re5uisites are asent. There is no actual contro#ersy. 3oreo#er" petitioner does not
claim that" in either or oth o! the capacities in which he is !iling the petition" he has
een actually pre#ented !rom per!orming his duties as a consultant and e,ercising his
rights as a property owner ecause o! the assertion y other parties o! any ene!it
under the challenged sections o! the said )ct. 7udicial re#iew cannot e e,ercised in
#acuo. 7udicial power is the Oright to determine actual contro#ersies arising etween
ad#erse litigants.O
3*. TAN VS. "ACA#AGAL
43 SCRA *78 (1972)
FACTS!
The petitioners see$s !or the court to declare that the delierating %onstitutional
%on#ention was Owithout power" under Section *" )rticle =J o! the %onstitution and
&epulic )ct 6*3+" to consider" discuss and adopt proposals which see$ to re#ise the
present %onstitution through the adoption o! a !orm o! a go#ernment other than the !orm
now outlined in the present %onstitution Qthe %on#ention eingR merely empowered to
propose impro#ements to the present %onstitution without altering the general plan laid
down therein.O
ISSUE!
9hether or not the court has jurisdiction o#er the case
HELD!
:o. )t the time the case was !iled the %on?%on has not yet !inaliDed any
resolution that would radically alter the *E3- constitution there!ore not yet ripe !or
judicial re#iew. The case ecomes ripe when the %on?%on has actually does something
already. Then the court may actually in5uire into the jurisdiction o! the ody.
Separation o! power departments should e le!t alone to do duties as they see !it. The
E,ecuti#e and the 6egislature are not ound to as$ !or ad#ice in carrying out their
dutiesH judiciary may not inter!ere so that it may !ul!ill its duties well. The court may not
inter!ere until the proper time comes 0ripeness1
37. #ACU %&. S-4,-50,2 /; E61405(/+
97 #'() 80* (19)
FACTS!

The petitioning colleges and uni#ersities re5uest that )ct :o. +.I6 as amended
y )ct :o. 3I.- and %ommonwealth )ct :o. *FI e declared unconstitutional"
ecause: ).) They depri#e owners o! schools and colleges as well as teachers and
parents o! lierty and property without due process o! lawH ;.) They depri#e parents o!
their natural right and duty to rear their children !or ci#ic e!!iciencyH and %.) Their
pro#isions con!erring on the Secretary o! Education unlimited power and discretion to
prescrie rules and standards constitute an unlaw!ul delegation o! legislati#e power.
2etitioners complain that e!ore opening a school the owner must secure a permit !rom
the Secretary o! Education. 2etitioners@ reason out" 0this section lea#es e#erything to
the uncontrolled discretion o! the Secretary o! Education or his department. The
Secretary o! Education is gi#en the power to !i, the standard. 'n plain language" the
statute turns o#er to the Secretary o! Education the e,clusi#e authority o! the legislature
to !ormulate standard . . .1 )lso" the te,too$s to e used in the pri#ate schools
recogniDed or authoriDed y the go#ernment shall e sumitted to the ;oard (;oard o!
Te,too$s) which shall ha#e the power to prohiit the use o! any o! said te,too$s
which it may !ind to e against the law or to o!!end the dignity and honour o! the
go#ernment and people o! the 2hilippines" or which it may !ind to e against the general
policies o! the go#ernment" or which it may deem pedagogically unsuitale.
ISSUE!
9hat are the essential re5uisites !or the e,ercise o! the power o! judicial re#iew8
HELD!
't is now !irmly estalished that the power o! judicial re#iew is merely an aspect o!
judicial power. Hence" the !irst re5uisite !or the e,ercise o! judicial re#iew is that there
must e e!ore the court an actual case calling !or the e,ercise o! judicial power. The
5uestion e!ore it must e ripe !or adjudication" that is" the go#ernmental act eing
challenged must ha#e an ad#erse e!!ect on the person challenging it.
38. GON@ALES %&. "ARCOS
* SCRA *24
FACTS!
The petitioner 5uestioned the #alidity o! E( :o. 3I creating the %ultural %enter o!
the 2hilippines" ha#ing as its estate the real and personal property #ested in it as well as
donations recei#ed" !inancial commitments that could therea!ter e collected" and gi!ts
that may e !orthcoming in the !uture. 't was li$ewise alleged that the ;oard o! Trustees
did accept donations !rom the pri#ate sector and did secure !rom the %hemical ;an$ o!
:ew Cor$ a loan o! Z- million guaranteed y the :ational 'n#estment [ 4e#elopment
%orporation as well as Z3.- million recei#ed !rom 2resident 7ohnson o! the <nited
States in the concept o! war damage !unds" all intended !or the construction o! the
%ultural %enter uilding estimated to cost 2AF million. The petition was denied y the
trial court arguing that with not a single centa#o raised y ta,ation" and the asence o!
any pecuniary or monetary interest o! petitioner that could in any wise e prejudiced
distinct !rom those o! the general pulic.
ISSUE!
Has a ta,payer the capacity to 5uestion the #alidity o! the issuance in this case8
HELD!
:o. 't was therein pointed out as Oone more #alid reasonO why such an outcome
was una#oidale that Othe !unds administered y the 2resident o! the 2hilippines came
!rom donations QandR contriutions QnotR y ta,ation.O )ccordingly" there was that
asence o! the Ore5uisite pecuniary or monetary interest.O The stand o! the lower court
!inds support in judicial precedents. This is not to retreat !rom the lieral approach
!ollowed in 2ascual #. Secretary o! 2ulic 9or$s" !oreshadowed y 2eople #. Jera"
where the doctrine o! standing was !irst !ully discussed. 't is only to ma$e clear that
petitioner" judged y orthodo, legal learning" has not satis!ied the elemental re5uisite !or
a ta,payerGs suit. 3oreo#er" e#en on the assumption that pulic !unds raised y ta,ation
were in#ol#ed" it does not necessarily !ollow that such $ind o! an action to assail the
#alidity o! a legislati#e or e,ecuti#e act has to e passed upon. This %ourt" as held in
the recent case o! Tan #. 3acapagal" Ois not de#oid o! discretion as to whether or not it
should e entertained.O The lower court thus did not err in so #iewing the situation.
39. O#OSA VS. FACTORAN
229 SCRA792
FACTS!
This case is uni5ue in that it is a class suit rought y AAchildren" through their parents"
claiming that they ring the case in the name o! 0their generation as well as those
generations yet unorn.1 )iming to stop de!orestation" it was !iled against the Secretary
o! the 4epartment o! En#ironment and :atural &esources " see$ing to ha#e him cancel
all the timer license agreements (T6)s) in the country and to cease and desist !rom
accepting and appro#ing more timer license agreements. The children in#o$ed their
right to a alanced and health!ul ecology and to protection y the State in its capacity as
parens patriae. The petitioners claimed that the 4E:& SecretaryGs re!usal to cancel the
T6)s and to stop issuing them was Ocontrary to the highest law o! human$ind?? the
natural lawWand #iolati#e o! plainti!!sG right to sel!?preser#ation and perpetuation.O The
case was dismissed in the lower court" in#o$ing the law on non?impairment o! contracts"
so it was rought to the Supreme %ourt on certiorari.
ISSUE!
4id the children ha#e the legal standing to !ile the case8
HELD!
Ces. The Supreme %ourt in granting the petition ruled that the children had the
legal standing to !ile the case ased on the concept o! 0intergenerational responsiility1.
Their right to a healthy en#ironment carried with it an oligation to preser#e that
en#ironment !or the succeeding generations. 'n this" the %ourt recogniDed legal standing
to sue on ehal! o! !uture generations. )lso" the %ourt said" the law on non?impairment
o! contracts must gi#e way to the e,ercise o! the police power o! the state in the interest
o! pulic wel!are.
40.JO$A VS. #CGG
22 SCRA *8 (1993)
FACTS!
2etitioners" as ta,payers and citiDens" see$ to enjoin the 2%GG !rom proceeding
with a pre#iously held auction sale o! the (ld 3asters 2aintings and *F
th
and *E
th
century sil#erware seiDed !rom 3alacanang and the 3etropolitan 3useum o! 3anila
and placed in custody o! the %entral ;an$.
ISSUE!

9hether petitioners ha#e legal standing to !ile the petition
HELD!
:(. :ot owners" no pulic disursement o! !unds. :o personal and sustantial
interest such that they will sustain direct injury 'nterest o! the party must e personal
Ha#ing !ailed to show that they are the legal owners or that the suject pieces
are pulicly owned" petitioners do not possess any clear legal right whatsoe#er to
5uestion their alleged unauthoriDed disposition.
41. KILOSBA$AN vs. "ANUEL L. "ORATO
G.R. N/. 118910. N/%-7:-, 1*3 199
FACTS!
'n 7an. +-" *EE-" 2%S( and 2G3% signed an E5uipment 6ease )greement
(E6)) wherein 2G3% leased online lottery e5uipment and accessories to 2%S(.
(&ental o! A.3/ o! the gross amount o! tic$et or at least 23-"III per terminal annually).
3I/ o! the net receipts is allotted to charity. Term o! lease is !or F years. 2%S( is to
employ its own personnel and responsile !or the !acilities. <pon the e,piration o! lease"
2%S( may purchase the e5uipment !or 2+- million. >e. +*" *EE-. ) petition was !iled
to declare E6) in#alid ecause it is the same as the %ontract o! 6ease 2etitionerGs
%ontention: E6) was same to the %ontract o! 6ease.. 't is still #iolati#e o! 2%S(Gs
charter. 't is #iolati#e o! the law regarding pulic idding. 't #iolates Sec. +(+) o! )rt. E?4
o! the *EF. %onstitution. Standing can no longer e 5uestioned ecause it has ecome
the law o! the case &espondentGs reply: E6) is di!!erent !rom the %ontract o! 6ease.
There is no idding re5uired. The power to determine i! E6) is ad#antageous is #ested
in the ;oard o! 4irectors o! 2%S(. 2%S( does not ha#e !unds. 2etitioners see$ to
!urther their moral crusade. 2etitioners do not ha#e a legal standing ecause they were
not parties to the contract
ISSUE!
9hether or not the petitioners ha#e standing8
HELD!
:(. ST)&E 4E%'S'S cannot apply. The pre#ious ruling sustaining the standing
o! the petitioners is a departure !rom the settled rulings on real parties in interest
ecause no constitutional issues were actually in#ol#ed. 6)9 (> THE %)SE cannot
also apply. Since the present case is not the same one litigated y theparties e!ore in
Vilosayan #s. Guingona" 7r." the ruling cannot e in any sense e regarded as the law
o! this case. The parties are the same ut the cases are not. &<6E (:
%(:%6<S'JE:ESS cannot still apply. )n issue actually and directly passed upon and
determine in a !ormer suit cannot again e drawn in 5uestion in any !uture action
etween the same parties in#ol#ing a di!!erent cause o! action. ;ut the rule does not
apply to issues o! law at least when sustantially unrelated claims are in#ol#ed. 9hen
the second proceeding in#ol#es an instrument or transaction identical with" ut in a !orm
separale !rom the one dealt with in the !irst proceeding" the %ourt is !ree in the second
proceeding to ma$e an independent e,amination o! the legal matters at issue. Since
E6) is a di!!erent contract" the pre#ious decision does not preclude determination o! the
petitionerGs standing. ST):4':G is a concept in constitutional law and here no
constitutional 5uestion is actually in#ol#ed. The more appropriate issue is whether the
petitioners are &E)6 2)&T'ES in ':TE&EST.
42.
43. T-)-4/771+(405(/+& A+6 B,/0640&5 A55/,+-2& O; T'- #'()&. V&. CO"ELEC
289 SCRA 337
F045&!
2etitioner Telecommunications and ;roadcast )ttorneys o! the 2hilippines" 'nc.
(TE6E;)2) is an organiDation o! lawyers o! radio and tele#ision roadcasting
companies. 't was declared to e without legal standing to sue in this case as" among
other reasons" it was not ale to show that it was to su!!er !rom actual or threatened
injury as a result o! the suject law. 2etitioner G3) :etwor$" on the other hand" had
the re5uisite standing to ring the constitutional challenge. 2etitioner operates radio
and tele#ision roadcast stations in the2hilippines a!!ected y the en!orcement o!
Section E+" ;.2. :o. FF*.
2etitioners challenge the #alidity o! Section E+" ;.2. :o. FF* which pro#ides:
0%omelec Time? The %ommission shall procure radio and tele#ision time to e $nown
as the 0%omelec Time1 which shall e allocated e5ually and impartially among the
candidates within the area o! co#erage o! all radio and tele#ision stations. >or this
purpose" the !ranchise o! all radio roadcasting and tele#ision stations are herey
amended so as to pro#ide radio or tele#ision time" !ree o! charge" during the period o!
campaign.1
2etitioner contends that while Section EI o! the same law re5uires %(3E6E% to
procure print space in newspapers and magaDines with payment" Section E+ pro#ides
that air time shall e procured y %(3E6E% !ree o! charge. Thus it contends that
Section E+ singles out radio and tele#ision stations to pro#ide !ree air time.
2etitioner claims that it su!!ered losses running to se#eral million pesos in
pro#iding %(3E6E% Time in connection with the *EE+ presidential election and *EE-
senatorial election and that it stands to su!!er e#en more should it e re5uired to do so
again this year. 2etitioners claim that the primary source o! re#enue o! the radio and
tele#ision stations is the sale o! air time to ad#ertisers and to re5uire these stations to
pro#ide !ree air time is to authoriDe unjust ta$ing o! pri#ate property. )ccording to
petitioners" in *EE+ it lost 2++"AEF"-6I.II in pro#iding !ree air time !or one hour each
day and" in this year@s elections" it stands to lost 2-F"EFI"F-I.II in #iew o! %(3E6E%@s
re5uirement that it pro#ide at least 3I minutes o! prime time daily !or such.
I&&1-!
9hether o! not Section E+ o! ;.2. :o. FF* denies radio and tele#ision roadcast
companies the e5ual protection o! the laws.
9hether or not Section E+ o! ;.2. :o. FF* constitutes ta$ing o! property without
due process o! law and without just compensation.
H-)6!
2etitioner@s argument is without merit. )ll roadcasting" whether radio or y
tele#ision stations" is licensed y the go#ernment. )irwa#e !re5uencies ha#e to e
allocated as there are more indi#iduals who want to roadcast that there are
!re5uencies to assign. &adio and tele#ision roadcasting companies" which are gi#en
!ranchises" do not own the airwa#es and !re5uencies through which they transmit
roadcast signals and images. They are merely gi#en the temporary pri#ilege to use
them. Thus" such e,ercise o! the pri#ilege may reasonaly e urdened with the
per!ormance y the grantee o! some !orm o! pulic ser#ice. 'n granting the pri#ilege to
operate roadcast stations and super#ising radio and tele#ision stations" the state
spends considerale pulic !unds in licensing and super#ising them.
The argument that the suject law singles out radio and tele#ision stations to
pro#ide !ree air time as against newspapers and magaDines which re5uire payment o!
just compensation !or the print space they may pro#ide is li$ewise without merit.
&egulation o! the roadcast industry re5uires spending o! pulic !unds which it does not
do in the case o! print media. To re5uire the roadcast industry to pro#ide !ree air time
!or %(3E6E% is a !air e,change !or what the industry gets.
)s radio and tele#ision roadcast stations do not own the airwa#es" no pri#ate
property is ta$en y the re5uirement that they pro#ide air time to the %(3E6E%.

44. BA$AN VS. @A"ORA
G.R. N/. 138703 O45/:-, 103 2000
FACTS!
The &epulic o! the 2hilippines and the <nited States o! )merica entered into an
agreement called the Jisiting >orces )greement (J>)). The agreement was treated as
a treaty y the 2hilippine go#ernment and was rati!ied y then?2resident 7oseph
Estrada with the concurrence o! +N3 o! the total memership o! the 2hilippine Senate.
The J>) de!ines the treatment o! <.S. troops and personnel #isiting the
2hilippines. 't pro#ides !or the guidelines to go#ern such #isits" and !urther de!ines the
rights o! the <.S. and the 2hilippine go#ernments in the matter o! criminal jurisdiction"
mo#ement o! #essel and aircra!t" importation and e,portation o! e5uipment" materials
and supplies.
2etitioners argued" inter alia" that the J>) #iolates \+-" )rticle =J''' o! the *EF.
%onstitution" which pro#ides that 0foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate . . . and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
ISSUE!
9as the J>) unconstitutional8
RULING!
[The ourt 5)S7)SSE5 the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did
not commit gra!e abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the "#$.%
NO& the (8' is not unconstitutional.
Section +-" )rticle =J''' disallows !oreign military ases" troops" or !acilities in the
country" unless the !ollowing conditions are su!!iciently met" !iz: (a) it must e under
a 5,-052H () the treaty must e 61)2 4/+41,,-6 (+ :2 5'- S-+05- and" when so
re5uired y congress" rati!ied y a majority o! the #otes cast y the people in a national
re!erendumH and (c) ,-4/>+(?-6 0& 0 5,-052 y the other contracting state.
There is no dispute as to the presence o! the !irst two re5uisites in the case o! the
J>). The concurrence handed y the Senate through &esolution :o. *F is in
accordance with the pro#isions o! the %onstitution . . . the pro#ision in Qin \+-" )rticle
=J'''R re5uiring rati!ication y a majority o! the #otes cast in a national re!erendum eing
unnecessary since %ongress has not re5uired it.
