7.

44 Fernando v CA GR 159751, Dec 6, 2006

FACTS:
The National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in NCR conducted
police surveillance on the store of Fernando Music Fair. Judge Laguio issued a search
warrant against Fernando. The warrant ordered the search of Fernando Music Fair and
the seizure of obscene pictures and pornographic shows. After searching the premises and
confiscating 25 VHS tapes and 10 different magazines, which deemed pornographic.
Petitioners were charged for selling and exhibiting obscene copies of x rated VHS Tapes
pursuant to Article 201 of the RPC.

ISSUE: Whether obscenity is a ground for the State to exercise its police power to restrain
the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech?

RULING:Yes. They are offensive to morals and are made and shown not for the sake of art
but rather for commercial purposes, that is gain and profit. The exhibition of the sexual act
in their magazines is a clear and unmitigated obscenity, indecency and an offense to
public morals, inspiring lust and lewdness, exerting a corrupting influence especially on the
youth.

7.45 Soriano v Laguardia GR 164785 Apr 29, 2009

FACTS:
Petitioner as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired and made obscene
remarks against Iglesia ni Cristo. Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost
identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Mr. Galapon and seven other private
respondents, all members of the (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above
broadcast. Respondent Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was
then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sorianos statements during the televised Ang Dating Daan was
obscene?

RULING: The SC ruled that Sorianos statement can be treated as obscene, at least with
respect to the average child, and thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected
speech. The G rating of the show was susceptible to children viewers. The Court
emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child literally rather
than in the context that they were used. (Bernas, page 78)
8.21 Navarro vs. Villegas
Facts: Petitioners wanted the use of Plaza Miranda as a site of demonstration. whereas the
Mayor would allow only the use of the Sunken Gardens. Consequently, every time that such
assemblies are announced, the community is placed in such a state of fear and tension that
offices are closed early and employees dismissed and classes suspended to the general
detriment of the public.
Issue: What is the extent of the authority of the State to regulate public assemblies?
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Mayor possessed reasonable
discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the assembly in
order to secure convenient use thereof by others and provide adequate and proper policing
to minimize the risks of disorder and maintain public safety and order. (Bernas, page 79)

8.22 Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil Blooming Mills Co, Inc.
Facts: The petitioner PBMEO is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the
Phil Blooming Mills Co, Inc. Petitioners claim that they decided to stage a mass
demonstration at Malacanang in protest against the alleged abuse of the Pasig police. The
Philippine Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the PBMEO after
learning about the planned mass. 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.
Issue: Whether or not the workers who joined the strike violated the Collective Bargaining
Agreement?
Ruling: 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 property rights can be lost thru
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. (bernas, page 79)

8.23 JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing

Facts: Retired Justice Reyes, in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition, sought a permit from
the Mayor of Manila for the use of the empty field in front of the Luneta Grandstand and
Roxas Boulevard in front of the U.S embassy from 2-5pm. The petitioners were sponsoring
an International Conference for General Disarmament, World Peace, and the Removal of
All Foreign Military Bases and proposed a march for Phil. Delegates. The Mayor refused
the permit his office was in receipt of police intelligence reports which strongly militate
against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time at the place applied for and
because Ordinance No. 7295 prohibits rallies or demonstrations within a radius of 500 feet
from any foreign mission or chancery.
Issue: Should permit be granted?
Ruling: Yes. (1) To justify limitations on freedom of assembly there must be proof of
sufficient weight to satisfy the clear and present danger test. (2) There is no showing that
the distance between the chancery and the gate is less than 500 feet. (Bernas page 80)

8.24 PCIB vs. PhilBank Employees

Facts: Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank filed an action for libel against the
Philippine National Bank Employees' Association. It was filed by plaintiff as a result of
placards and signboards along the Philippine National Bank building in Escolta, Manila,
containing the following: "PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?"
Plaintiff considered the above "defamatory and libelous per se for at the very least amounts
to an "act tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a juridical person.
Issue: WON peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected?
Ruling: Peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected. The offending question in the
placard and the reaction of the PCIB both illustrate the strong emotional undertones of
labor disputes. In the continuing confrontation between management and labor it is far
from likely that the language employed would be both courteous and polite. The guarantee
of free speech protects the strikers. (Bernas page 81)

