Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: Manolo Fule was convicted of the violation of BP 22 or recommendatory powers only.
the Bouncing Check Law. Fule waived his right to present ISSUES:
evidence and submitted a memorandum confirming the 1. WON RA 6770 prohibits the investigations in cases
stipulation of facts. However, the stipulation of facts was not filed more than one year after commission
signed by the petitioner nor his counsel. Despite of this, the 2. WON the power of the Ombudsman is
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the recommendatory only
stipulation of facts and sentenced Fule. HELD:
ISSUE: WON the stipulation of facts should be signed? 1. NO. The Court pointed out that administrative
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court pointed out the Rules of Court offenses do not prescribe. Although the law uses the
provided that the stipulation of facts must be signed. The phrase “may not”, it is not mandatory because it is
Rules of Court stated that no agreement or admission during not supported by jurisprudence on statutory
the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence unless construction.
reduced to writing and signed by the petitioner or counsel. 2. NO. The Constitution vested on the Ombudsman to
Negative words are used by the Rules of Court and according directly remove from government service an erring
to the rules of statutory construction, the use of negative public official except those who are in the Congress
words should be regarded as mandatory. Thus, the stipulation and the Judiciary.
of facts must be signed to be admissible.
LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS (SOUTH)
PURITA BERSABAL VS HON JUDGE SERFIN SALVADOR ASSOCIATION, INC. VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: An ejectment case was filed and ruled against the FACTS: Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association
petitioner. Thus, she decided to appeal the case in the (LGVHAI) was organized and was registered with the Home
respondent’s court. The respondent court ordered the Financing Corporation (HFC) as the sole homeowners’
originating court to transmit a copy of the stenographic notes organization in the subdivision. However, it failed to file its
within 15 days and the parties to file their respective corporate by-laws. HFC, previously HIGC, informed LGVHAI
memoranda within 30 days. The petitioner filed a motion that that the association is automatically dissolved for failure to
her party would file their memorandum within 30 days upon file its by-laws during the period allowed by law and for not
receipt of the stenographic notes. The respondent court using their corporate charter as HFC did not receive any
granted the motion. However, the respondent court report on LGVHAI’s activities. As a result, two new
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed associations were created, North and South. LGVHAI filed an
to submit her memorandum within the period provided by action questioning the revocation of their certificate and
the respondent court. Petitioner argued that she had not yet arguing that these two associations should be dissolved. After
received a copy of the stenographic notes. Thus, she filed the a hearing in HIGC, LGVHAI received favorable decision. As a
instant petition. result, the South Association filed an appeal on the ground
ISSUE: WON the respondent court can dismiss the case on that law uses the word “must” making the filing of by-laws
the mere failure of the petitioner to file her memorandum mandatory. With the failure of LGVHAI to file their by-laws,
HELD: NO. RA 296 states that the parties may submit the South Association contends that LGVHAI failed to exist.
memoranda if requested. With the use of the word “may”, ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of LGVHAI to file its by-laws
the party has an option not to submit the needed should result to its dissolution.
memorandum since the word is not mandatory but rather, HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the word “must” is not
discretionary. However, the Court pointed out that the always mandatory. When the law is interpreted in its entirety
respondent court should not dismiss the appeal due to the and it is shown that the intent of the framers that the word
failure of the petitioner to submit a memorandum but dismiss must is discretionary, it should be given that meaning. In this
the petition based on facts available to it. Thus, the Court set case, the Corporation Code when interpreted as a whole
aside the decision of the respondent court and ordered it to would suggest that the framers did not intend the filing of by-
decide the case base on the merits of the case. laws mandatory. Thus, when LGVHAI failed to file its by-laws,
it should not necessarily result to the association’s
OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VS DE SAHAGUN dissolution.
FACTS: The respondents are members of the Bids and Awards
Committee of the marketing support services for Intramuros. ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS NLRC
An anonymous complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the FACTS: Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial
said committee entered contracts with Brand Asia Ltd with money claims because of illegal dismissal. The Labor
without undergoing the proper process of bidding. The Fact- Arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos. The Labor Arbiter found
Finding Intelligence Bureau filed criminal and administrative that Martillos had gained a regular position in the company
charges against them but the Graft Investigating Officer when he was hired with little interruption as a driver for
recommended to drop the charges. However, the some of the company’s project. Roos Industrial then filed an
Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation since there appeal. However, instead of posting a cash or surety bond, it
was substantial evidence. The respondents argued that the asked for an extension for such posting because their
signatories were on leave as it was during the holidays. The field an action and the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in
NLRC dismissed the appeal since Roos failed to perfect it by favor of them. Both ordered the reinstatement of the
not posting the said bond. Thus, this led Roos to bring the respondents pending the appeal of Aris pursuant to RA 6175.
matters before the Supreme Court. Aris, arguing that RA 6175 is unconstitutional, brought the
ISSUE: Whether or not posting a cash or surety bond is matters before the Supreme Court.
necessary to perfect an appeal ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6175 is unconstitutional
HELD: YES. The Labor Code provides that an appeal may only HELD: NO. The Court finds that the arguments of Aris are
be perfected when a cash or surety bond is posted. The Court baseless. To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a
pointed out that the use of the word “only” by the Labor clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. In this case,
Code suggests that posting such bond is needed to perfect there is no breach of the Constitution. In fact, RA 6175 fulfills
the appeal. the mandate of the Constitution on labor.
PEOPLE VS BALLAGAN
FACTS: Ballagan was convicted of violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Acts of 1972. He was sentenced of the penalty of life
imprisonment. Later, said act has been amended which
changed the penalties to depend on the quantity of drugs
involved in the case. Under this amendment, Ballagan would
be sentenced only of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: WON the amendment applies to Ballagan
HELD: YES. The amendment would be in favor of Ballagan and
thus the amendment can be applied retrospectively. Penal
statues can have retroactive effect when it is favorable to the
accused.