,,, ,,, ,,,
This %ourt is o! the !irm #iew that the phrase 9reco#ni:ed as a treaty; means
that the other contracting party accepts or acknowled#es the agreement as a treaty.
To re5uire the other contracting state" the <nited States o! )merica in this case" to
sumit the J>) to the <nited States Senate !or concurrence pursuant to its %onstitution"
is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.
9ell?entrenched is the principle that the words used in the %onstitution are to e
gi#en their ordinary meaning e,cept where technical terms are employed" in which case
the signi!icance thus attached to them pre#ails. 'ts language should e understood in
the sense they ha#e in common use.
3oreo#er" it is inconse5uential whether the <nited States treats the J>) only as
an e,ecuti#e agreement ecause" under international law" an e,ecuti#e agreement is as
inding as a treaty. To e sure" as long as the J>) possesses the elements o! an
agreement under international law" the said agreement is to e ta$en e5ually as a
treaty.
,,, ,,, ,,,
The records re#eal that the <nited States Go#ernment" through )massador
Thomas %. Huard" has stated that the <nited States go#ernment has !ully committed
to li#ing up to the terms o! the J>). >or as long as the <nited States o! )merica accepts
or ac$nowledges the J>) as a treaty" and inds itsel! !urther to comply with its
oligations under the treaty" there is indeed mar$ed compliance with the mandate o! the
%onstitution.
4. AUTO"OTIVE INDUSTR$ <ORKERS V. EAECUTIVE SECRETAR$
G.R. N/. 12284* J0+10,2 183 200
FACTS!
)utomoti#e 'ndustry 9or$ers )lliance ()'9)) and its a!!iliated unions call upon
the Supreme %ourt to e,ercise its power o! judicial re#iew to declare as unconstitutional
an e,ecuti#e order assailed to e in derogation o! the constitutional doctrine o!
separation o! powers. 'n an original action !or certiorari" they in#o$e their status as laor
unions and as ta,payers whose rights and interests are allegedly #iolated and
prejudiced y E,ecuti#e (rder *F- dated *I 3arch +II3 wherey administrati#e
super#ision o#er the :ational 6aor &elations %ommission (:6&%)" its regional
ranches and all its personnel including the e,ecuti#e laor ariters and laor ariters
was trans!erred !rom the :6&% %hairperson to the Secretary o! 6aor and Employment.
'n support o! their position" the <nions argue that the :6&% ?? created y 2residential
4ecree AA+" otherwise $nown as the 6aor %ode" during 3artial 6aw B was an integral
part o! the 4epartment (then 3inistry) o! 6aor and Employment (4(6E) under the
administrati#e super#ision o! the Secretary o! 7ustice. 4uring the time o! 2resident
%oraDon %. )5uino" and while she was endowed with legislati#e !unctions a!ter E4S) '"
E,ecuti#e (rder +E+ was issued wherey the :6&% ecame an agency attached to the
4(6E !or policy and program coordination and !or administrati#e super#ision. (n +
3arch *EFE" )rticle +*3 o! the 6aor %ode was e,pressly amended y &epulic )ct
6.*- declaring that the :6&% was to e attached to the 4(6E !or program and policy
coordination only while the administrati#e super#ision o#er the :6&%" its regional
ranches and personnel" was turned o#er to the :6&% %hairman. The suject E( *F-"
in authoriDing the Secretary o! 6aor to e,ercise administrati#e super#ision o#er the
:6&%" its regional ranches and personnel" allegedly re#erted to the pre?&) 6.*- set?
up" amending the latter law which only %ongress can do. )lerto &omulo (in his
capacity as E,ecuti#e Secretary) and 2atricia Sto. Tomas (in her capacity as Secretary
o! 6aor and Employment)" as represented y the (!!ice o! the Solicitor General"
opposed the petition on procedural and sustanti#e grounds.
ISSUE!
9hether the <nions ?? which contend that they are suing !or and in ehal! o!
their memers (more or less -I"III wor$ers) B?? has the re5uisite standing.
HELD!
:o legal standing" not as ta,payer or citiDen. The scope o! authority o! the
Secretary o! 6aor does not e,tend to the power o! the :6&% in the e,ercise o! its
5uasi?judicial powers. )n administrati#e in nature the suject does not pass eyond the
limits o! the departments to which it is directed" hence" it has not created any rights in
third persons.
4*. <HITE LIGHT COR# V. CIT$ OF "ANILA
G.R. N/. 12284* J0+10,2 203 2000
FACTS!
(n 3 4ec *EE+" then 3ayor 6im signed into law (rd ...A entitled 0)n
(rdinance1 prohiiting short time admission in hotels" motels" lodging houses" pension
houses and similar estalishments in the %ity o! 3anila. 9hite 6ight %orp is an operator
o! mini hotels and motels who sought to ha#e the (rdinance e nulli!ied as the said
(rdinance in!ringes on the pri#ate rights o! their patrons. The &T% ruled in !a#or o!
96%. 't ruled that the (rdinance stri$es at the personal lierty o! the indi#idual
guaranteed y the %onstitution. The %ity maintains that the ordinance is #alid as it is a
#alid e,ercise o! police power. <nder the 6G%" the %ity is empowered to regulate the
estalishment" operation and maintenance o! ca!es" restaurants" eerhouses" hotels"
motels" inns" pension houses" lodging houses and other similar estalishments"
including tourist guides and transports. The %) ruled in !a#or o! the %ity.
ISSUE!
9hether or not (rd ...A is #alid.
HELD!
The S% ruled that the said ordinance is null and #oid as it indeed in!ringes upon
indi#idual lierty. 't also #iolates the due process clause which ser#es as a guaranty !or
protection against aritrary regulation or seiDure. The said ordinance in#ades pri#ate
rights. :ote that not all who goes into motels and hotels !or wash up rate are really there
!or oscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to 0wash up1 or to
!reshen up. Hence" the in!idelity sought to e a#oided y the said ordinance is more or
less sujected only to a limited group o! people. The S% reiterates that indi#idual rights
may e ad#ersely a!!ected only to the e,tent that may !airly e re5uired y the legitimate
demands o! pulic interest or pulic wel!are.

47. GON@ALES V. NARVASA
G.R. N/. 14083 A1>1&5143 2000
FACTS!
2etitioner &amon GonDales" in his capacity as a citiDen and ta,payer" assails the
constitutionality o! the creation o! the 2reparatory %ommission on %onstitutional &e!orm
(2%%&) and o! thepositions o! presidential consultants" ad#isers and assistants.
The 2%%& was created y 2res. Estrada y #irtue o! E( A3 in order to study and
recommend proposed amendments andNor re#isions to the %onstitution" and the
manner o! implementing them.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the petitioner has legal standing to !ile the case
HELD!
'n assailing the constitutionality o! E( A3" petitioner asserts his interest as a
citiDen and ta,payer.
) citiDen ac5uires standing only i! he can estalish that he has su!!ered some actual or
threatened injury as a result o! the allegedly illegal conduct o! the go#ernmentH the injury
is !airly traceale to the challenged actionH and the injury is li$ely to e addressed y a
!a#orale action. 2etitioner has not shown that he has sustained or in danger o!
sustaining any personal injury attriutale to the creation o! the 2%%& and o!
the positions o! presidential consultants" ad#isers and assistants. :either does he claim
that his rights or pri#ileges ha#e een or are in danger o! eing #iolated" nor that he
shall e sujected to any penalties or urdens as a result o! the issues raised.
'n his capacity as a ta,payer" a ta,payer is deemed to ha#e thestanding to raise
a constitutional issue when it is estalished that pulic !unds ha#e disursed
in alleged contra#ention o! the law or the %onstitution. Thus" payer@s action is properly
rought only when there is an e,ercise y %ongress o! its ta,ing or spending power. 'n
the creation o! 2%%&" it is apparent that there is no e,ercise y %ongress o!
its ta,ing or spending power. The 2%%& was created y the 2resident y #irtue o! E(
A3 as amended y E( .I. The appropriations !or the 2%%& were authoriDed y the
2resident" not y %ongress. The !unds used !or the 2%%& were ta$en !rom
!unds intended !or the (!!ice o! the 2resident" in the e,ercise o! the %hie! E,ecuti#e@s
power totrans!er !unds pursuant to Sec. +-(-) o! )rt. J' o! the %onstitution. )s to the
creation o! the positions o! presidential consultants" ad#isersand assistants" the
petitioner has not alleged the necessary !acts so as to enale the %ourt to determine i!
he possesses a ta,payer@s interest in this particular issue.
AF.
49. CHAVE@ VS #CGG
299 SCRA 744
FACTS!
2etitioner >rancisco '. %ha#eD" in#o$ing his constitutional right to in!ormation and
the correlati#e duty o! the state to disclose pulicly all its transactions in#ol#ing the
national interest" demands that respondents ma$e pulic any and all negotiations and
agreements pertaining to 2%GG@s tas$ o! reco#ering the 3arcoses@ ill?gotten wealth"
!ollowing reports annered in roadsheets regarding the compromise agreement
entered into etween 2%GG and 3arcoses. 2etitioner e,plains that as a ta,payer and
citiDen" he has the legal personality to !ile the instant petition. 2etitioner emphasiDes"
the matter o! reco#ering the ill?gotten wealth o! the 3arcoses is an issue 0o!
transcendental importance to the pulic.1 He asserts that ordinary ta,payers ha#e a
right to initiate and prosecute actions 5uestioning the #alidity o! acts or orders o!
go#ernment agencies or instrumentalities" i! the issues raised are 0o! paramount pulic
interestH1 and i! they 0immeasuraly a!!ect the social" economic" and moral well?eing o!
the people.1
(n the other hand" the solicitor general" on ehal! o! respondents" contends that
petitioner has no standing to institute the present action" ecause no e,penditure o!
pulic !unds is in#ol#ed and said petitioner has no actual interest in the alleged
agreement. &espondents !urther insist that the instant petition is premature" since there
is no showing that petitioner has re5uested 2%GG to disclose any such negotiations
and agreementsH or that" i! he has" the %ommission has re!used to do so.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the petitioner has standing to !ile the instant petition
HELD!
;ecause o! the satis!action o! the two asic re5uisites laid down y decisional
law to sustain petitioner@s legal standing" i.e. (*) the en!orcement o! a pulic right (+)
espoused y a >ilipino citiDen" petition at ar should e allowed.
0. IB# VS @A"ORA
342 SCRA 449
FACTS!
'n #iew o! the alarming increase in #iolent crimes in 3etro 3anila" li$e
roeries" $idnappings and carnappings" the 2resident" in a #eral directi#e" ordered
the 2:2 and the 3arines to conduct joint #isiility patrols !or the purpose o! crime
pre#ention and suppression. The Secretary o! :ational 4e!ense" the %hie! o! Sta!! o!
the )rmed >orces o! the 2hilippines (the 0)>21)" the %hie! o! the 2:2 and the Secretary
o! the 'nterior and 6ocal Go#ernment were tas$ed to e,ecute and implement the said
order. The manner y which the joint #isiility patrols was conducted "Tas$
>orce Tulungan was placed under the leadership o! the 2olice %hie! o! 3etro 3anila.
';2 5uestions the #alidity o! the deployment and utiliDation o! the 3arines to assist
the 2:2 in law en!orcement.
The Solicitor General de!ended the constitutionality o! the act o! the 2resident in
deploying the 3arines" contending" among others" that petitioner has no legal
standingH that the 5uestion o! deployment o! the 3arines is not proper !or judicial
scrutiny since the same in#ol#es a political 5uestionH that the organiDation and conduct
o! police #isiility patrols" which !eature the team?up o! one police o!!icer and one
2hilippine 3arine soldier" does not #iolate the ci#ilian supremacy clause in the
%onstitution.
ISSUES!
*. 9hether or not ';2 has legal standing to 5uestion the deployment and utiliDation
o! 3arines.
+. 9hether or not the 5uestion o! deployment o! marines is proper !or judicial
scrutiny.
HELD!
The &'P has not sufficiently complied with the re(uisites of standing in this
case. 06egal standing1 or locus standi has een de!ined as a personal and sustantial
interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result o! the go#ernmental act that is eing challenged. The term 0interest1 means a
material interest" an interest in issue a!!ected y the decree" as distinguished !rom mere
interest in the 5uestion in#ol#ed" or a mere incidental interest. The gist o! the 5uestion o!
standing is whether a party alleges 0such personal sta$e in the outcome o! the
contro#ersy as to assure that concrete ad#erseness which sharpens the presentation o!
issues upon which the court depends !or illumination o! di!!icult constitutional
5uestions. The mere in#ocation y the ';2 o! its duty to preser#e the rule o! law and
nothing more" while undoutedly true" is not su!!icient to clothe it with standing in this
case.
9hen the 2resident calls the armed !orces to pre#ent or suppress lawless
#iolence" in#asion or reellion" he necessarily e,ercises a discretionary power solely
#ested in his wisdom. The %ourt" thus" cannot e called upon to o#errule the
2resident@s wisdom or sustitute its own. Howe#er" this does not pre#ent an
e,amination o! whether such power was e,ercised within permissile constitutional
limits or whether it was e,ercised in a manner constituting gra#e ause o! discretion.
1. FRANCISCO VS HOUSE OF RE#RESENTATIVES
41 SCRA 44
FACTS!
(n 7une ++" +II+" the H& adopted a resolution to in#estigate the disursement
o! !unds o! the 74> under Hilario 4a#ide. 'n 7une +" +II3" !ormer 2resident Estrada
!iled an impeachment complaint against %hie! 7ustice 4a#ide !or culpale #iolation o!
the %onstitution" etrayal o! the pulic trust and other high crimes. The House
%ommittee on 7ustice ruled that the impeachment complaint was Osu!!icient in !orm"Out
#oted to dismiss the same on (ctoer ++" +II3 !or eing insu!!icient in sustance. )
day a!ter dismissing the !irst impeachment complaint" a +
nd
complaint was !iled against
4a#ide ased on the in#estigation o! !und disursement o! 74> under 4a#ide. 2etitions
were !iled to declare the +
nd
impeachment unconstitutional !or it #iolates the pro#ision
that no impeachment proceedings shall e initiated twice against the same o!!icial.
2etitions also claim that the legislati#e in5uiry into the administration y the %hie!
7ustice o! the 74> in!ringes on the constitutional doctrine o! separation o! powers and is
a direct #iolation o! the constitutional principle o! !iscal autonomy o! the judiciary.
Senator )5uilino P. 2imentel" 7r." in his own ehal!" !iled a 3otion to 'nter#ene and
%omment" praying that Othe consolidated petitions e dismissed !or lac$ o! jurisdiction o!
the %ourt o#er the issues a!!ecting the impeachment proceedings and that the sole
power" authority and jurisdiction o! the Senate as the impeachment court to try and
decide impeachment cases" including the one where the %hie! 7ustice is the
respondent" e recogniDed and upheld pursuant to the pro#isions o! )rticle =' o! the
%onstitution.O 2etitioners plea !or the S% to e,ercise the power o! judicial re#iew to
determine the #alidity o! the second impeachment complaint.
ISSUE!
9(: judicial re#iew power e,tends to those arising !rom impeachment
proceedings
HELD!
2ower o! judicial re#iew is the power o! the court to settle actual contro#ersies
in#ol#ing rights which are legally demandale and en!orceale. 7udicial re#iew is indeed
an integral component o! the delicate system o! chec$s and alances which" together
with the corollary principle o! separation o! powers" !orms the edroc$ o! repulican
!orm o! go#ernment and insures that its #ast powers are utiliDed only !or the ene!it o!
the people !or which it ser#es. Separation o! powers is not asolute. The S% is the !inal
ariter to determine i! acts y the legislature and the e,ecuti#e is in #iolation o! the
%onstitution. 3oreo#er" the power o! judicial re#iew is e,pressly stated in the
%onstitution.

2. DE AGBA$ANI VS #NB
38 SCRA 429
FACTS!
'n *E3E" 4e )gayani otained a loan !rom 2:; secured y &eal Estate
3ortgage. Said loan matured in *EAA ut could not e collected ecause o! war. 'n
*EA-" 2res. (smena issued E( 3+ (4et 3oratorium 6aw) suspending payment o!
loans !or A years due to ra#age o! war. 'n *EAF" the same was e,tended !or another F
years y #irtue o! &) 3A+ which was suse5uently declared unconstitutional. 9hen
2:; instituted an e,trajudicial !oreclosure proceedings against 4e )gayani to reco#er
unpaid loans in *E-E or *- years a!ter maturity o! loan" 4e agayani raised the de!ense
o! prescription. 2:; argued that i! the period o! det moratorium under E( 3+ and &)
3+ which was suse5uently declared unconstitutional were to e considered in the
computation" then the right to !oreclose still susist.
ISSUE!
9hether or not a statute suse5uently declared unconstitutional shall ha#e legal
e!!ects.
HELD!
Ces. The statute suse5uently declared unconstitutional shall ha#e legal e!!ects.
't is an accepted doctrine that prior to the declaration o! unconstitutionality the acts is
operati#e !act to which legal conse5uence attached. ;ecause the judiciary is the organ
which has the !inal say on the #alidity o! the act" a period o! time may ha#e elapsed
e!ore it could e,ercised the power o! judicial re#iew that may lead to declaration o!
nullity.