8.25 Malabanan vs. Ramento

Facts: After having obtained a permit from university authorities, students of Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation held a rally but in places around university other than that
specified by the permit. The speeches and other activities resulted in the disturbance of
classes and of other activities in the university. After due hearing, a suspension of 1 yr. was
imposed on the student leaders. The students appealed on the ground that the suspension
was violative of their right of assembly and of speech.
Issue: WON the suspension is violative of their right of assembly and of speech
Ruling: Disciplinary action may be taken against the students for conduct which
materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others. However, considering the importance of the right of assembly and petition, the
penalty imposed is too severe. A lighter penalty is proper. (Bernas, page 82)

8.26 De La Cruz vs. CA

Facts: Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila who
were simultaneously charged, preventively suspended, and eventually dismissed in October
1990 by then Secretary Isidro D. Cario of the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS).The decision was anchored on the reports that the above-named teachers
participated in the mass action/illegal strike in Sept. 19-21, 1990 and subsequently defied
the return-to-work order dated September 17, 1990 issued by the Department. The decision
of dismissal by Secretary Cario was affirmed by the CSC, and later by the CA. Petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in affirming the CSC resolutions finding
them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when their only
"offense" was to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of their grievances. Moreover petitioners insist that the mass
actions of September/October 1990 were not "strikes" as there was no actual disruption of
classes.
Issue: Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioners was invalid as it is against the right
of the said teachers to peaceably assemble
Ruling: NO. As early as December 1990 we have categorically ruled in the consolidated
cases of Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio Jr., and Alliance of Concerned
Teachers v. Hon. Isidro Cario that the mass actions of September/October 1990 staged by
Metro Manila public school teachers "amounted to a strike in every sense of the term,
constituting as they did, a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of or absence from work
which it was said teachers's worn duty to perform, carried out for essentially economic
reasons to protest and pressure the Government to correct what, among other grievances,
the strikers perceived to be the unjust or prejudicial implementation of the salary
standardization law, the non-payment or delay in payment of various fringe benefits and
allowances, and the imposition of additional teaching loads and longer teaching hours."
But the public school teachers in the case of the 1990 mass actions did not exercise their
constitutional rights within reasonable limits. On the contrary, they committed acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the service by staging the mass protests on regular school
days, abandoning their classes and refusing to go back even after they had been ordered to
do so. Had the teachers availed of their free time recess, after classes, weekends or holidays
to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds
of law, no one not the DECS, the CSC or even the Supreme Court could have held them
liable for their participation in the mass actions.

8.27 Bangalisan vs. CA

Facts: Petitioners, except Rodolfo Mariano, were among the 800 public school teachers who
staged "mass actions. DECS Secretary issued a Return-to-Work Order. Petitioners failed to
comply, hence they were charged by the Secretary with "grave misconduct; gross neglect of
duty; gross violation of Civil Service law, rules and regulations and reasonable office
regulations; refusal to perform official duty; gross insubordination; conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service; and absence without official leave in violation of PD 807,
otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines." They were simultaneously
placed under preventive suspension. It, however, modified the penalty of nine months
suspension previously meted to them to six months suspension with automatic
reinstatement in the service but without payment of back wages.
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it upheld
the resolutions of the CSC that penalized petitioners whose only offense was to exercise
their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances

Ruling: No, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It is the settled rule in this
jurisdiction that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes. While the
Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize, they are prohibited
from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass
action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public services. The ability
to strike is not essential to the right of association. To grant employees of the public sector
the right to strike, there must be a clear and direct legislative authority therefor.

8.28 Ruiz vs. Gordon

Facts: Petitioner (Ruiz) personally delivered to respondent Mayor of Olongapo City
(Richard Gordon) a letter application which sought to request a permit to hold a prayer-
rally at the Rizal Triangle on December 4, 1983 from 1:00 pm to early evening. Ruiz
delivered the letter on behalf of the Olongapo Citizens Alliance for National Reconciliation,
Justice for Aquino Justice for All, Concerned Citizen for Justice and Peace, and etc. In his
manifestation, respondent, among others written, mentioned in the Guardian that he had
granted the permit of the petitioner.

