Angelo Miguel Lopez

Legal Writing
Issue Statement

Republic vs. PLDT

G.R. No. L-18841 January 27, 1969
J. Reyes, J.B.L.
Issue 1
I. Court Ruling
We agree with the court below that parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no
agreement is had between them as to the principal terms and conditions of the contract. Freedom
to stipulate such terms and conditions is of the essence of our contractual system, and by express
provision of the statute, a contract may be annulled if tainted by violence, intimidation, or undue
influence (Articles 1306, 1336, 1337, Civil Code of the Philippines).
II. Rule of Law
Article 1306 of the Civil Code: The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Article 1336 of the Civil Code: Violence or intimidation shall annul the obligation, although it
may have been employed by a third person who did not take part in the contract. (1268)
Article 1337 of the Civil Code: There is undue influence when a person takes improper
advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of
choice. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and
other relations between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly
influenced was suffering from mental weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress.
III. Legal Question
Does one party have the right compel another party to enter into a contract with it?
IV. Key Fact
The proposals made by the Bureau of Telecommunications and PLDT to each other
enumerating their respective terms and conditions in the interconnecting agreement were
not accepted by either party.
V. Statement of the Issue
Under-Does-When Format:
Under Articles 1306, 1336, 1337 of the Civil Code, which provides for the need of a
mutual agreement, without undue influence, between the parties for a contract to be valid, does
one party have the right compel another party to enter into a contract with it when proposals
made by one party and the other party to each other, enumerating their respective terms and
conditions in the agreement, were not accepted by either party?

Whether or Not Format:

Whether or not one party have the right to compel another to enter into a contract with it
when proposals made by one party and the other party to each other, enumerating their respective
terms and conditions in the agreement, were not accepted by either party.

Deep Issues Format:

Major Premise: Articles 1306, 1336, 1337 of the Civil Code states that parties mutually agreeing
with each other, without undue influence, are in a valid contract where a party is not being
compelled by another party to enter into a contract with another
Minor Premise: The parties, in this case, have not mutually agreed with each other, without
undue influence
Conclusion: Therefore, The parties in this case, are not in a valid contract where a party is being
compelled by another party to enter into a contract with another

Issue 2
I. Court Ruling
But the court a quo has apparently overlooked that while the Republic may not compel the PLDT
to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of
eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require,
subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Nominally, of course,
the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of,
the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed
of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and
possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to
an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT's lines and services to allow inter-service
connection between both telephone systems is not much different. In either case private property
is subjected to a burden for public use and benefit. If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the
Constitution, the State may, in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public
ownership upon payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the State may not require
a public utility to render services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid
therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of both
telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
II. Rule of Law
Section 6, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution (Eminent Domain): The State may, in the
interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of
transportation and communication, and upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private enterprise to be operated by the Government.
III. Legal Question
Does the Republic have the right to validly expropriate the services of a corporation?
IV. Key Fact
The proposals made by the Bureau of Telecommunications and PLDT to each other
enumerating their respective terms and conditions in the interconnecting agreement,
which is the agreement wherein the Bureau will use the telephone services of the PLDT,
were not accepted by either party.
V. Statement of the Issue
Under-Does-When Format:
Under Section 6, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, which provides for the rule of eminent
domain, does the Republic have the right to validly expropriate the services of a corporation
when the proposals made by the Republic and a corporation to each other enumerating their
respective terms and conditions in the contract were not accepted by either party?

Whether or not Format:

Whether or not the Republic have the right to validly expropriate the services of a corporation
when the proposals made by the Republic and a corporation to each other enumerating their
respective terms and conditions in the contract were not accepted by either party.

Deep Issues Format:

Major Premise: Section 6, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provides that the Republic in
transferring to public ownership or use the utilities and other services of a corporation to be
operated by the Government, in the interest of national welfare and defense, despite having no
contract, is valid expropriation
Minor Premise: The Republic seeks to transfer to public ownership or use the utilities and other
services of a corporation to be operated by the Government, in the interest of national welfare
and defense, despite having no contract
Conclusion: Therefore, the Republic seeks valid expropriation