3. D0%(6 % A,,/2/ GR N/. 17139*
"02 33 200*
FACTS!
)s the nation celerated E4S)@s +Ith anni#ersary" 2resident )rroyo issued 22
*I*. declaring a state o! national emergency and therey commanded the )>2 and
2:2 to immediately carry out necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and pre#ent acts o! terrorism and lawless #iolence. This declaration led to
cancellation o! all programs and acti#ities related to the E4S) 2eople 2ower '
celeration. &ally permits were re#o$ed and warrantless arrests and ta$e?o#er o!
!acilities" including the media" were implemented. )ssemlies and rallyists were
dispersed. )long with the dispersal" petitioner was arrested without warrant.
A B--C 0;5-, ## 10173 ##1021 B0& (&&1-6 )(;5(+> 5'- &505- /; -7-,>-+42.
ISSUE!
9hether or not there is an actual contro#ersy or case suject !or judicial re#iew.
9hether or not there petition is with legal standing particularly on his 5uali!ication
to sue.
HELD!
The Solicitor Generals re!ute that the case has een moot and academic was
not upheld y the %ourt. )ccording to the Supreme %ourt" courts will decide cases
otherwise !ound moot and academic i!: there is gra#e %onstitutional #iolation" the
situations e,ceptional character and paramount pulic interest in#ol#ed" issue raised
re5uires !ormulation o! controlling principles to guide the ench" ar and pulic" and
lastly it is capale o! repetition yet e#ading re#iew. 2etitioner was !ound to e o! legal
standing on the grounds that his personal rights were in#ol#ed. The petitioner 5uali!ies
under the direct injury test. The personal and sustantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained" or will sustain direct injury 5uali!ies him to impugn the #alidity o! the
statute. To wit some o! these direct injuries he sustained are the illegal arrest and
unlaw!ul search he e,perienced. Gi#en this !act" the court entertained his petition as he
has ade5uately shown that he entitled to judicial protection. Howe#er" the court does not
lierally declare statutes as in#alid although they may e aused and misaused and
may a!!ord an opportunity !or ause in the manner o! application. The #alidity o! a
statute or ordinance is to e determined !rom its general purpose and its e!!iciency to
accomplish the end desired" not !rom its e!!ects in a particular case. The %ourt ruled
that the assailed 22 *I*. is unconstitutional inso!ar as it grants 2resident )rroyo the
authority to promulgate decrees" ta$ing into consideration that legislati#e power is
#ested only in congress. The %ourt partly grants the petitions. 22 *I*. is constitutional
inso!ar as it allows the 2resident to call the )>2 to pre#ent or suppress lawless
#iolence. Howe#er" commanding the )>2 to en!orce laws not related to lawless #iolence
are declared unconstitutional. Such proclamation does not also authoriDe the 2resident
to ta$e o#er pri#ately?owned pulic utilities or usiness a!!ected with pulic interest
without prior legislation. General (rder :o. - is constitutional as it is a standard on how
the )>2 and 2:2 would implement 22*I*." ut portion where ]acts o! terrorism^ has
not een de!ined and punishale y congress is held unconstitutional. >urthermore" the
!ollowing acts o! the go#ernment were held unconstitutional: warrantless arrest o! the
petitioner" dispersal and warrantless arrests o! rallyists in the asence o! proo! that said
petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless #iolence" in#asion or reellion" or
#iolating ;2 FIIH imposition o! media standards and any !orm o! prior restraint on the
press" as well as warrantless search o! the Triune (!!ices and whimsical seiDure o! its
articles !or pulic.
4. PEOPLE VS. MATEO
433 SCRA 540
FACTS!
(n (ctoer 3I" *EE6" ten (*I) in!ormation@s" one !or each count o! rape" were
!iled against appellant E!ren 3ateo. The lower court !ound 3ateo guilty eyond
reasonale dout" imposing the penalty o! reclusion perpetua. The Solicitor General"
howe#er" assails the !actual !indings o! the trial court and recommends an ac5uittal o!
the appellant.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the case should directly e !orwarded to the Supreme %ourt y
#irtue o! the e,press pro#ision in the constitution on automatic appeal where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua" li!e imprisonment or death
HELD!
The case is &E3):4E4" and all pertinent records are ordered to e !orwarded
to the %ourt o! )ppeals !or appropriate action and disposition. <p until now" the
Supreme %ourt has assumed the direct appellate re#iew o#er all criminal cases in which
the penalty imposed is death" reclusion perpetua or li!e imprisonment (or lower ut
in#ol#ing o!!enses committed on the same occasion or arising out o! the same
occurrence that ga#e rise to the more serious o!!ense !or which the penalty o! death"
reclusion perpetua" or li!e imprisonment is imposed). The practice !inds justi!ication in
the *EF. %onstitution B
)rticle J'''" Section -. The Supreme %ourt shall ha#e the !ollowing powers:
0(+) &e#iew" re#ise" re#erse" modi!y" or a!!irm on appeal or certiorari" as the law or the
&ules o! %ourt may pro#ide" !inal judgments and orders o! lower courts in:
0(d) )ll criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.1
The same constitutional article has e#idently een a thesis !or )rticle A. o! the &e#ised
2enal %ode" as amended y Section ++ o! &epulic )ct :o. .6-E" as well as procedural
rules contained in Section 3 o! &ule *++" Section *I o! &ule *++" Section *3 o! rule *+A
and Section 3 o! &ule *+- o! the &ules o! %ourt. 't must e stressed" howe#er" that the
constitutional pro#ision is not preclusi#e in character" and it does not necessarily
pre#ent the %ourt" in the e,ercise o! its rule?ma$ing power" !rom adding an intermediate
appeal or re#iew in !a#or o! the accused.
. MARIANO JR. VS. COMELEC
GR No. 118577, March 7, 1995
FACTS!
2etitioners contend that Sec. +" -*" and -+ o! &) .F-A is unconstitutional on the
!ollowing grounds: Sec. + did not properly identi!y the land area or territorial jurisdiction
o! 3a$ati y metes and ounds" with technical descriptions" as re5uired y Sec. *I" )rt.
= o! the %onstitution" in relation to Sec. . and A-I o! the 6G%H Sec. -* attempts to alter
or restart the three ? consecuti#e term limit !or local electi#e o!!icialsH Sec. -+ increased
the legislati#e district o! 3a$ati only y special law (not what is pro#ided !or in )rt. J'"
Sec. -(A)" %onsti)" not e,pressed in the title o! the ill" and sur#ey is A-I"III people
only.
ISSUE!
9hether or not Sec. -+" &) .F-A is unconstitutional.
HELD!
:egati#e. &eapportionment o! legislati#e districts may e made through a special
law" such as a charter o! a new city.
*. DU"LAO %&. CO"ELEC
9 SCRA 392
FACTS!
2etitioner 2atricio 4umlao" is a !ormer Go#ernor o! :ue#a JiDcaya" who has
!iled his certi!icate o! candidacy !or said position o! Go#ernor in the !orthcoming
elections o! 7anuary 3I" *EFI. 2etitioner 4umlao speci!ically 5uestions the
constitutionality o! section A o! ;atas 2amansa ;lg. -+ as discriminatory and contrary
to the e5ual protection and due process guarantees o! the %onstitution which pro#ides
that 0M.)ny retired electi#e pro#incial city or municipal o!!icial who has recei#ed
payment o! the retirement ene!its to which he is entitled under the law and who shall
ha#e een 6- years o! age at the commencement o! the term o! o!!ice to which he
see$s to e elected shall not e 5uali!ied to run !or the same electi#e local o!!ice !rom
which he has retired.1 He li$ewise alleges that the pro#ision is directed insidiously
against him" and is ased on 0purely aritrary grounds" there!ore" class legislation.
ISSUE!
9hether or not *st paragraph o! section A o! ;2 ++ is #alid.
HELD!
'n the case o! a 6-?year old electi#e local o!!icial" who has retired !rom a
pro#incial" city or municipal o!!ice" there is reason to dis5uali!y him !rom running !or the
same o!!ice !rom which he had retired" as pro#ided !or in the challenged pro#ision. The
need !or new lood assumes rele#ance. The tiredness o! the retiree !or go#ernment
wor$ is present" and what is emphatically signi!icant is that the retired employee has
already declared himsel! tired and una#ailale !or the same go#ernment wor$" ut"
which" y #irtue o! a change o! mind" he would li$e to assume again. 't is !or this #ery
reason that ine5uality will neither result !rom the application o! the challenged pro#ision.
7ust as that pro#ision does not deny e5ual protection" neither does it permit o! such
denial.
The e5ual protection clause does not !orid all legal classi!ication. 9hat is
proscries is a classi!ication which is aritrary and unreasonale. That constitutional
guarantee is not #iolated y a reasonale classi!ication ased upon sustantial
distinctions" where the classi!ication is germane to the purpose o! the low and applies to
all those elonging to the same class.
9HE&E>(&E" the !irst paragraph o! section A o! ;atas 2amansa ;ilang -+ is
herey declared #alid.
7. S/)(4(5/, G-+-,0) %&. "-5,/9/)(50+ "0+()0 A15'/,(52
GR N/. 1027823 D-4-7:-, 1131991
FACTS!
(n 7uly *3" *EEI the %ourt held in the case o! 3etropolitan Tra!!ic %ommand"
9est Tra!!ic 4istrict #s. Hon. )rsenio 3. Gonong" that the con!iscation o! the license
plates o! motor #ehicles !or tra!!ic #iolations was not among the sanctions that could e
imposed y the 3etro 3anila %ommission under 24 *6I- and was permitted only
under the conditions laid down y 6(' A3 in the case o! stalled #ehicles ostructing the
pulic streets. E#en the con!iscation o! dri#er@s licenses !or tra!!ic #iolations was not
directly prescried or allowed y the decree. )!ter no motion !or reconsideration o! the
decision was !iled the judgment ecame !inal and e,ecutor.
9ithstanding the Gonong decision still #iolations o! the said decision transpired"
wherein there were se#eral persons who sent complaint letters to the %ourt regarding
the con!iscation o! dri#er@s licenses and remo#al o! license plate numers.
(n 3ay +A" *EEI the 33) issued (rdinance :o. **" Series o! *EE*" authoriDing
itsel! 0to detach license plateNtow and impound attendedNunattendedNaandoned motor
#ehicles illegally par$ed or ostructing the !low o! tra!!ic in 3etro 3anila.1
(n 7uly +" *EE*" the %ourt issued a resolution regarding the matter which stated
that the (rdinance :o. **" Section + appears to e in con!lict with the decision o! the
%ourt" and that the %ourt has recei#ed se#eral complaints against the en!orcement o!
such ordinance.
ISSUE!
9hether or not (rdinance :o. ** Series o! *EE* and (rdinance :o. ." Series o!
*EEF are #alid in the e,ercise o! such delegated power to local go#ernment acting only
as agents o! the national legislature8
HELD!
:o" the %ourt rendered judgment: *) declaring (rdinance :o. **" Series o! *EE*"
o! the 33) and (rdinance :o. ." Series o! *EEF" o! the 3unicipality o! 3andaluyong"
:ull and JoidH and +) enjoining all law?en!orcement authorities in 3etropolitan 3anila
!rom remo#ing the license plates o! motor #ehicles (e,cept when authoriDed under
6('A3) and con!iscating dri#er@s licenses !or tra!!ic #iolations within the said area.
To test the #alidity o! said acts the principles go#erning municipal corporations
was applied" according to Elliot !or a municipal ordinance to e #alid the !ollowing
re5uisites should e complied: *) must not contra#ene the %onstitution or any statuteH +)
must not e un!air or oppressi#eH 3) must not e partial or discriminatoryH A) must not
prohiit ut may regulate tradeH -) must not e unreasonaleH and 6) must e general
and consistent with pulic policy.
'n the Gonong decision it was shown that the measures under consideration did
not pass the !irst criterion ecause it did not con!orm to e,isting law. 24 *6I- does not
allow either the remo#al o! license plates or the con!iscation o! dri#er@s licenses !or
tra!!ic #iolations committed in 3etropolitan 3anila. There is nothing in the decree
authoriDing the 33) to impose such sanctions. Thus 6ocal political sudi#isions are
ale to legislate only y #irtue o! a #alid delegation o! legislati#e power !rom the national
legislature (e,cept only that the power to create their own sources o! re#enue and to
le#y ta,es is con!erred y the %onstitution itsel!). They are mere agents #ested with
what is called the power o! suordinate legislation. )s delegates o! the %ongress" the
local go#ernment unit cannot contra#ene ut must oey at all times the will o! the
principal. 'n the case at ar the enactments in 5uestion" which are merely local in
origin" cannot pre#ail against the decree" which has the !orce and e!!ect o! a statute.
8.
9. SANTERO ET AL VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE
13 SCRA 728
FACTS!
2alo Santero" the only legitimate son o! 2ascual and Simona Santero" had
three children with >eli,erta 2acursa namely" 2rincesita" >ederico and 9illie (herein
petitioners). He also had !our children with )nselma 4iaD namely" Jictor" &odrigo"
)nselmina" and 3iguel (herein pri#ate respondents). These children are all natural
children since neither o! their mothers was married to their !ather. 'n *E.3" 2alo
Santero died.
4uring the pendency o! the administration proceedings with the %>'?%a#ite
in#ol#ing the estate o! the late 2alo Santero" petitioners !iled a petition !or certiorari
with the Supreme %ourt 5uestioning the decision o! %>'?%a#ite granting allowance
(allegedly without hearing) in the amount o! 2hp +"III.II" to pri#ate respondents which
includes tuition !ees" clothing materials and susistence out o! any a#ailale !unds in the
hands o! the administrator. The petitioners opposed said decision on the ground that
pri#ate respondents were no longer studying" that they ha#e attained the age o!
majority" that all o! them e,cept !or 3iguel are gain!ully employed" and the administrator
did not ha#e su!!icient !unds to co#er the said e,penses.
;e!ore the Supreme %ourt could act on saod petition" the pri#ate respondents
!iled another motion !or allowance with the %>'?%a#ite which included 7uanita" Estelita
and 2edrito" all surnamed Santero" as children o! the late 2alo Santero with )nselma
4iaD" praying that a sum o! 2hp 6"III.II e gi#en to each o! the se#en children as their
allowance !rom the estate o! their !ather. This was granted y the %>'?%a#ite.
6ater on" the %>'?%a#ite issued an amended order directing )nselma 4iaD"
mother o! pri#ate respondents" to sumit a clari!ication or e,planation as to the
additional three children included in the said motion. She said in her clari!ication that in
her pre#ious motions" only the last !our minor children were included !or support and the
three children were then o! age should ha#e een included since all her children ha#e
the right to recei#e allowance as ad#ance payment o! their shares in the inheritance o!
2alo Santero. The %>'?%a#ite issued an order directing the administrator to get ac$
the allowance o! the three additional children ased on the opposition o! the petitioners.
ISSUE!
)re the pri#ate respondents entitled to allowance8
9as it proper !or the court a 5uo to grant the motion !or allowance without
hearing8
HELD!
Ces" they are entitled. ;eing o! age" gain!ully employed" or married should not e
regarded as the determining !actor to their right to allowance under )rticles +EI and *FF
o! the :ew %i#il %ode.
&ecords show that a hearing was made. 3oreo#er" what the said court did was
just to !ollow the precedent o! the court which granted pre#ious allowance and that the
petitioners and pri#ate respondents only recei#ed 2hp *"-II.II each depending on the
a#ailaility o! !unds.
*0. DA"ASCO VS. LAGUI
1** SCRA 21
FACTS!
)tty. 4amasco was charged with gra#e threats. He pleaded not guilty ut was
con#icted only o! light threats. He was ordered to pay a !ine o! 2*II.
4amasco !iled a motion to recti!y and set aside the disposit#e portion o! the
decision. He claims that he cannot e con#icted o! light threats" necessarily included in
the gra#e threats charge" as the lighter o!!ense had already prescried when the
in!ormation was !iled. (light o!!enses prescrie in + mos" ut the in!ormation was !iled
.I days a!ter).
The lower court denied the motion" e,plaining that since the %ourt had ac5uired
jurisdiction to try the case ecause the in!ormation was !iled within the prescripti#e
period !or gra#e threats" the same cannot e lost y prescription" i! a!ter the trial what
has een pro#en is merely light threats.
HELD!
2rescription o! a crime is the loss or wai#er y the State o! its right to prosecute
an act prohiited or punished y law. 9hile it is a rule that an accused who !ails to mo#e
to 5uash e!ore pleading is deemed to wai#e all ojections" this rule cannot apply to the
de!ense o! prescription" which under )rt 6E o! the &2% e,tinguishes criminal liaility. To
apply the suggestion could contra#ene said )rt" which is part o! sustanti#e law.
This position is !urther strengthen y the &ules on %rim 2ro" which added the e,tinction
o! o!!ense as one o! the e,ceptions to the general rule regarding the e!!ects o! a !ailure
to assert a ground o! a motion to 5uash.
The claim that 0when an accused has een !ound to ha#e committed a lesser
o!!ense includile within a gra#er o!!ense charged" he cannot e con#icted o! a lesser
o!!ense i! it has already prescried1 can only e done through an o#erhaul o! some
e,isting rules on criminal procedure to gi#e prescription a limited meaning (ie" a mere
ar to the commencement o! criminal action and there!ore wai#ale).
