9 Lupangco VS CA GR NO 77372

April 21 1988 CASE DIGEST

Facts On or about October 6, 1986, herein respondent Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its "Additional Instructions
to Examiness," to all those applying for admission to take the licensure
examinations in accountancy
No examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like
conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any
school, college or university, or any review center or the like or any reviewer,
lecturer, instructor official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similars
institutions during the three days immediately proceeding every examination day
including examination day.
Any examinee violating this instruction shall be subject to the sanctions prescribed
by Sec. 8, Art. III of the Rules and Regulations of the Commission
On October 16, 1986, herein petitioners, all reviewees preparing to take the
licensure examinations in accountancy schedule on October 25 and November 2 of
the same year, filed on their own behalf of all others similarly situated like them,
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a complaint for injuction with a prayer with
the issuance of a writ of a preliminary injunction against respondent PRC to restrain
the latter from enforcing the above-mentioned resolution and to declare the same
unconstitution.
Respondent PRC filed a motion to dismiss on October 21, 1987 on the ground that
the lower court had no jurisdiction to review and to enjoin the enforcement of its
resolution
In an Order of October 21, 1987, the lower court declared that it had jurisdiction to
try the case and enjoined the respondent commission from enforcing and giving
effect to Resolution No. 105 which it found to be unconstitutional
Not satisfied therewith, respondent PRC, on November 10, 1986, filed with the Court
of Appeals
Issue: Whether or not Resolution No. 105 is constitutional.
Held: It is not Constitutional.
the questioned resolution was adopted for a commendable purpose which is "to
preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure examinations." However, its good
aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its constitutional infirmities
The unreasonableness is more obvious in that one who is caught committing the
prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be barred from taking future
examinations conducted by the respondent PRC

Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on the
examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent PRC has no
authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for
the licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained from taking all the lawful
steps needed to assure the fulfillment of their ambition to become public
accountants. They have every right to make use of their faculties in attaining
success in their endeavors. They should be allowed to enjoy their freedom to
acquire useful knowledge that will promote their personal growth

10 Philippine Blooming Mills Employees

Organization vs. PBM
Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a
mass demonstration in front of Malacaang to express their grievances against the
alleged abuses of the Pasig Police.
After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc.,
called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO. During the meeting, the
planned demonstration was confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that the
demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact an exercise of
the laborers inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of
speech and freedom for petition for redress of grievances.
The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it would interrupt the
normal course of their business which may result in the loss of revenue. This was
backed up with the threat of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if
they pushed through with the rally.
A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their appeal that while
the workers may be allowed to participate, those from the 1st and regular shifts
should not absent themselves to participate , otherwise, they would be dismissed.
Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the officers of the
PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a violation of the No Strike and No Lockout
clause of their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were
found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was
subsequently denied by the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two days
late.
Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA.
Held: No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of

human rights over property rights is recognized. Because these freedoms are
"delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the
"threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the
actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting
government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights
can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy
of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political
institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not
permitting dubious intrusions."
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of
petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials
or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom
we shall be governed.

Lessons Applicable: Nature and Definition of Human Rights, Human Right

is superior to property rights, Social justice, jurisdiction over violation of
constitutional right
Laws Applicable: Bill of Rights on rights of free expression, rights of free
assembly and rights of petition
FACTS:
March 2, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills discovered that Philippine
Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass
demonstration as a valid exercise of their constitutional right of freedom
expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for
redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental
agency, the Chief Executive, alleged abuses of the police officers of the
municipality of Pasig at Malacaang on March 4, 1969 to be participated in
by the workers in the first, second and third shifts (6am-2pm, 7am-4pm.
and 8am-5pm respectively)
March 3, 1969: Philippine Blooming Mills held 2 meetings in the
morning and afternoon where PBMEO confirmed the demonstration which
has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or
dispute with Management. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon,
Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is
an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but
emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not
unduly prejudice the normal operation thus whoever fails to report for
work the following morning shall be dismissed for violation of the existing
CBA Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT NO STRIKE amounting to an illegal strike

 March 3, 1969 9:50 am: Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a

cablegram to the Company: REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT
EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969
The Company filed for violation of the CBA. PBMEO answered that
there is no violation since they gave prior notice. Moreover, it was not a
mass demonstration for strike against the company.
Judge Joaquin M. Salvador: PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and
PBMEO officers directly responsible for ULP losing their status as
employees
September 29, 1969: PBMEO motion for reconsideration dismissed
since 2 days late
ISSUE:
1. W/N to regard the demonstration against police officers, not against
the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence
a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the
dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches
unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is an
inhibition of the rights of free expression, free assembly and petition
HELD: YES. Set aside as null and void the orders of CFI and reinstate the
petitioners.
In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and
worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal
article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an
individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his
thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person
The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality
and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the
passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and
derision of those who have no patience with general principles.
The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to
petition are included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign
people
The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only
civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life,
to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these
freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic
establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the
administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive
public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal
to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and
protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring
public officers and employees.
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
human rights over property rights is recognized.

o Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human
rights are imprescriptible.
o a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more
stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of
a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent
o Rationale: Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated.
The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in
spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester
and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in
anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised
tissues.
o injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the
workers, even if it legally appears to be illegal picketing or strike
The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage
by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to
2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their
property rights.
o There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part
of the firm in rejecting the request of the Union for excuse from work for
the day shifts in order to carry out its mass demonstration. And to regard
as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Pasig
police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the
employer, which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional.
o The most that could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by
reason of their absence from work on the day of the demonstration. One
day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to
support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that
their demonstration would bring about the desired relief from police
abuses. But management was adamant in refusing to recognize the
superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the
right to petition for redress.
o the dismissal for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently
being absent from work, constitutes a denial of social justice likewise
assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees. Section 5 of
Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of
social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the
people," which guarantee is emphasized by the other directive in Section
6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall afford protection
to labor ...". Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial
Relations is enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the
causes of industrial unrest by encouraging and protecting the exercise by
employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic wellbeing."

 The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice

defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875,
otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No.
8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities
for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair
labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three."
violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction.
Relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional
liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even long
after the finality of the judgment. There is no time limit to the exercise of
the freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of
one speech, the printing of one article or the staging of one
demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised
when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified,
abuses to be denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these
guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by rule on procedure
prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a
race for time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer,
the latter eventually loses because he cannot employ the best an
dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required diligence
and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial resources with which to pay for
competent legal services
enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the
organic law, is a most compelling reason to deny application of a Court of
Industrial Relations rule which impinges on such human rights. It is an
accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to
"suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operation,
whenever the purposes of justice require."

Digest for September 1, 2009

11 CSC vs. Lucas

January 21, 1999, Pardo
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari
Facts
-Raquel Linatok filed w/ office of Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint vs. Lucas
(photographer of DA) for misconduct, allegedly because Mr. Lucas touched her
thighs down her ankle and when she kicked him for repeating the same actions, the
two had a verbal exchanged and Mr. Lucas shoved her to the door twice, causing
her to stumble.

-When Lucas was summoned by BOPI to answer the complaint, Lucas said that there
was no malice when he accidentally touched Linatoks leg when he reached for his
shoes.
*BOPI: GUILTY for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and recommended to be suspended for
1m,1d. Approved by Sec of DA. Lucas appealed to CSC.
*CSC: GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT, dismissed from service. MR denied. appeal
with CA.
*CA: set aside CSC resolution, reinstate BOPI resolution (simple misconduct)
-based on MC 49-89, classification of administrative offenses:
a. grave misconduct: grave offenses, punishable by dismissal
b. simple misconduct: less grave offenses, punishable by suspension (1st offense),
dismissal (2nd offense)
+ no Due Notice: only found out about the modification of the charge against him
when he received notice of the resolution dismissing him from office (wait, the
charge was modified?)
ISSUES:
(a) whether respondent Lucas was denied due process when the CSC found him
guilty of grave misconduct on a charge of simple misconduct
(b) whether the act complained of constitutes grave misconduct.
Held
(a) YES
-as Lucas was merely charged with simple misconduct but was convicted of grave
misconduct, he was deprived of his right to due process.
*Due Process: informed of the charges against him + convicted of ONLY the crime
w/ w/c he was charged
(b) No proof
Of course, we do not in any way condone respondents act. Even in jest, he had no
right to touch complainants leg. However, under the circumstances, such act is not
constitutive of grave misconduct, in the absence of proof that respondent was
maliciously motivated. We note that respondent has been in the service for twenty
(20) years and this is his first offense.
Disposition: DENY PETITION BY CSC

12 Case Digest on PEFIANCO V.

MORAL
19 Jan. 2000

Denial of a Motion to Dismiss

Facts: D filed a mandamus and injunction case seeking to enjoin the enforcement
of a decision which had already become final. P filed a Motion to Dismiss. The judge
denied the motion without stating the basis why Ps motion should be denied.
Issue: Whether the judges denial of the motion was proper
Held: No. Rule 16 mandatorily requires that the resolution of a motion to dismiss
should clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor. The rule proscribes the
common practice of perfunctorily denying motions to dismiss for lack of merit.
The challenged order of the trial court falls short of the requirements stated in Rule
16.
case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines,
mobile phone deals, laptop computers, gadgets, free legal opinion, online jobs, best
law firms in Mindanao, Remedial Law