Issue: Won the Mayor acted upon their request to hold a prayer rally?
Ruling: A party desirous of exercising the right to peaceable assembly should be the one
most interested in ascertaining the action taken on a request for a permit. Necessarily,
after a reasonable time or, if the day and time was designated for the decision of the
request, such part or his representative should be at the office of the public official
concerned. If he fails to do so, a copy of the decision reached, whether adverse or favourable,
should be transmitted to the applicants at the earliest opportunity.(Bernas, page 81.)

8.29 Bayan vs. Ermita

Facts: The petitioners in this case are Bayan Muna, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) who have
been arrested for having participated in mass demonstration which were dispersed by
government authorities pursuant to BP 880, the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR)
policy and No permit No Rally Policy. They assail the constitutionality of all these 3. BP
880 requires those who want to conduct demonstrations to secure a permit 5 days prior to
the intended demonstration before the proper LGU. On the other hand, on a press release
by the Malacanang, Sec Ermita announced the use of CPR in lieu of the Maximum
Tolerance policy of the government.
Issue: What is the proper response?
Ruling: What was called by the government as calibrated preemptive response to
demonstration and rallies has no place in the constitutional system. The proper response is
maximum tolerance prescribed in BP 880 which is codification of the JBL Reyes case.
Moreover, BP 880 also orders political units set up freedom parks. (Bernas, page 81.)

8.30 GSIS vs. Kapisanan

Facts: A four day concerted demonstration, rallies and en masse walkout was held in front
of the GSIS main building in Pasay City. The mass action participants were GSIS
personnel, among them are members of the herein KAPISANAN, a public sector union of
GSIS rank and file employees. Said mass action targets the herein petitioner GARCIA and
his management style. However, the plea of reconsideration was denied by the filing, on
October 25 2004, of the administrative charges against some 110 KAPISANAN members
for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
KAPISANAN then filed a Petition for Prohibition before the CA, on the grounds that:

1. Members should not be made to explain why they supported their unions cause
2. Petitioner Garcia blatantly disregarded Civil Service Reso No. 021316 otherwise
known as the Guidelines for Prohibited Mass Action

ISSUE: Whether the right of public sector to form unions or associations include right to
strike?
Ruling: Negative. Employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted
and unauthorized stoppage of work. The right of government employees to organize is
limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.

8.31 In re Valmonte
Facts: In 1998, petitioner Valmonte applied for a mayors permit to hold a rally and camp
out in front of the Justice Hall of Las Pinas to protest the delay in the disposition of cases of
his clients pending before the RTC of Las Pinas. Later on, the office of the mayor refused to
issue the permit on the ground that the holding of a rally in front of the justice hall of Las
Pinas was prohibited under an En Banc resolution dated July 7, 1998. Such resolution was
entitled Re: Guidelines on the conduct of demonstrations, pickets, rallies and other similar
gatherings in the vicinity of the supreme courts and all other courts.
Issue: Whether such resolution abridges the freedom of speech?
Ruling: Freedom of speech and expression despite its indispensability has its limitations. It
has never been understood as the absolute right to speak whenever, however, and wherever
one pleases, for the manner, place and time of public discussion can be constitutionally
controlled.

8.32 In re Petition to Annul (law)

Are demonstrations allowed in the vicinity of courts?
The prescriptions of the rule was the Demonstrators, picketers, rallyists and all other
similar persons are enjoined from holding any activity on the sidewalks and streets
adjacent to, in front of, or within a radius of two hundred (200) meters from, the outer
boundary of the Supreme Court Building, any Hall of Justice, and any other building that
houses at least one (1) court sala. Such activities unquestionably interrupt and hamper the
working condition in the salas, offices and chambers of the courts The validity of the
resolution was upheld on the basis of the power of the Court to promulgate rules for the
protection of rights. (Bernas, page 81.)