;ut this will ha#e to contend with the %onstitutional pro#ision that while the
Supreme %ourt has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
en!orcement o! rightsM.. such rules shall not diminish" modi!y or increase sustanti#e
rights.
The action has prescried. 2etition is granted.
*1. #EO#LE VS. LACSON
400 SCRA 2*2
6acson et al were charged with multiple murder !or shooting and $illing ** male
persons who were memers o! the Vuratong;aleleng. S2(+ Eduardo delos &eyes had
claimed that the $illing o! the ele#en (**) gang memers was a Oru?outO or summary
e,ecution and not a shootout.
The (mudsman !iled e!ore the Sandiganbayan** 'n!ormations !or 3<&4E&"
against respondent 2an!ilo 3. 6acson and twenty?!i#e (+-) other accused. )ll twenty?si,
(+6) o! them were charged as principals.
<pon motion o! the 6acson" the criminal cases were remanded to the
(mudsman !or rein#estigation. The participation o! 6acson was downgraded !rom
principal to accessory. )ccordingly" the Sandiganbayanordered the cases trans!erred to
the &egional Trial %ourt.

)rraignment then !ollowed and respondent entered a plea o!
not guilty.
(n 3arch +E" *EEE 7udge )gnir issued a &esolution dismissing %riminal %ases
ecause:
9ith the recantation o! the principal prosecution witnesses and the desistance o!
the pri#ate complainants" there is no more e#idence to show that a crime has
een committed and that the accused are proaly guilty thereo!.
(n 3arch +." +II*" 2:2 4irector 6eandro &. 3endoDa indorsed to the
4epartment o! 7ustice the new a!!ida#its o! 2N'nsp. Csmael S. Cu and 2NS 'nsp.
)elardo &amos regarding the )uratong 'aleleng incident !or preliminary in#estigation.
(n the strength o! this indorsement" Secretary o! 7ustice Hernando ;. 2ereD !ormed a
panel to in#estigate the matter.
6acson" et al." in#o$ing" among others" their constitutional right against doule
jeopardy" !iled a petition !or prohiition with application !or temporary restraining order
andNor writ o! preliminary injunction with the &egional Trial %ourt o! 3anila" primarily to
enjoin the State prosecutors !rom conducting the preliminary in#estigation.
7udge 2asama denied the T&( (meaning the case could continue). The
decision stated that the pre#eious dismissal o! %riminal %ases is not one on the merits
and without any recorded arraignment and entered plea on the part o! the herein
petitioners. The arraignment had with the Sandiganbayan does not put the case in a
di!!erent perspecti#e since the Sandiganbayan was adjudged to e without any
jurisdiction to try the cases. 't is the 2eople o! the 2hilippines who is the complainant in
the Vuratong ;aleleng case and remains to e the complainant.
Thus" 7une 6" +II* ** in!ormation !or 3urder were again !iled e!ore the &T%
B 7udge Cadao.
6acson now assails the decision o! 7udge 2asama mainly on the ground o! :
illegality o! the proceedings o! the respondent State 2rosecutors as they cannot re#i#e
complaints which had een dismissed o#er two (+) years !rom the date the dismissal
order was issued. He claims" under Section F" &ule **." cases similar to those !iled
against the petitioner and others (where the penalty imposale is imprisonment o! si,
(6) years or more) cannot e re#i#ed a!ter two (+) years !rom the date the dismissal
order was issued.
ISSUE!
9hether Section F" &ule **. ars the !iling o! the ele#en (**) in!ormations
against the respondent 6acson in#ol#ing the $illing o! some memers o! the
Vuratong;aleleng gang. The rule o! pro#isional dismissal too$ e!!ect only on 4ecemer
*" +III (in etween the period o! dismissal and re#i#al). 3ore speci!ically" *) whether
the pro#isional dismissal o! the cases had the e,press consent o! the accusedH (+)
whether it was ordered y the court a!ter notice to the o!!ended party" (3) whether the +?
year period to re#i#e has already lapsed" and (A) whether there is any justi!ication !or
the !iling o! the cases eyond the +?year period.
HELD!
:(. :(T ;)&&E4.
*. the prosecution with the e,press con!ormity o! the accused or the accused
mo#es !or a pro#isional (sin per*uicio) dismissal o! the caseH or oth the
prosecution and the accused mo#e !or a pro#isional dismissal o! the caseH
+. the o!!ended party is noti!ied o! the motion !or a pro#isional dismissal o! the
caseH
3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case
pro#isionallyH
A. the pulic prosecutor is ser#ed with a copy o! the order o! pro#isional dismissal
o! the case.
The !oregoing re5uirements are conditions sine (ua non to the application o! the
time?ar in the second paragraph o! the new rule. The raison d+ etre !or the re5uirement
o! the e,press consent o! the accused to a pro#isional dismissal o! a criminal case is to
ar him !rom suse5uently asserting that the re#i#al o! the criminal case will place him
in doule jeopardy !or the same o!!ense or !or an o!!ense necessarily included therein.
E,press consent to a pro#isional dismissal is gi#en either !i!a !oce or in writing.
't is a positi#e" direct" une5ui#ocal consent re5uiring no in!erence or implication to
supply its meaning. 9here the accused writes on the motion o! a prosecutor !or a
pro#isional dismissal o! the case ,o ob*ection or -ith my conformity" the writing
amounts to e,press consent o! the accused to a pro#isional dismissal o! the case.
F
The
mere inaction or silence o! the accused to a motion !or a pro#isional dismissal o! the
case
E
or his !ailure to oject to a pro#isional dismissal
*I
does not amount to e,press
consent.
'n this case" the respondent has !ailed to pro#e that the !irst and second
re5uisites o! the !irst paragraph o! the new rule were present when 7udge )gnir" 7r.
dismissed the cases. 'rre!ragaly" the prosecution did not !ile any motion !or the
pro#isional dismissal o! the said criminal cases. >or his part" the respondent merely !iled
a motion !or judicial determination o! proale cause and !or e,amination o! prosecution
witnesses. The respondent did not pray !or the dismissal" pro#isional or otherwise" o!
the cases. :either did he e#er agree" impliedly or e,pressly" to a mere pro#isional
dismissal o! the cases.
The %ourt also agrees with the petitioners@ contention that no notice o! any
motion !or the pro#isional dismissal the cases or o! the hearing thereon was ser#ed on
the heirs o! the #ictims at least three days e!ore said hearing. There is as well no proo!
in the records that the pulic prosecutor noti!ied the heirs o! the #ictims o! said motion or
o! the hearing.
Since the conditions sine 5ua non !or the application o! the new rule were not
present when 7udge )gnir" 7r. issued his resolution" the State is not arred y the time
limit set !orth in the second paragraph o! Section F o! &ule **. o! the &e#ised &ules o!
%riminal 2rocedure. The State can thus re#i#e or re!ile %riminal %ases :os. P?EE?
F*6.E to P?EE?F*6FE or !ile new 'n!ormations !or multiple murder against the
respondent.
E#en on the assumption that the respondent e,pressly consented to a
pro#isional dismissal" and all the heirs o! the #ictims were noti!ied e!ore the hearing the
two?year ar in Section F o! &ule **. o! the &e#ised &ules o! %riminal 2rocedure
should e applied prospecti#ely and not retroacti#ely against the State.
To apply the time limit retroacti#ely to the criminal cases against the respondent
and his co?accused would #iolate the right o! the 2eople to due process" and unduly
impair" reduce" and diminish the State@s sustanti#e right to prosecute the accused !or
multiple murder. <nder )rticle EI o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode" the State had twenty
years within which to !ile the criminal complaints against the accused. Howe#er" under
the new rule" the State only had two years !rom notice o! the pulic prosecutor o! the
order o! dismissal within which to re#i#e the said cases. 9hen the new rule too$ e!!ect
on 4ecemer *" +III" the State only had one year and three months within which to
re#i#e the cases or re!ile the 'n!ormations. The period !or the State to charge
respondent !or multiple murder under )rticle EI o! the &e#ised 2enal %ode was
consideraly and aritrarily reduced. 'n case o! con!lict etween the &e#ised 2enal
%ode and the new rule" the !ormer should pre#ail.
The time?ar under Section F o! &ule **. is a$in to a special procedural
limitation 5uali!ying the right o! the State to prosecute ma$ing the time?ar an essence
o! the gi#en right or as an inherent part thereo!" so that the lapse o! the time?ar
operates to e,tinguish the right o! the State to prosecute the accused.
3-
The time?ar
under the new rule does not reduce the periods under )rticle EI o! the &e#ised 2enal
%ode" a sustanti#e law.
36
't is ut a limitation o! the right o! the State to re#i#e a
criminal case against the accused a!ter the 'n!ormation had een !iled ut suse5uently
pro#isionally dismissed with the e,press consent o! the accused. '! a criminal case is
dismissed on motion o! the accused ecause the trial is not concluded within the period
there!or" the prescripti#e periods under the &e#ised 2enal %ode are not therey
diminished.
AI
;ut whether or not the prosecution o! the accused is arred y the statute
o! limitations or y the lapse o! the time?line under the new rule" the e!!ect is asically
the same.
)lso" 't !urther ruled therein that a procedural law may not e applied
retroacti#ely i! to do so would wor$ injustice or would in#ol#e intricate prolems o! due
process or impair the independence o! the %ourt. 'n this case" the %ourt agrees with the
petitioners that the time?ar o! two years under the new rule should not e applied
retroacti#ely against the State.
) mere pro#isional dismissal o! a criminal case does not terminate a criminal
case. The possiility that the case may e re#i#ed at any time may disrupt or reduce" i!
not derail" the chances o! the accused !or employment" curtail his association" suject
him to pulic olo5uy and create an,iety in him and his !amily. He is unale to lead a
normal li!e ecause o! community suspicion and his own an,iety. He continues to su!!er
those penalties and disailities incompatile with the presumption o! innocence.
--
He
may also lose his witnesses or their memories may !ade with the passage o! time. 'n the
long run" it may diminish his capacity to de!end himsel! and thus eschew the !airness o!
the entire criminal justice system.
-6
The time?ar under the new rule was !i,ed y the
%ourt to e,cise the malaise that plagued the administration o! the criminal justice
system !or the benefit of the State and the accusedH not !or the accused only.
The %ourt agrees with the petitioners that to apply the time?ar retroacti#ely so
that the two?year period commenced to run on 3arch 3*" *EEE when the pulic
prosecutor recei#ed his copy o! the resolution o! 7udge )gnir" 7r. dismissing the criminal
cases is inconsistent with the intendment o! the new rule. 'nstead o! gi#ing the State two
years to re#i#e pro#isionally dismissed cases" the State had consideraly less than two
years to do so. Thus" 7udge )gnir" 7r. dismissed %riminal %ases :os. P?EE?F*6.E to P?
EE?F*6FE on 3arch +E" *EEE. The new rule too$ e!!ect on 4ecemer *" +III. '! the
%ourt applied the new time?ar retroacti#ely" the State would ha#e only one year and
three months or until 3arch 3*" +II* within which to re#i#e these criminal cases. The
period is short o! the two?year period !i,ed under the new rule. (n the other hand" i! the
time limit is applied prospecti#ely" the State would ha#e two years !rom 4ecemer *"
+III or until 4ecemer *" +II+ within which to re#i#e the cases. These is in
consonance with the intendment o! the new rule in !i,ing the time?ar and thus pre#ent
injustice to the State and a#oid asurd" unreasonale" oppressi#e" injurious" and
wrong!ul results in the administration o! justice.
*2. ST. "ARTIN FUNERAL HO"E VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
CO""ISSION 0+6 BIENVENIDO ARICA$OS.
G.R. N/. 1308**
S-95-7:-, 1*3 1998
FACTS!
2ri#ate respondent alleges that he started wor$ing as (perations 3anager o!
petitioner St. 3artin >uneral Home on >eruary 6" *EE-. Howe#er" there was no
contract o! employment e,ecuted etween him and petitioner nor was his name
included in the semi?monthly payroll. (n 7anuary ++" *EE6" he was dismissed !rom his
employment !or allegedly misappropriating 23F"III.II. 2etitioner on the other hand
claims that pri#ate respondent was not its employee ut only the uncle o! )melita
3alaed" the owner o! petitioner St. 3artin@s >uneral Home and in 7anuary *EE6" the
mother o! )melita passed away" so the latter too$ o#er the management o! the
usiness.
)melita made some changes in the usiness operation and pri#ate respondent
and his wi!e were no longer allowed to participate in the management thereo!. )s a
conse5uence" the latter !iled a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated
his employment. The laor ariter rendered a decision in !a#or o! petitioner declaring
that no employer?employee relationship e,isted etween the parties and there!ore his
o!!ice had no jurisdiction o#er the case.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the decision o! the :6&% are appealale to the %ourt o! )ppeals.
HELD!
The %ourt is o! the considered opinion that e#er since appeals !rom the :6&% to
the S% were eliminated" the legislati#e intendment was that the special ci#il action !or
certiorari was and still is the proper #ehicle !or judicial re#iew o! decisions o! the :6&%.
The use o! the word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we ha#e noted
could ha#e een a lapsusplumae ecause appeals y certiorari and the original action
!or certiorari are oth modes o! judicial re#iew addressed to the appellate courts. The
important distinction etween them" howe#er" and with which the %ourt is particularly
concerned here is that the special ci#il action !or certiorari is within the concurrent
original jurisdiction o! this %ourt and the %ourt o! )ppealsH whereas to indulge in the
assumption that appeals y certiorari to the S% are allowed would not suser#e" ut
would su#ert" the intention o! the %ongress as e,pressed in the sponsorship speech
on Senate ;ill :o. *AE-.
There!ore" all re!erences in the amended Section E o! ;.2 :o. *+E to supposed
appeals !rom the :6&% to the Supreme %ourt are interpreted and herey declared to
mean and re!er to petitions !or certiorari under &ule6-. %onse5uently" all such petitions
should hence!orth e initially !iled in the %ourt o! )ppeals in strict oser#ance o! the
doctrine on the hierarchy o! courts as the appropriate !orum !or the relie! desired.
*3. #EO#LE VS. GUTIERRE@
FACTS!
This is the case o! ;ingong %risologo. ) group o! armed men set !ire #arious
inhaited houses in ;antay"'locos Sur. ;ingong was charged ut pleaded not guilty.
)( ++* B the Secretary o! 7ustice authoriDed 7udge )no#er o! San >ernando 6a
<nion" to hold special term in 'locos Sur.
)( ++6 B Secretary o! 7ustice authoriDed 7udge GutierreD (Jigan) to trans!er the
case to 7udge )no#er@s %ourt in 6a <nion.
2rosecution mo#ed that 7udge GutierreD allow a trans!er o! the case to the 6a
<nion %ircuit %ourt y #irtue o! said )(@s and !or security and personal sa!ety o! the
witnesses.
The accused o#iously opposed the trans!er o! the case" claiming that the
trans!er o! the case would e railroading them into a con#iction.
7udge GutierreD denied the trans!er.
2rosecution now imputes gadalej on 7udge GutierreD.
HELD!
The Secretary o! 7ustice has no power to assign cases to e heard. )ny such
power e#en in the guise o! )(@s trenches upon the time?honored separation o! the
E,ecuti#e and 7udiciary. The law creating the trans!er o! cases to %ircuit %riminal
%ourts should e e!!ected y ra!!le.
:e#ertheless" the %(<&T 9'66 (&4E& THE T&):S>E&. There is a justi!ied
re!usal y the witnesses in 'locos Sur to testi!y where they !elt their li#es would e
endangered. 7udge GutierreD !ailed to consider the possiility o! miscarriage o! justice
may result. The witnesses had earlier mani!ested o! the imperious necessity o!
trans!erring the place o! trial outside o! 'locos Sur" in the interest o! truth and justice" and
the State is to e gi#en a !air chance to present its side.
Here" to compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its
witnesses will not e at lierty to re#eal what they $now is to ma$e a moc$ery o! the
judicial process. The e,igencies o! justice demand that the general rule should yield to
occasional e,ceptions where#er there are weighty reasons there!or.
)nyway" regardless o! the place where the case is tried" the prosecution will always e
oligated to pro#e guilt eyond reasonale dout.
(n o! the incidental and inherent powers o! the courts is that o! T&):S>E&&':G
THE T&')6 (> %)SES !rom one court to another o! e5ual ran$" whene#er the
imperati#e o! securing a !air and impartial trial" or o! pre#enting a miscarriage o! justice
so demands.
7udicial power includes the trans!er o! cases. 't is one o! the incidental or
inherent attriutes necessary !or an e!!ecti#e administration o! justice. The courts can y
appropriate means do all things necessary to preser#e and maintain e#ery 5uality
need!ul to ma$e the judiciary an e!!ecti#e institution o! go#ernment.
*4. I+ ,-! C1+0+0+
94 #'(). 34 (194)
FACTS!
'n the manner o! the petitions !or )dmission to the ;ar o! unsuccess!ul
candidates o! *EA6 to *E-3H )lino %unananet. )l petitioners. 'n recent years !ew
contro#ersial issues ha#e aroused so much pulic interest and concern as &.). E.+
popularly $nown as the ;ar >lun$ers )ct o! *E-3.^ Generally a candidate is deemed
passed i! he otains a general a#e. o! .-/ in all sujects wNo !alling elow -I/ in any
suject" although !or the past !ew e,ams the passing grades were changed depending
on the strictness o! the correcting o! the ar e,aminations (*EA6? .+/" *EA.? 6E/"
*EAF? .I/ *EAE?.A/" *E-I?*E-3 _ .-/).;elie#ing themsel#es to e !ully 5uali!ied to
practice law as those reconsidered and passed y the S.%." and !eeling that they ha#e
een discriminated against" unsuccess!ul candidates who otained a#erages o! a !ew
percentages lower than those admitted to the ar went to congress !or" and secured in
*E-* Senate ;ill no. *+" ut was #etoed y the president a!ter he was gi#en ad#ise
ad#erse to it. :ot o#erriding the #eto" the senate then appro#ed senate ill no.
3.+ emodying sustantially the pro#isions o! the #etoed ill. The ill then ecame law
on 7une +*" *E-3&epulic )ct E.+ has !or its oject" according to its author" to admit to
the ;ar those candidates who su!!ered !rom insu!!iciency o! reading materials and
inade5uate preparations. ;y and large" the law is contrary to pulic interest since it
5uali!ies *"IEA law graduates who had inade5uate preparation !or the practice o! law
pro!ession" as e#idenced y their !ailure in the e,ams.
ISSUES!
4ue to the !ar reaching e!!ects that this law would ha#e on the legal pro!ession
and the administration o! justice" the S.%. would see$ to $now i! it is
%(:ST'T<T'(:)6.
)n ade5uate legal preparation is one o! the #ital re5uisites !or the practice o! the
law that should e de#eloped constantly and maintained !irmly.
The 7udicial system !rom which ours has een deri#ed" the act o! admitting"
suspending" disarring" and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice o! the pro!ession
is concededly judicial.
The %onstitution" has not con!erred on %ongress and the S.%. e5ual
responsiilities concerning the admission to the practice o! law. The primary power and
responsiility which the constitution recogniDes continue to reside in this court.
'ts retroacti#ity is in#alid in such a way" that what the law see$s to ]cure^ are not
the rules set in place y the S.%. ut the lac$ o! will or the de!ect in judgment o! the
court" and this power is not included in the power granted y the %onst. to %ongress" it
lies e,clusi#ely wNin the judiciary.
R-0&/+& ;/, U+4/+&5(515(/+0)(52!
*. There was a mani!est encroachment on the constitutional responsiility o!
the Supreme %ourt.
+. 't is in e!!ect a judgment re#o$ing the resolution o! the court" and only the S.%.
may re#ise or alter them" in attempting todo so &.). E.+ #iolated the %onstitution.
3. That congress has e,ceeded its power to repeal" alter" and supplement the rules on
admission to the ar (since the rulesmade y congress must ele#ate the pro!ession" and
those rules promulgated are considered the are minimum.)
A. 't is a class legislation
-. )rt. + o! &.). E.+ is not emraced in the title o! the law" contrary to what
the constitution enjoins" and eing inseparale!rom the pro#isions o! art. *" the entire
law is #oid.
HELD!
<nder the authority o! the court:
*. That the portion o! art. * o! &.). E.+ re!erring to the e,aminations o! *EA6 to
*E-+ and all o! art. + o! the said law are unconstitutional and there!ore #oid and
wNo !orce and e!!ect.
+. The part o! )&T * that re!ers to the e,aminations suse5uent to the appro#al
o! the law (*E-3? *E--) is #alid and shall continue in !orce. (those petitions y the
candidates who !ailed the ar !rom *EA6 to *E-+ are denied" and all the
candidates who in the e,amination o! *E-3 otained a GE: )#e. o! .*.-/ wNo
getting a grade o! elow -I/ in any suject are considered as ha#ing passed
whether they ha#e !iled petitions !or admissions or not.
*. ECHEGARA$ VS. SEC. OF JUSTICE
J0+10,2 193 1999
FACTS!
(n 7anuary A" *EEE" the S% issued a T&( staying the e,ecution o! petitioner 6eo
Echegaray scheduled on that same day. The pulic respondent 7ustice Secretary
assailed the issuance o! the T&( arguing that the action o! the S% not only #iolated the
rule on !inality o! judgment ut also encroached on the power o! the e,ecuti#e to grant
reprie#e.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the court aused its discretion in granting a Temporary
&estraining (rder (T&() on the e,ecution o! Echegaray despite the !act that the !inality
o! judgment has already een renderedM that y granting the T&(" the Honorale
%ourt has in e!!ect granted reprie#e which is an e,ecuti#e !unction.
HELD!

:o. &espondents cited sec *E" art J''. The pro#ision is simply the source o!
power o! the 2resident to grant reprie#es" commutations" and pardons and remit !ines
and !or!eitures a!ter con#iction y !inal judgment. The pro#ision" howe#er" cannot e
interpreted as denying the power o! courts to control the en!orcement o! their decisions
a!ter their !inality.
The powers o! the E,ecuti#e" the 6egislati#e and the 7udiciary to sa#e the li!e o!
a death con#ict do not e,clude each other !or the simple reason that there is no higher
right than the right to li!e. >or the pulic respondents there!ore to contend that only the
E,ecuti#e can protect the right to li!e o! an accused a!ter his !inal con#iction is to #iolate
the principle o! co?e5ual and coordinate powers o! the three ranches o! our
go#ernment.
66.
*7. IN RE AD"ISSION TO THE BAR! ARGOSINO
BAR "ATTER 7123 24* SCRA 14 (199)

FACTS!
This is a matter !or admission to the ar and oath ta$ing o! a success!ul ar
applicant. )rgosino was pre#iously in#ol#ed with haDing that caused the death o! &aul
%amaligan ut was sentenced with homicide through rec$less imprudence a!ter he
pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with + years imprisonment where he applied !or a
proation therea!ter which was granted y the court with a + yr proation. He too$ the
ar e,am and passed ut was not allowed to ta$e oath. He !iled a petition to allow him
to ta$e the attorney@s oath o! o!!ice a#erring that his proation was already terminated.
The court note that he spent only *I months o! the proation period e!ore it was
terminated.
ISSUE!
9hether or not )rgosino may ta$e oath o! o!!ice.
HELD!
The court upheld the principle o! maintaining the good morals o! all ;ar
memers" $eeping in mind that such is o! greater importance so !ar as the general
pulic and the proper administration o! justice are concerned" than the possession o!
legal learning. Hence he was as$ed y the court to produce e#idence that would certi!y
that he has re!ormed and ha#e ecome a responsile memer o! the community
through sworn statements o! indi#iduals who ha#e a good reputation !or truth and who
ha#e actually $nown 3r. )rgosino !or a signi!icant period o! time to certi!y he is morally
!it to the admission o! the law pro!ession. The court also ordered that said a copy o! the
proceeding e !urnished to the !amilyNrelati#es o! &aul %amaligan.
*8. FABIAN VS. DESIERTO
GR 129742S-95-7:-, 1*3 1998
FACTS!
>aian was the major stoc$holder and president o! 2&(3)T %onstruction
4e#elopment %orporation (2&(3)T) which was engaged in the construction usiness
wN )gustin. )gustin was the incument 4istrict Engineering 4istrict (>3E4) when he
allegedly committed the o!!enses !or which he was administrati#ely charged in the (!!ice
in the o!!ice o! the (mudsman. 3isunderstanding and unpleasant incidents de#eloped
etween the parties and when >aian tried to terminate their relationship" )gustin
re!used and resisted her attempts to do so to the e,tent o! employing acts o!
harassment" intimidation and threats. She e#entually !iled the a!orementioned
administrati#e case against him. ) case ensued which e#entually led an appeal to the
(mudsman B who inhiited himsel! B later the case led to the deputy (mudsman.
The deputy ruled in !a#or o! )gustin and he said the decision is !inal and e,ecutory.
>aian appealed the case to the S%. She a#erred that Section +. o! &epulic )ct :o.
6..I ((mudsman )ct o! *EFE)* QE!!ecti#e :o#emer *." *EFE.R pertinently pro#ides
that ?'n all administrati#e diciplinary cases" orders" directi#es or decisions o! the (!!ice
o! the (mudsman may e appealed to the Supreme %ourt y !iling a petition !or
certiorari within ten (*I) days !rom receipt o! the written notice o! the order" directi#e or
decision or denial o! the motion !or reconsideration in accordance with &ule A- o! the
&ules o! %ourt.
ISSUE!
9hether or not sec +. o! the (mudsman )ct is #alid.
HELD!
Ta$ing all the !oregoing circumstances in their true legal roles and e!!ects"
there!ore" Section +. o! &epulic )ct :o. 6..I cannot #alidly authoriDe an appeal to this
%ourt !rom decisions o! the (!!ice o! the (mudsman in administrati#e disciplinary
cases. 't conse5uently #iolates the proscription in Section 3I" )rticle J' o! the
%onstitution against a law which increases the )ppellate jurisdiction o! this %ourt. :o
counter#ailing argument has een cogently presented to justi!y such disregard o! the
constitutional prohiition. That constitutional pro#ision was intended to gi#e this %ourt a
measure o! control o#er cases placed under its appellate 7urisdiction. (therwise" the
indiscriminate enactment o! legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would
unnecessarily urden the %ourt.
*9. IN RE! DE VERA (2003)
FACTS!
2etitioner argues that this %ourt has no jurisdiction o#er the present contro#ersy"
contending that the election o! the (!!icers o! the ';2" including the determination o! the
5uali!ication o! those who want to ser#e the organiDation" is purely an internal matter"
go#erned as it is y the ';2 ;y?6aws and e,clusi#ely regulated and administered y the
';2.
ISSUE!
9hether or not this %ourt has jurisdiction o#er the present contro#ersy.
HELD!
Section -" )rticle J''' o! the *EF. %onstitution con!ers on the Supreme %ourt the
power to promulgate rules a!!ecting the ';2" thus:
Section -. The Supreme %ourt shall ha#e the !ollowing powers:
(-) 2romulgate rules concerning the protection and en!orcement o!
constitutional rights" pleading" practice" and procedure in all courts" the
admission to the practice o! law" 5'- I+5->,05-6 B0,3 and the legal assistance
to the underpri#ileged. Such rules shall pro#ide a simpli!ied and ine,pensi#e
procedure !or the speedy disposition o! cases" shall e uni!orm !or all courts o!
the same grade" and shall not diminish" increase" or modi!y sustanti#e rights.
&ules o! procedure o! special courts and 5uasi?judicial odies shall remain
e!!ecti#e unless disappro#ed y the Supreme %ourt. (Emphasis supplied)
'mplicit in this constitutional grant is the power to super#ise all the acti#ities o! the
';2" including the election o! its o!!icers.
70. BAGUIO "ARKET VENDORS %&. J16>-
GR N/. 1*9223 F-:,10,2 2*3 2010
FACTS!
2etitioner ;aguio 3ar$et Jendors 3ulti?2urpose %ooperati#e (petitioner) is a credit
cooperati#e organiDed under &epulic )ct :o. 6E3F (&) 6E3F)" or the %ooperati#e
%ode o! the 2hilippines. )rticle 6+(6) o! &) 6E3F e,empts cooperati#es:
!rom the payment o! all court and sheri!!Gs !ees payale to the 2hilippine Go#ernment !or
and in connection with all actions rought under this %ode" or where such action is
rought y the %ooperati#e 4e#elopment )uthority e!ore the court" to en!orce the
payment o! oligations contracted in !a#or o! the cooperati#e.
'n +IIA" petitioner" as mortgagee" !iled with the %ler$ o! %ourt o! the &egional Trial
%ourt o! ;aguio %ity (trial court) a petition to e,trajudicially !oreclose a mortgage under
)ct 3*3-" as amended. <nder Section .(c) o! &ule *A*" as amended" petitions !or
e,trajudicial !oreclosure are suject to legal !ees ased on the #alue o! the mortgagee@s
claim. 'n#o$ing )rticle 6+ (6) o! &) 6E3F" petitioner sought e,emption !rom payment o!
the !ees.
ISSUES!
9hether or not petitioner@s application !or e,trajudicial !oreclosure is e,empt !rom legal
!ees under )rticle 6+(6) o! &) 6E3F.
How was the *EF. %onstitution a!!ected the rule ma$ing power o! the %ourt8
HELD!
)rticle 6+(6) o! &) 6E3F does not apply to petitioner@s !oreclosure proceeding.
The *EF. %onstitution molded an e#en stronger and more independent judiciary.
)mong others" it enhanced the rule ma$ing power o! this %ourt QunderR Section -(-)"
)rticle J'''.
The rule ma$ing power o! this %ourt was e,panded. This %ourt !or the !irst time was
gi#en the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and en!orcement o!
constitutional rights. The %ourt was also granted !or the !irst time the power to
disappro#e rules o! procedure o! special courts and 5uasi?judicial odies. ;ut most
importantly" the *EF. %onstitution too$ away the power o! %ongress to repeal" alter" or
supplement rules concerning pleading" practice and procedure. 'n !ine" the power to
promulgate rules o! pleading" practice and procedure is no longer shared y this %ourt
with %ongress" more so with the E,ecuti#e.
71. RE#UBLIC VS. GINGO$ON
GR N/.1**4293 F-:,10,2 013 200*
FACTS!
2lanning to put :)') 3 !acilities into immediate operation" the Go#ernment" through
e,propriation !iled a petition to e entitled o! a writ o! possession contending that a
mere deposit o! the assessed #alue o! the property with an authoriDed go#ernment
depository is enough !or the entitlement to said writ (&ule 6. o! the &ules o! %ourt).
ISSUE!
The rules o! court re5uire deposit o! *-/ o! the #alue o! the property e!ore an
e,propriator can enter. %an %ongress amend this8
HELD!
&.). FE.A" howe#er" creates an e,ception in e,propriation cases in#ol#ing pulic wor$s
and re5uires !ull payment e!ore entry in pulic wor$s projects. 'n answering to the
5uestion" since e,propriation in#ol#es oth procedural and sustanti#e matters" the
sustanti#e aspect is always suject to legislation.
72. "ANIAGO VS. CA
GR N/. 1043923 F-:,10,2 2*3 2010
FACTS!
3aniago was the owner o! a shuttle us which pro#ides transportation to the
employees o! Te,as 'nstruments" ;aguio. 'n 7anuary *EEI" his dri#er" while per!orming
his jo" !igured in a #ehicular accident with a jeepney which seriously injured the jeep@s
passengers. ) criminal case was !iled against the dri#er y the jeep@s owner )l!redo
;oado. ;oado !iled a separate ci#il action against 3aniago !or damages. 3aniago
a#erred that ;oado cannot !ile a separate ci#il action against him ecause he did not
reser#e it prior to the institution o! the criminal caseH this is pursuant to &ule 3 o! the
&e#ised &ules o! %riminal 2rocedure. ;oado argued that there is no need to reser#e it
ecause under )rt 3+" 33 [ 3A o! the %%" a ci#il action !or damages can e !iled
independent o! the criminal case. ;oado cited a long list o! cases decided y the S%
strengthening his case. 7udge )yson o! the lower court ruled in !a#or o! ;oado. The
issue was ele#ated to the %) which a!!irmed )yson@s decision.
ISSUE!
9hether or not ;oado can !ile a separate ci#il action.
HELD:
The &e#ised &ules o! %riminal 2rocedure is clear in pro#iding that a separate
ci#il action must e reser#ed prior to the institution o! a criminal case. 9ithout such
reser#ation" it would e deemed that a complainant has agreed to ha#e the ci#il action
!or damages e included in the criminal suit.
73. "0+(0>/ %. CA
G.R. N/. 1043923 F-:,10,2 203 199*
FACTS!
2etitioner &uen 3aniago was the owner o! shuttle uses which were used in
transporting employees o! the Te,as 'nstruments" (2hils.)" 'nc. !rom ;aguio %ity proper
to its plant site at the E,port 2rocessing )uthority. 'n *EEI" one o! his uses !igured in a
#ehicular accident with a passenger jeepney owned y pri#ate respondent )l!redo
;oado. )s a result o! the accident" a criminal case !or rec$less imprudence resulting in
damage to property and multiple physical injuries against petitioner@s dri#er" Herminio
)ndaya. ) month later" a ci#il case !or damages was !iled y pri#ate respondent ;oado
against petitioner 3aniago. 2etitioner mo#ed !or the suspension o! the proceedings in
the ci#il case against him" citing the pendency o! the criminal case against his dri#er and
ecause no reser#ation o! the right to ring it (ci#il case) separately had een made in
the criminal case. ;ut the lower court denied petitioner@s motion on the ground that
pursuant to the %i#il %ode" the action could proceed independently o! the criminal
action.
ISSUE!
9hether or not despite the asence o! reser#ation" pri#ate respondent may
nonetheless ring an action !or damages against petitioner under the !ollowing
pro#isions o! the %i#il %ode: )rt. +*.6. 9hoe#er y act or omission causes damage to
another" there eing !ault or negligence" is oliged to pay !or the damage done. Such
!ault or negligence" i! there is no pre?e,isting contractual relation etween the parties" is
called a 5uasi?delict and is go#erned y the pro#isions o! this %hapter. )rt. +*FI. The
oligation imposed y )rticle +*.6 is demandale not only !or one@s own acts or
omissions" ut also !or those o! persons !or whom one is responsile.
HELD!
:o. The right to ring an action !or damages under the %i#il %ode must e
reser#ed as re5uired y &ule ***" \ *" otherwise it should e dismissed. To egin with"
\* 5uite clearly re5uires that a reser#ation must e made to institute separately all ci#il
actions !or the reco#ery o! ci#il liaility" otherwise they will e deemed to ha#e een
instituted with the criminal case. Such ci#il actions are not limited to those which arise
0!rom the o!!ense charged.1 'n other words the right o! the injured party to sue
separately !or the reco#ery o! the ci#il liaility whether arising !rom crimes (e, delicto) or
!rom 5uasi delict under )rt. +*.6 o! the %i#il %ode must e reser#ed otherwise they will
e deemed instituted with the criminal action.
(n the asis o! &ule ***" \\*?3" a ci#il action !or the reco#ery o! ci#il liaility is"
as a general rule" impliedly instituted with the criminal action" e,cept only (*) when such
action arising !rom the same act or omission" which is the suject o! the criminal action"
is wai#edH (+) the right to ring it separately is reser#ed or (3) such action has een
instituted prior to the criminal action. E#en i! an action has not een reser#ed or it was
rought e!ore the institution o! the criminal case" the ac5uittal o! the accused will not
ar reco#ery o! ci#il liaility unless the ac5uittal is ased on a !inding that the act !rom
which the ci#il liaility might arise did not e,ist ecause o! )rt. +E o! the %i#il %ode.
74. J0%-))0+0 %&. DILG
GR N/. 102493 A1>1&5 103 1992
FACTS!
This petition !or re#iew on certiorari in#ol#es the right o! a pulic o!!icial to engage in
the practice o! his pro!ession while employed in the Go#ernment. )ttorney Erwin ;.
7a#ellana was an elected %ity %ouncilor o! ;ago %ity" :egros (ccidental. %ity Engineer
Ernesto %. 4i#inagracia !iled )dministrati#e %ase :o. %?*I?EI against 7a#ellana !or:
(*) #iolation o! 4epartment o! 6ocal Go#ernment (46G) 3emorandum %ircular :o.
FI?3F dated 7une *I" *EFIin relation to 46G 3emorandum %ircular :o. .A?-F
and o! Section ." paragraph " :o. + o! &epulic )ct :o. 6.*3" otherwise $nown
as the O%ode o! %onduct and Ethical Standards !or 2ulic (!!icials and
Employees"O and
(+) !or oppression" misconduct and ause o! authority.
4i#inagraciaGs complaint alleged that 7a#ellana" an incument memer o! the %ity
%ouncil or Sanggunian 2anglungsod o! ;ago %ity" and a lawyer y pro!ession" has
continuously engaged in the practice o! law without securing authority !or that purpose
!rom the &egional 4irector" 4epartment o! 6ocal Go#ernment" as re5uired y 46G
3emorandum %ircular :o. FI?3F in relation to 46G 3emorandum %ircular :o. .A?-F o!
the same department.
(n the other hand" 7a#ellana !iled a 3otion to 4ismiss the administrati#e case
against him on the ground mainly that 46G 3emorandum %irculars :os. FI?3F and EI?
F* are unconstitutional ecause the Supreme %ourt has the sole and e,clusi#e authority
to regulate the practice o! law.
ISSUE!
9(: Section EI o! the 6ocal Go#ernment %ode o! *EE* and 46G 3emorandum
%ircular :o. EI?F* #iolate )rticle J'''" Section - o! the %onstitution
HELD!
2etitionerGs contention that Section EI o! the 6ocal Go#ernment %ode o! *EE*
and 46G 3emorandum %ircular :o. EI?F* #iolate )rticle J'''" Section - o! the
%onstitution is completely o!! tangent. :either the statute nor the circular trenches upon
the Supreme %ourtGs power and authority to prescrie rules on the practice o! law. The
6ocal Go#ernment %ode and 4'6G 3emorandum %ircular :o. EI?F* simply prescrie
rules o! conduct !or pulic o!!icials to a#oid con!licts o! interest etween the discharge o!
their pulic duties and the pri#ate practice o!their pro!ession" in those instances where
the law allows it.
Section EI o! the 6ocal Go#ernment %ode does not discriminate against lawyers
and doctors. 't applies to all pro#incial and municipal o!!icials in the pro!essions or
engaged in any occupation. Section EI e,plicitly pro#ides that sanggunian memers
Omay practice their pro!essions" engage in any occupation" or teach in schools e,pect
during session hours.O '! there are some prohiitions that apply particularly to lawyers" it
is ecause o! all the pro!essions" the practice o! law is more li$ely than others to relate
to" or a!!ect" the area o! pulic ser#ice.
7*. GARRIDO %&. GARRIDO
AC N/. *933 F-:,10,2 43 2010
FACTS!
The petitioner" the respondent@s legal wi!e" !iled a complaint?a!!ida#it and a
supplemental a!!ida#it !or disarment against the respondents )tty. )ngel E. Garrido
and )tty. &omana 2.Jalencia e!ore the 'ntegrated ;ar o! the 2hilippines %ommittee on
4iscipline" charging them with gross immorality" in #iolation o! %anon *" &ule *.I*" o!
the %ode o! 2ro!essional &esponsiility. The complaint arose a!ter the petitioner caught
wind through her daughter that her husand was ha#ing an a!!air with a woman other
than his wi!e and already had a child with herH and the same in!ormation was con!irmed
when oner o! her daughters saw that her husand wal$ing in a &oinsons mall with the
other respondent" )tty. Jalencia" with their child in tow. )!ter a much !urther
in#estigation into the matter" the time and e!!ort gi#en yielded results telling her that
)tty. Jalencia and her legal husand had een married in Hong Vong. 3oreo#er" on
7une *EE3" her husand le!t their conjugal home and joined )tty. &amona 2aguida
Jalencia at their residence" and has since !ailed to render much needed !inancial
support. 'n their de!ense" they postulated that they were not lawyers as o! yet when they
committed the supposed immorality" so as such" they were not guilty o! a #iolation o!
%anon*" &ule *.I*.
ISSUE!
9hether or not )tty. Garrido@s and Jalencia@s actions constitute a #iolation o!
%anon *" &ule*.I* and thus a good enough cause !or their disarment" despite the
o!!ense eing supposedly committed when they were not lawyers.
HELD!
Ces. 3emership in the ;ar is a pri#ilege" and as a pri#ilege estowed y law
through the Supreme %ourt" memership in the ;ar can e withdrawn where
circumstances show the lawyer@s lac$ o! the essential 5uali!ications re5uired o! lawyers"
e they academic or moral. 'n the present case" the %ourt had resol#ed to withdraw this
pri#ilege !rom )tty. )ngel E. Garrido and )tty. &owena 2. Jalencia !or the reason o!
their latant #iolation o! %anon *"&ule *.I* o! the %ode o! 2ro!essional &esponsiility"
which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlaw!ul" dishonest" immoral or
deceit!ul conduct. >urthermore" The contention o! respondent that they were not yet
lawyers when they got married shall not a!!ord them e,emption !rom sanctionsH good
moral character was already re5uired as a condition precedent to admission to the
;ar. )s a lawyer" a person whom the community loo$ed up to" )tty. Garrido and
Jalencia were shouldered with the e,pectation that they would set a good e,ample in
promoting oedience to the %onstitution and the laws. 9hen they #iolated the law and
distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and sel!ish moti#es" not only did their
actions discredit the legal pro!ession. Such actions y themsel#es" without e#en
including the !act o! Garrido@s aandonment o! paternal responsiility" to the detriment
o! his children y the petitionerH or the !act that Jalencia married Garrido despite
$nowing o! his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner" are clear
indications o! a lac$ o! moral #alues not consistent with the proper conduct o! practicing
lawyers within the country. )s such" their disarment is a!!irmed
77. "04-60 %&. V0&D1-?
G.R. N/. 1027813 A9,() 223 1993
FACTS!
&espondent :apoleon )iera o! 2)( !iled a complaint e!ore the (!!ice o! the
(mudsman against petitioner &T% 7udge ;oni!acio SanD 3aceda. &espondent )iera
alleged that petitioner 3aceda has !alsi!ied his certi!icate o! ser#ice y certi!ying that all
ci#il and criminal cases which ha#e een sumitted !or decision !or a period o! EI days
ha#e een determined and decided on or e!ore 7anuary 3*" *EFE" when in truth and in
!act" petitioner 3aceda $new that no decision had een rendered in - ci#il and *I
criminal cases that ha#e een sumitted !or decision. &espondent )iera alleged that
petitioner 3aceda !alsi!ied his certi!icates o! ser#ice !or *. months.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the in#estigation made y the (mudsman constitutes an
encroachment into the S%@s constitutional duty o! super#ision o#er all in!erior courts
HELD!
) judge who !alsi!ies his certi!icate o! ser#ice is administrati#ely liale to the S%
!or serious misconduct and under Sec. *" &ule *AI o! the &ules o! %ourt" and criminally
liale to the State under the &e#ised 2enal %ode !or his !elonious act.
'n the asence o! any administrati#e action ta$en against him y the %ourt with
regard to his certi!icates o! ser#ice" the in#estigation eing conducted y the
(mudsman encroaches into the %ourt@s power o! administrati#e super#ision o#er all
courts and its personnel" in #iolation o! the doctrine o! separation o! powers.
)rt. J'''" Sec. 6 o! the %onstitution e,clusi#ely #ests in the S% administrati#e
super#ision o#er all courts and court personnel" !rom the 2residing 7ustice o! the %)
down to the lowest municipal trial court cler$. ;y #irtue o! this power" it is only the S%
that can o#ersee the judges@ and court personnel@s compliance with all laws" and ta$e
the proper administrati#e action against them i! they commit any #iolation thereo!. :o
other ranch o! go#ernment may intrude into this power" without running a!oul o! the
doctrine o! separation o! powers.
9here a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises !rom
their administrati#e duties" the (mudsman must de!er action on said complaint and
re!er the same to the S% !or determination whether said judge or court employee had
acted within the scope o! their administrati#e duties.
78. JUDGE CAOIBES3 J, VS. O"BUDS"AN
G.R. N/. 1321773 J1)2 193 2001
FACTS!
3ay +3" *EE." &espondent )lumres" 2residing 7udge o! ;ranch +-- o! the &T%
o! 6as 2inas %ity" !iled e!ore the (!!ice o! the (mudsman" a %riminal %omplaint !or
physical injuries" malicious mischie! !or the destruction o! complainant@s eyeglasses"
and assault upon a person in authority alleging that:
He re5uested petitioner on 3ay +I" *EE. to return the e,ecuti#e tale he
orrowed !rom respondentH
2etitioner did not answer so respondent reiterated his re5uest ut e!ore he
could !inish tal$ing" petitioner lurted OTarantado ito ah"O and o,ed him at his right
eyerow and le!t lower jaw so that the right lens o! his eyeglasses was thrown away"
rendering his eye glasses unser#icealeH
&espondent had the incident lottered with the 6as 2iKas 2olice Station. He
prayed that criminal charges e !iled e!ore the Sandiganayan against the petitioner.
7une *3" *EE." &espondent 7udge lodged an administrati#e case with the S%
praying !or the dismissal o! petitioner !rom the judiciary on the ground o! gra#e
misconduct or conduct unecoming a judicial o!!icer using the same !acts as ao#e.
7une +-" *EE." the (!!ice o! the (mudsman re5uired petitioner to !ile a
counter?a!!ida#it within*I days !rom receipt thereo!.
2etitioner !iled on 7uly ." *EE. an OE,?2arte 3otion !or &e!erral to the Honorale
Supreme %ourt"O praying that the (!!ice o! the (mudsman hold its in#estigation o! the
case" and re!er the same to the S% which is already in#estigating what transpired on
3ay *EE..
2etitioner contended that the S%" not the (!!ice o! the (mudsman" has the
authority to ma$e a preliminary determination o! the respecti#e culpaility o! petitioner
and respondent 7udge who" oth eing memers o! the ench" are under its e,clusi#e
super#ision and control.
)ugust ++" *EE." the (!!ice o! the (mudsman denied the motion !or re!erral to
the S% stating that it is within its jurisdiction to in#estigate on the criminal charges.
79. LOURDES S. ESCALONA vs. CONSOLACION S. #ADILLO
A.". N/. #=10=2783 S-95-7:-, 213 2010
FACTS!
6ourdes Escalona !iled a complaint charging %onsolacion 2adillo with Gra#e
3isconduct. 't was alleged y Escalona that she was re!erred y the president o! their
homeowners association to 2adillo to assist her in !iling a case against her neighor.
2adillo allegedly promised to prepare the necessary documents and as$ed !or 2+I"III
purportedly as payment !or the prosecutor. Escalona re5uested that the amount e
reduced to 2*-"III. 2adillo recei#ed the 2*-"III at the 6ittle Puiapo ;ranch ;etter
6i#ing Sudi#ision. Therea!ter" Escalona recei#ed a te,t message !rom 2adillo in!orming
her that the prosecutor was not amenale to the reduced amount o! 2*-"III. Escalona
later on ga#e the alance o! 2-"III to 2adillo allegedly !or the ser#ice o! the warrant o!
arrest. Escalona was also as$ed to sumit a arangay clearance and to !irst ta$e an
oath e!ore 2rosecutor )ntonio )r5uiDa" 7r. and later e!ore 2rosecutor :apoleon
&amolete. Howe#er" suse5uent #eri!ication !rom the 2rosecutor@s (!!ice showed no
record o! a case !iled against 4alit. Escalona con!ronted 2adillo who promised to return
to her the money. 2adillo reneged on her promise. Escalona later on" withdrew her
complaint against 2adillo in a Sworn )!!ida#it o! 4esistance alleging that 2adillo already
returned to her the 2+I"III. This notwithstanding" then %ourt )dministrator %hristopher
(. 6oc$ sent two notices to 2adillo re5uiring her to sumit her comment to the complaint
o! Escalona. The %ourt re5uired 2adillo to e,plain why she should not e
administrati#ely dealt with !or her !ailure to sumit the re5uired comment and reiterated
the directi#e on 2adillo to sumit her comment to Escalona@s complaint.
ISSUE!
9hether or not 2adillo is guilty o! misconduct !or soliciting money !rom Escalona
HELD!
The %ourt )dministrator" in his 3emorandum dated F 4ecemer +IIE" !ound
2adillo guilty o! gra#e misconduct !or soliciting money !rom Escalona in e,change !or
!acilitating the !iling o! a case against 4alit. 2adillo@s act o! soliciting money !rom
Escalona is an o!!ense which merited the gra#e penalty o! dismissal !rom the ser#ice.
Howe#er" considering that 2adillo tendered her resignation" a month a!ter the complaint
was !iled ut did not and has not !iled any claim relati#e to the ene!its due her" the
%ourt )dministrator recommended that all ene!its due her" e,cept accrued lea#e
credits" e !or!eited and that she e dis5uali!ied !rom reemployment in any ranch o! the
go#ernment or any o! its instrumentalities" including go#ernment?owned and controlled
corporations.
9e agree with the %ourt )dministrator that this %ourt could no longer impose the
penalty o! dismissal !rom the ser#ice ecause 2adillo resigned a month a!ter the !iling o!
the administrati#e complaint. Howe#er" her resignation did not render the complaint
against her moot. &esignation is not and should not e a con#enient way or strategy to
e#ade administrati#e liaility when a court employee is !acing administrati#e sanction.QAR
80.
81. KILOSBA$AN VS. ER"ITA
GR N/. 1777213 J1)2 33 2007
FACTS!
Special 2ro#ision :o. * o! the %ountrywide 4e#elopment >und (%4>) under
&epulic )ct :o. .*FI" allocates a speci!ic amount o! go#ernment !unds !or
in!rastructure and other priority projects and acti#ities. 'n order to e #alid" the use and
release o! said amount should ha#e the !ollowing mandatory re5uirements: (*) )ppro#al
y the 2resident o! the 2hilippinesH (+) &elease o! the amount directly to the appropriate
implementing agencyH and (3) 6ist o! projects and acti#ities.
&espondent %esar Sarino" the then 4'6G Secretary" re5uested !or authority to
negotiate" enter into" sign 3emoranda o! )greements with accredited :on?
Go#ernmental (rganiDations (:G(s) in order to utiliDe them to implement the projects
o! the %4> pro#ided !or under &.). :o. .*FI. &espondent >ran$lin 4rilon" the then
E,ecuti#e Secretary" granted the ao#ementioned re5uest o! Secretary Sarino. Such an
authority was e,tended to all the &egional 4irectors o! the 4'6G. 2ursuant to the
ao#e?descried authority granted him" respondent Tiurcio &elucio" on )pril +A" *EE+"
entered into a 3emorandum o! )greement with an accredited :G( $nown as the
02hilippine Couth Health and Sports 4e#elopment >oundation" 'nc.1 (2CHS4>').
%(3E6E% recei#ed !rom petitioner Vilosayan a letter in!orming the !ormer o! 0two
serious #iolations o! election laws"1 among them that the amount o! 2.I million was
released y the ;udget 4epartment" shortly e!ore the elections o! 3ay **" *EE+" in
!a#or o! 02CHS4>'1 a pri#ate entity" which had reportedly engaged in dirty election tric$s
and practices in said elections and re5uesting that these o!!enses and malpractices e
in#estigated promptly" thoroughly" impartially" without !ear o! !a#or.
ISSUE!
;ased on recommendations y the %omelec 6aw 4epartment" the %ommission
en anc dismissed the letter?complaint !or lac$ o! e#idence.
HELD!
The constitutional and statutory mandate !or the %omelec to in#estigate and
prosecute cases o! #iolation o! election laws translates" in e!!ect" to the e,clusi#e power
to conduct preliminary in#estigations in cases in#ol#ing election o!!enses !or the twin
purpose o! !iling an in!ormation in court and helping the 7udge determine" in the course
o! preliminary in5uiry" whether or not a warrant o! arrest should e issued.
)lthough only a low 5uantum and 5uality o! e#idence is needed to support a
!inding o! proale cause" the same cannot e justi!ied upon hearsay e#idence that is
ne#er gi#en any e#identiary or proati#e #alue in this jurisdiction.
F+.
83. NITAFAN VS. CIR
12 SCRA 284 (1987)
FACTS!
2etitioners" the duly appointed and 5uali!ied 7udges presiding o#er ;ranches
-+" *E and -3" respecti#ely" o! the &egional Trial %ourt" :ational %apital 7udicial
&egion" all with stations in 3anila" see$ to prohiit andNor perpetually enjoin
respondents" the %ommissioner o! 'nternal &e#enue and the >inancial (!!icer o! the
Supreme %ourt" !rom ma$ing any deduction o! withholding ta,es !rom their salaries.
'n a nutshell" they sumit that 0any ta, withheld !rom their emoluments or
compensation as judicial o!!icers constitutes a decrease or diminution o! their salaries"
contrary to the pro#ision o! Section *I" )rticle J''' o! the *EF. %onstitution mandating
that 0(d)uring their continuance in o!!ice" their salary shall not e decreased"1 e#en as it
is anathema to the 'deal o! an independent judiciary en#isioned in and y said
%onstitution.1
ISSUE!
9hether or not ta, deductions withheld !rom the salaries o! petitioners are
illegal as they contra#ene Section *I" )rticle J''' o! the %onstitution prohiiting
diminution o! salaries o! judicial o!!icers
HELD!
:o. The %onstitution authoriDes %ongress to pass a law !i,ing another rate o!
compensation o! 7ustices and 7udges ut such rate must e higher than that which they
are recei#ing at the time o! enactment" or i! lower" it would e applicale only to those
appointed a!ter its appro#al. 't would e a strained construction to read into the
pro#ision an e,emption !rom ta,ation in the light o! the discussion in the %onstitutional
%ommission.
84. VARGAS VS. RILLORA@A
80 #HIL 297 (1948)
FACTS!
2etitioners Samuel (ccena and &amon ). GonDales" oth memers o! the
2hilippine ;ar and !ormer delegates to the *E.* %onstitutional %on#ention that !ramed
the present %onstitution" are suing as ta,payers.
&esolution :o. * proposes an amendment allowing a natural?orn citiDen o! the
2hilippines naturaliDed in a !oreign country to own a limited area o! land !or residential
purposes (appro#ed y the #ote o! *++ to -)
&esolution :o. + deals with the 2residency" the 2rime 3inister and the %ainet"
and the :ational )ssemly (#ote o! *A. to - with * astention)
&esolution :o. 3 on the amendment to the )rticle on the %ommission on
Elections (#ote o! *AF to + with *astention). The rather unorthodo, aspect o! these
petitions is the assertion that the *E.3 %onstitution is not the !undamental law. The suits
were !iled 3arch 3" 6 and *+" *EF*" respecti#ely.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the 'nterim ;atasang 2amansa has the power to propose
amendments and how such may e e,ercised i! e#er.
HELD!
)ll petitions dismissed. The 'nterim ;atasang 2amansa shall ha#e the same
powers and its 3emers shall ha#e the same !unctions" responsiilities" rights"
pri#ileges" and dis5uali!icationsas the interim :ational )ssemly and the regular
:ational )ssemly and the 3emers thereo!.O? (ne o! such powers is precisely that
o! proposing amendments. The *E.3 %onstitution in its Transitory 2ro#isions #ested the
'nterim :ational )ssemly with the power to propose amendments upon special call
y the 2rime 3inister y a #ote o! the majority o! its memers to e rati!ied in
accordance with the )rticle on )mendments.? 9hen" there!ore" the 'nterim ;atasang
2amansa" upon the call o! the 2resident and 2rime 3inister >erdinand E. 3arcos" met
as a constituent ody" it acted y #irtue o! such competence. 'ts authority to do so is
clearly eyond dout. 't could and did propose the amendments emodied in the
resolutions now eing assailed.
8. V0,>0& %. R())/,0?0
80 #HIL 297 (1948)
FACTS!
2etitioners Samuel (ccena and &amon ). GonDales" oth memers o! the
2hilippine ;ar and !ormer delegates to the *E.* %onstitutional %on#ention that !ramed
the present %onstitution" are suing as ta,payers.
&esolution :o. * proposes an amendment allowing a natural?orn citiDen o!
the 2hilippines naturaliDed in a !oreign country to own a limited area o! land !or
residential purposes (appro#ed y the #ote o! *++ to -)
&esolution :o. + deals with the 2residency" the 2rime 3inister and the
%ainet" and the :ational )ssemly (#ote o! *A. to - with * astention)
&esolution :o. 3 on the amendment to the )rticle on the %ommission on
Elections (#ote o! *AF to + with *astention). The rather unorthodo, aspect o! these
petitions is the assertion that the *E.3 %onstitution is not the !undamental law. The suits
were !iled 3arch 3" 6 and *+" *EF*" respecti#ely.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the 'nterim ;atasang 2amansa has the power to propose
amendments and how such may e e,ercised i! e#er.
HELD!
)ll petitions dismissed. The 'nterim ;atasang 2amansa shall ha#e the same
powers and its 3emers shall ha#e the same !unctions" responsiilities" rights"
pri#ileges" and
dis5uali!icationsas the interim :ational )ssemly and the regular:ational )ssemly and
the 3emers thereo!.O? (ne o! such powers is precisely that
o! proposingamendments.The *E.3 %onstitution in its Transitory 2ro#isions#ested the
'nterim :ational )ssemly with the power to propose amendments upon special call
y the 2rime 3inister y a #ote o! the majority o! its memers to e rati!ied in
accordance with the )rticle on )mendments.? 9hen" there!ore" the 'nterim ;atasang
2amansa" upon the call o! the 2resident and 2rime 3inister >erdinand E. 3arcos" met
as a constituent ody" it acted y #irtue o! such competence. 'ts authority to do so is
clearly eyond dout. 't could and did propose the amendments emodied in the
resolutions now eing assailed.
8*. D- L0 L)0+0 %. A):0
112 SCRA 294 (1982)
FACTS!
4e 6a 6lana" et. al. !iled a 2etition !or 4eclaratory &elie! andNor !or 2rohiition"
see$ing ti enjoin the 3inister o! the ;udget" the %hairman o! the %ommission on )udit"
and the 3inister o! 7ustice !rom ta$ing any action implementing ;2 *+E which mandates
that 7ustices and judges o! in!erior courts !rom the %) to 3T%s" e,cept the occupants o!
the Sandiganayan and the %T)" unless appointed to the in!erior courts estalished y
such act" would e considered separated !rom the judiciary. 't is the termination o! their
incumency that !or petitioners justi!ies a suit o! this character" it eing alleged that
therey the security o! tenure pro#ision o! the %onstitution has een ignored and
disregarded.
ISSUE!
9hether or not ;2 *+E is unconstitutional !or impairing the security o! tenure o!
the justices and judges in this case8
HELD!
't is a well?$nown rule that #alid aolition o! o!!ices is neither remo#al nor
separation o! the incuments. (! course" i! the aolition is #oid" the incument is
deemed ne#er to ha#e ceased to hold o!!ice. The rule that the aolition o! an o!!ice
does not amount to an illegal remo#al o! its incument is the principle that" in order to e
#alid" the aolition must e made in good !aith.
&emo#al is to e distinguished !rom termination y #irtue o! #alid aolition o! the
o!!ice. There can e no tenure to a non?e,istent o!!ice. )!ter the aolition" there is in
law no occupant. 'n case o! remo#al" there is an o!!ice with an occupant who would
therey lose his position. 't is in that sense that !rom the standpoint o! strict law" the
5uestion o! any impairment o! security o! tenure does not arise.
87. #-/9)- %. G04/55
24* SCRA 2 (199)
FACTS!
(n >eruary +" *EEA" a complaint !or #iolation o! the )nti?4ummy 6aw (%.). :o.
*IF) was !iled y )sst. %ity 2rosecutor 2er!ecto E. 2e against respondents Strom and
&eyes. The accused !iled a 3otion to PuashN4ismiss the criminal case contending that
since the power to prosecute is #ested e,clusi#ely in the )nti?4ummy ;oard under
&epulic )ct :o. **3I" the %ity 2rosecutor o! 2uerto 2rincesa has no power or
authority to !ile the same. The prosecution !iled an opposition pointing out that the )nti?
4ummy ;oard has already een aolished y 6etter o! 'mplementation :o. +" Series o!
*E.+. 4espite such opposition" howe#er" respondent judge granted the motion
espousing the position that the 6etter (! 'mplementation relied upon y the %ity >iscal is
not the 0law1 contemplated in )rticle . o! the :ew %i#il %ode which can repeal another
law such as &.). **3I. Thus" respondent judge in the assailed order o! 3arch *F" *EEA
held that the %ity 2rosecutor has no power or authority to !ile and prosecute the case
and ordered that the case e 5uashed.
ISSUE!
9hether or not respondent judge in granting the 3otion to Puash gra#ely aused
his discretion as to warrant the issuance o! a writ o! certiorari.
HELD!
Ces. The error committed y respondent judge in dismissing the case is 5uite
o#ious in the light o! 2.4. :o. *" 6(' :o. + and 2.4. :o. *+.- a!orementioned. The
intent to aolish the )nti?4ummy ;oard could not ha#e een e,pressed more clearly
than in the a!ore5uoted 6('. E#en assuming that the %ity >iscal o! 2uerto 2rincesa
!ailed to cite 2.4. :o. * in his opposition to the 3otion to Puash" a mere perusal o! the
te,t o! 6(' :o. + would ha#e immediately apprised the respondent judge o! the !act that
6(' :o. + was issued in implementation o! 2.4. :o. *. 2aragraph * o! 6(' :o. + reads:
2ursuant to 2residential 4ecree :o. * dated Septemer +3" *E.+" &eorganiDing
the E,ecuti#e ;ranch o! the :ational Go#ernment" the !ollowing agencies o! the
4epartment o! 7ustice are hereyreorganiDed or acti#ated in accordance with the
applicale pro#isions o! the 'ntegrated &eorganiDation 2lan and the !ollowing
instructions: . . . (emphasis supplied).
General" 2residential 4ecrees" such as 2.4 :o. *" issued y the !ormer
2resident 3arcos under his martial law powers ha#e the same !orce and e!!ect as the
laws enacted y %ongress. )s held y the Supreme %ourt in the case o! )5uino #s.
%omelec" (6+ S%&) +.- Q*E.-R)" all proclamations" orders" decrees" instructions and
acts promulgated" issued" or done y the !ormer 2resident are part o! the law o! the
land" and shall remain #alid" legal" inding" and e!!ecti#e" unless modi!ied" re#o$ed or
superseded y suse5uent proclamations" orders" decrees" instructions" or other acts o!
the 2resident. 6(' :o. + is one such legal order issued y !ormer 2resident 3arcos in
the e,ercise o! his martial law powers to implement 2.4. :o. *. 'nasmuch as neither
2.4. :o. * nor 6(' :o. + has een e,pressly impliedly re#ised" re#o$ed" or repealed"
oth continue to ha#e the !orce and e!!ect o! law.
'ndeed" Section 3" )rticle =J'' o! the %onstitution e,plicitly ordains:
Sec. 3. )ll e,isting laws" decrees" e,ecuti#e orders" proclamations" letters o!
instructions" and other e,ecuti#e issuances not inconsistent with this %onstitution shall
remain operati#e until amended" repealed" or re#o$ed.
88. I+ R- J16>- "0+?0+/
1** SCRA 24*
FACTS!
7udge 3anDano !iled a petition allowing him to accept the appointment y 'locos
Sur Go#ernor &odol!o >arinas as the memer o! 'locos :orte pro#incial %ommittee on
7ustice created pursuant to a 2residential (rder. He petitioned that his memership in
the %ommittee will not in any way amount to an aandonment to his present position as
E,ecuti#e 7udge o! ;ranch ='=" &T%" *st 7udicial region and as a memer o! judiciary.
ISSUE!
9hat is an administrati#e agency8 9here does it draw the line inso!ar as
administrati#e !unctions are concerned8
HELD!
The petition is denied. The %onstitution prohiits the designation o! memers o!
the 7udiciary to any agency per!orming Puasi?7udicial or )dministrati#e !unctions
(Sec.*+" )rt.J'''" *EF. %onstitution).
A67(+(&5,05(%- ;1+45(/+& are those which in!ol!e the regulation and control
o!er the conduct . affairs of indi!iduals for their own welfare and the promulgation of
rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the /egislature or such as are
de!ol!ed upon the administrati!e agency by the organic law of its existence.
0)dministrati#e !unctions1 as used in Sec. *+ re!ers to the Go#ernment@s
e,ecuti#e machinery and its per!ormance o! go#ernmental acts. 't re!ers to the
management actions" determinations" and orders o! e,ecuti#e o!!icials as they
administer the laws and try to ma$e go#ernment e!!ecti#e. There is an element o!
positi#e action" o! super#ision or control.
89. C/+&(+> %. C/1,5 /; A99-0)&
177SCRA 14 (1989)
FACTS!
3erlin %onsing (pet) sold a house and lot to %aridad Santos. 2ro#ided in their contract
o! sale were particular terms o! payment in which the purchase price shall e paid
(installment asis" plus interest). 'n the process" Santos de!aulted in her payments.
%onsing demanded !or her payment and had planned to resort to court litigation. Santos
e,pressed her willingness to settle her oligation. Howe#er" this is upon the condition
that the %onsings comply with all the laws and regulations on sudi#ision and a!ter
payment to her damages as a conse5uence o! the use o! a portion o! her lot as a
sudi#ision road. 'n response" the %onsings sumitted a re#ised sudi#ision plan. %>'
4ecision Santos was !ully justi!ied in re!using to pay !urther her monthly amortiDations
ecause although %onsing sumitted a re#ised plan and may ha#e corrected
irregularities andNor ha#e complied with the legal re5uirements !or the operation o! their
sudi#ision" he cannot escape liaility to Santos !or ha#ing sold to her portions o! the
roads or streets denominated as right?o!?way.
%ontention cNo %onsing : %) did not comply with the certi!ication re5uirement.
2urpose o! certi!ication re5uirement:
To ensure that all court decisions are reached a!ter consultation with
memers o! the court en anc or di#ision" as the case may e" To ensure
that the decision is rendered y a court as a whole" not merely y a
memer o! the same" To ensure that decisions are arri#ed only a!ter
delieration" e,change o! ideas" and concurrence o! majority #ote
HELD!
The asence o! certi!ication does not in#alidate a decision. 't is only e#idence !or !ailure
to oser#e the re5uirement. There could e an administrati#e case on the ground o!
lac$ o! certi!ication.
90. #EO#LE V. ESCOBER
17 SCRA 41 (1988)
FACTS!
Escoer" 2unDalan and 3 others were accused o! committing roery with
homicide in ;alintawa$" P% on 4ec. 3" F+. 3r. Jicenta %hua@s o!!ice was roed o! 2-V
and his children were staed to death. Escoer was company guard [ alleged
mastermind. )uyen was !ormer guard relie#ed due to asence [ !ound sleeping on
duty.
ISSUES!
*. 9hether or not &T% con!ormed with )rt. E" Sec E o! the %onstitution.
+ 9hether or not Escoer is guilty.
3. 9hether or not 2unDalan is guilty.
HELD!
*. :o. )rt E. Sec E states that decision should ha#e !acts" not present in
decision. GeneraliDations and conclusions without detailed !acts as asis.
)ppellate court can@t chec$ i! !indings were su!!icient and logical. 7ustice
and !airness o#er speed. 2eople #. ;anayo: decision should show
e#idence" !acts ased on e#idence and supporting jurisprudence and
authority
+. :o. (pening o! gate is normal when someone $noc$s especially i! you
$now him. He might ha#e lac$ed etter judgment or la,ity in per!ormance
o! duties though. The !iring o! the gun as a ritual to a#oid suspicion is too
ris$y a ritual. 't can $ill. -?*I minutes too short a time to plan a conspiracy.
)uyen e#en as$ed 2unDalan to $ill Escoar. Then )uyen pointed the
gun at Escoar and as$ed 2unDalan to tie himH he also tries to shoot him.
(!!ering the in!ormation that he was not hit was also just to assure
employer who seemed concerned. 3rs %hua@s statement may ha#e een
con!used cause it was ta$en last. 2erhaps she !orgot details due to
agitation.
3. Ces. E,trajudicial con!ession is inadmissile ecause it was not properly
per!ormed and was without counsel. %onspiracy was pro#en. He was
!etched and he !led with suspects. He should@#e gone to the police i!
innocent. 2eople #s. &ogel: Homicide through roery" all principals in
roery are liale !or homicide unless they tried pre#enting it.
91.A(, F,0+4- % C0,,0&4/&/
18 SCRA 1 (19**)
FACTS!
)ir >rance issued to %arrascoso" a ci#il engineer" a *st class round trip tic$et !rom
3anila ? &ome. 4uring the stopo#er at ;ang$o$" the 3anager o! )ir >rance !orced
plainti!! to #acate the *st class seat ecause there was a Owhite manO who had etter
right to the seat.
)s a result" he !iled a suit against )ir >rance where the %>' 3anila granted him
moral and e,emplary damages.
ISSUE!
9hether or not %arrascoso was entitled to the *st class seat and conse5uently"
whether or not he was entitled to the damages awarded.
HELD!
Ces to oth.
To achie#e staility in the relation etween passenger and air carrier" adherence to
the tic$et issued is desirale. Puoting the court" O9e cannot understand how a
reputale !irm li$e )ir >rance could ha#e the indiscretion to gi#e out tic$ets it ne#er
meant to honor at all. 't recei#ed the corresponding amount in payment o! the tic$ets
and yet it allowed the passenger to e at the mercy o! its employees. 't is more in
$eeping with the ordinary course o! usiness that the company should $now whether or
not the tic$ets it issues are to e honored or not.O
E#idence o! ad !aith was presented without ojection on the part o! the
%arrascoso. 'n the case" it could ha#e een easy !or )ir >rance to present its manager
to testi!y at the trial or secure his deposition ut de!endant did neither. There is also no
e#idence as to whether or not a prior reser#ation was made y the white man.
The manager not only pre#ented %arrascoso !rom enjoying his right to a *st class
seat" worse he imposed his aritrary will. He !orcily ejected him !rom his seat" made
him su!!er the humiliation o! ha#ing to go to tourist class just to gi#e way to another
passenger whose right was not estalished. %ertainly" this is ad !aith.
2assengers do not contract merely !or transportation. They ha#e a right to e
treated y the carrierGs employees with $indness" respect" courtesy and due
consideration. They are entitled to e protected against personal is conduct" injurious
language" indignities and ause !rom such employees. )ny discourteous conduct on the
part o! employees towards a passenger gi#es the latter an action !or damages against
the carrier.
E,emplary damages were also awarded. The manner o! ejectment !its into the
condition !or e,emplary damages that de!endant acted in a wanton" !raudulent"
rec$less" oppressi#e or male#olent manner.
X;ad >aith ? state o! mind a!!irmati#ely operating with !urti#e design or with some
moti#e o! sel!?interest or ill will or !or ulterior purpose
92. HERNANDE@ VS. CA
208 SCRA 429 (1993)

F045&!
4anilo introduced y aunt to &emedios de 6eon" who was in the usiness o!
uying and selling jewelry *
st
transaction: paid in cash !or jewelry" Suse5uent
transactions: paid in cash or post?dated chec$s. )ssailed transactions - transactions"
jewelry paid !or using post?dated chec$s (e,cept o! *" same date as transaction" ut
an$ already closed at the time): A ;2' chec$s signed y 4anilo" * )S; chec$ signed
y a certain Enri5ue )raneta" 3 ;2' chec$s drawn against insu!!icient !unds" * ;2'
chec$ drawn against a closed account" * )S; chec$ drawn against a closed account

4anilo suse5uently charged in E in!ormation with the EST)>) and !or #iolations
against ;2 ;lg. ++ Q;ouncing %hec$ 6awR" with %a#ite %ity &T% 'n!ormation
consolidated" heard in a joint trial" 4anilo con#icted o! E charges in joint decision. 4anilo
appealed to %)" %) a!!irmed F con#ictionsH 4anilo ele#ated case to Supreme %ourt.
Sec. *A" )rt. J'''" *EF. %onstitution
S-4. 14. :o decision shall e rendered y any court without e,pressing therein
clearly and distinctly the !acts and the law on which it is ased.
:o petition !or re#iew or motion !or reconsideration o! a decision o! the court shall
e re!used due course or denied without stating the legal asis there!ore.
)rt. 3*-" &2% Q%rime o! Esta!aR" )rt. 3*-. Swindling (esta!a). W )ny person who
shall de!raud another y any o! the means mentioned herein elow. ;2 ;lg. ++
Q;ouncing %hec$ 6awR
ISSUE!
4id the %) err in not disclosing complete !indings o! !act" contrary to Sec. *A" )rt
J'''8
HELD!
NO. 2etitioner assigned F errors" ut %) did not ma$e a complete !inding o! !act
as to the last two. <nnecessary to ma$e separate !indings o! !act: last two errors were
necessary conse5uences o! pre#iously enumerated assigned errors. %) simply adopted
SolGen@s statement o! !acts" thus did not ma$e its own 0independent judicial opinion1
%onsti. mandate: only re5uires that the decision should state the !acts on which it is
ased: no prescription against adoption o! narration o! !acts o! one o! the parties Qas
!ound in rie!s" memoranda" etc.R %)" in concluding that there was no cogent reason
that could justi!y the modi!icationNre#ersal o! the decision o! the trial court" relied on a
decision not supported y e#idence 2etitioner alleged that the de 6eon testimony was
0sel!?ser#ing1" thus inadmissile Sel!?ser#ing: made out o! courtH cannot e cross?
e,amined. Thus" encourages !arication o! testi. ;ut the material testimonies were
made in court" under oath Colanda dela &osa" !or e,." testi!ied !or the prosecution. E#en
o! de 6eon@s was the sole testimony B would ha#e een enough3 Jis?T?#is crediility o! a
witness: 0witnesses are to e weighed" not counted1 2etitioner ordered to pay ci#il
indemnity" ut no e#idence presented to pro#e the e,istence" ownership" and worth o!
the pieces o! jewelry. E='STE:%E o! jewelry: estalished y the de 6eon testimony B
as per testimony" HernandeD e#en selected pieces o! jewelry e!ore uying them.
(9:E&SH'2: not a necessary element o! esta!a
93.
94. NICOS %&. CA
20* SCRA 127
FACTS!
:'%(S 'ndustrial %orporation otained a loan !rom <%2; and to secure payment
thereo! e,ecuted a real estate mortgage on two parcels o! land. The mortgage was
!oreclosed !or non?payment o! the loan. ) sheri!!@s sale was held without re?pulication
o! the re5uired notices a!ter the original date !or auction was changed without the
$nowledge or consent o! the mortgagor. <%2; was the highest and lone idder and the
mortgaged lands were sold to it. <%2; sold all its rights to the properties to pri#ate
respondent 3anuel %o. The latter trans!er said rights to Golden Star 'ndustrial
%orporation" another pri#ate respondent" and a writ o! possession was issued. :'%(S
and other petitioners !iled their action !or annulment o! sheri!!@s sale" reco#ery o!
possession" and damages" with prayer !or the issuance o! a preliminary prohiitory and
mandatory injunction. Golde Star !iled a .?page demurrer to the e#idence where they
argued that the action was a deri#ati#e suit that came under the jurisdiction o! the SE%H
that the mortgage had een #alidly !oreclosedH that the sheri!!@s sale was in accordance
with )ct 3*3-H that the notices had een duly pulished in a newspaper o! general
circulationH and that the opposition to the writ o! possession was not !iled on time. :o
opposition to the demurrer ha#ing een sumitted despite notice to the parties" 7udge
:estor 4antes considered it sumitted !or resolution. 2etitioners claim that it is not a
reasoned decision and does not clearly and distinctly e,plain how it was reached y the
trial court. They also stress that the sheri!!@s sale was irregular ecause the notices
thereo! were pulished in a newspaper that did not ha#e general circulation and that the
original date o! the sheri!!@s sale had een changed without its consent" the same
ha#ing een allegedly gi#en y a person not authoriDed to represent :'%(S.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the 5uestioned order #iolates )rt. J''" Sec. *A o! the %onstitution.
HELD!
CES. 't is a re5uirement o! due process that the parties to a litigation e in!ormed
o! how it was decided" with an e,planation o! the !actual and legal reasons that led to
the conclusions o! the court. The losing party is entitled to $now why he lost" so he may
appeal to a higher court" i! permitted" should he elie#e that the decision should e
re#ersed. ) decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the !acts and the law on
which it is ased lea#es the parties in the dar$ as to how it was reached and is
especially prejudicial to the losing party" who is unale to pinpoint the possile errors o!
the court !or re#iew y a higher triunal.
9. B/,,/7-/ %&. CA
18* SCRA 1
FACTS!
'n a complaint !or damages !iled with the &T% o! %eu" 7oa5uin ;orromeo
charges the 4i#ision %ler$ o! %ourt" )ssistant 4i#ision %ler$ o! %ourt o! the Third
4i#ision and the %hie! o! the 7udicial &ecords (!!ice o! &T% %eu with usurpation o!
judicial !unctions !or allegedly maliciously and de#iously issuing iased" !a$e" aseless
and unconstitutional &esolution and Entry o! 7udgment in G.&. :o. F++.3.
This is not the !irst time that 3r. ;orromeo has !iled chargesNcomplaints against
o!!icials o! the court. 'n se#eral letters?complaints !iled with the court and the
(mudsman" ;orromeo had repeatedly alleged that he su!!ered injustices ecause o!
the disposition o! the !our (A) cases he separately appealed to the S% which were
resol#ed y minute resolutions allegedly in #iolation o! Section A"*3 and *A o! )rt. J''' o!
the *EF. %onstitution. His in#ariale complaint is that the resolutions which disposed o!
his cases do not ear the signatures o! the 7ustices who participated in the delierations
and resolution and do not show that they #oted therein. He li$ewise complained that the
resolutions ear no certi!ication o! the %hie! 7ustice and that they did not state the !acts
and the law on which they were ased and signed only y the cler$s o! court and
there!ore null and #oid.
ISSUE!
9hether or not )rt. *A o! the %onstitution was #iolated.
HELD!
:o. &esolution disposing o! petitions !all under the constitutional pro#ision which
states that" 0:o petition !or re#iew...shall e re!used due course...without stating the
legal asis there!or1 (Sec. *A" )rt. J'''" %onstitution). 9hen the court" a!ter delierating
on a petition and any suse5uent pleadings" mani!estations" comments" or motions
decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the 5uestions raised are
!actual or no re#ersile error in the respondent court@s decision is shown or !or some
other legal asis stated in the resolution" there is su!!icient compliance with the
constitutional re5uirements.
3inute resolutions need not e signed y the memers o! the court who too$ part
in the delierations o! a case nor do they re5uire the certi!ication o! the chie! justice. >or
to re5uire memers o! the court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly
delay the issuance o! its resolutions nut a great amount o! their time would e spent on
!unctions more properly per!ormed y the cler$ o! court and which time could e more
pro!italy used in the analysis o! cases and the !ormulation o! decisions and orders o!
important nature and character.
9*. F,0+4(&4/ %&. #-,7&C1)
173 SCRA 324
FACTS!
2etitioner leased his apartment to pri#ate respondent !or a period o! one year !or
the stipulated amount o! 23"III.II a month. 2ri#ate respondent deposited 2E"III.II to
answer !or unpaid rentals or any damage to the leased premises. )!ter one year" pri#ate
respondent #acated the property and re5uested the re!und o! his deposit minus the sum
o!2*"III.Io" representing the rental !or the additional ten days o! his occupancy a!ter
the e,piration o! lease. 2etitioner rejected his re5uest and claimed that the lessee still
owed him !or other charges" including electricity and water ills and the repainting o! the
leased premises. 2ri#ate respondent sued in the 3T% o! 3a$ati. ) summary judgment
was rendered sustaining the complainant. The de!endant was ordered to pay the
plainti!! the alance o! the deposit a!ter deducting the water and electicity charges.
The decision was appealed to the &T% o! 3a$ati which a!!irmed the same. This
was done in a memorandum decision which states that: 0)!ter a care!ul and thorough
perusal" e#aluation and study o! the records o! this case" this %ourt herey adopts y
re!erence the !indings o! !act and conclusions o! law contained in the decision o! the
3etropolitan Trial %ourt o! 3a$ati" 3etro 3anila" ;ranch 63 and !inds that there is no
cogent reason to distur the same. 9HE&E>(&E" judgment appealed !rom is a!!irmed
in toto.1 4e!endant appealed to the %) ut his petition !or re#iew was denied and so
was his motion !or reconsideration.
ISSUE!
9hether or not the memorandum decisions #iolate )rt. J'''" Sec. *A o! the
%onstitution.
HELD!
:(. There is no 5uestion that the purpose o! the law in authoriDing the
memorandum decision is to e,pedite the termination o! litigations !or the ene!it o! the
parties as well as the courts themsel#es.
97. V-)0,6- %&.S/4(0) J1&5(4- S/4(-52
G.R.N/. 1937 A9,() 2009
FACTS!
The petition prayed !or the resolution o! the 5uestion 0whether or not the act o! a
religious leader" li$e any o! herein respondents" in endorsing the candidacy o! a
candidate !or electi#e o!!ice or in urging or re5uiring the memers o! his !loc$ to #ote !or
a speci!ied candidate is #iolati#e o! the letter or spirit o! constitutional pro#isions. They
alleged that the 5uestioned decision did not contain a statement o! !acts and a
dispositi#e portion.
ISSUE!
9hat is the standard !orm o! a decision8 4id the challenged decision comply with
the a!oresaid !orm8
HELD!
The decision shall e in writing" personally" and directly prepared y yhe judge"
stating clearly and distinctly the !acts and the law on which it is ased" signed y the
issuing magistrate" and !iled with the cler$ o! court. 'n general" the essential parts o! a
good decision consist o! the !ollowing: (*) statement o! the caseH (+) statement o! the
!actsH (3) issues or assignments o! errorsH (A) court ruling" in which each issue is" as a
rule" separately considered and resol#edH and !inally" (-) dispositi#e portion. The
ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue"
especially in cases in which contro#ersial issues are in#ol#ed.
:o. The assailed decision was rendered in clear #iolation o! the %onstitutuion"
ecause it made no !indings o! !acts and !inal disposition.
98. R-! #,/:)-7 /; D-)02& (+ C0&-& B-;/,- 5'- S0+6(>0+:020+
A" N/. 008=8=0=SC3 N/%-7:-, 283 2001
FACTS!
Sumitted to the %ourt !or consideration is a resolution o! the ;oard o!
Go#ernors" 'ntegrated ;ar o! the 2hilippines (herea!ter" the ';2) recommending an
in5uiry into the causes o! delays in the resolution o! incidents and motions and in the
decision o! cases pending e!ore the Sandiganayan.
ISSUES!
(*) 9hat is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganayan must
decideNresol#e cases !alling within its jurisdiction8
(+) )re there cases sumitted !or decision remaining undecided y the
Sandiganayan or any o! its di#isions eyond the a!ore?stated reglementary
period8
(3) 's Supreme )dministrati#e %ircular :o. *IEA applicale to the Sandiganayan8
HELD!
The three month period !or deciding cases" not the twel#e month period gi#en to
appellate courts" applies to the Sandiganayan ecause the Sandiganayan is a trial
court.
99. E60+/ V&. A&60)0
A" N/. RTJ=0*=20073 D-4-7:-, *3 2010
FACTS!
This is an administrati#e complaint !or #iolation o! the %ode o! 7udicial Ethics"
misconduct" rendering an erroneous decision" and rendering a decision eyond the EI?
day reglementary period !iled y %armen EdaKo (complainant) against 7udge >atima G.
)sdala (respondent *udge).
The complainant claimed that the respondent judge made it appear that %i#il
%ase :o. P?E.?3I-.6 was decided on 3arch ++" +II-" although the records show that
she (respondent judge) still ruled on se#eral motions relating to this case e#en a!ter that
date. The complainant !urther alleged that the respondent judge erred in denying her
notice o! appeal
ISSUE!
9hether the rendering o! decision eyond the EI day reglementary period y the
respondent judge suject to disciplinary action.
HELD!
Ces.
4(%T&':ES:
7<4GES 3<ST 4E%'4E )66 %)SES 9'TH': 3 3(:THS >&(3 4)TE (>
S<;3'SS'(:
0. . . Section *-" )rticle J''' o! the %onstitution re5uires judges to decide all cases within
three (3) months !rom the date o! sumission. This %onstitutional policy is reiterated in
&ule *.I+" %anon * o! the %ode o! 7udicial %onduct which states that a judge should
administer justice impartially and without delayH and &ule 3.I-" %anon 3 o! the same
%ode pro#ides that a judge shall dispose o! the court@s usiness promptly and decide
cases within the re(uired periods.
100. S-&:,-E/ V&. CA
GR N/. 1*13903 A9,() 1*3 2010
FACTS!
The motion !or reconsideration was !iled y the petitioner that the respondent
must a!!irm with the decision o! the trial court due to long delay in deciding %)?G.&. :o.
A3+F..
ISSUE!
9hat e!!ect does the lapse o! the reglementary period ha#e on cases !iled e!ore
the e!!ecti#ity o! the constitution.
HELD!
The court" under the *EF. %onstitution" is now mandated to decide or resol#e the
case or matter sumitted to it !or determination within speci!ied periods. E#en when
there is delay and no decision or resolution is made within the prescried period" there
is no automatic a!!irmance o! the appealed decision. The appellate court" there!ore"
cannot e !aulted in not a!!irming the &T%@s decision. 9hile we do not tolerate delay in
the disposition o! cases" we cannot dismiss appealed cases solely ecause they had
een pending in court !or a long period" especially when the appeal is highly meritorious
as in the present case.