Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WHO EXERCISES POLICE POWER? ISSUE: WON Ordinance No. 640 is unconstitutional and an invalid
exercise of police power.
GR No. 130239, April 15, 2005
MMDA vs. GARIN HELD:
(A)s to the question of the subject ordinance being a valid
FACTS: exercise of police power, the same must be resolved in the
Respondent Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and negative. While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is
his driver’s license was confiscated for parking illegally. Garin equally true that such regulation must be within the bounds of
wrote to then MMDA Chairman Prospero Oreta requesting the reason, that is, the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and
return of his license and expressed his preference for his case to its provisions cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary
be filed in Court. Without an immediate reply from the chairman, interference with the business or calling subject of regulation. A
Garin filed for a preliminary injunction assailing among others that lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation,
Sec 5 (f) of RA 7924 violates the constitutional prohibition against be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police
undue delegation of legislative authority, allowing MMDA to fix power. police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control
and impose unspecified and unlimited fines and penalties. RTC and operation of a business should not encroach upon the
rule in his favor, directing MMDA to return his license and for the legitimate and lawful exercise by the citizens of their property
authority to desist from confiscating driver’s license without first rights. right of the owner to fix a price at which his property shall
giving the driver the opportunity to be heard in an appropriate be sold or used is an inherent attribute of the property itself and,
proceeding. Thus this petition. as such, within the protection of the due process clause. Hence,
the proprietors of a theater have a right to manage their property
ISSUE: WON Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 which authorizes MMDA to in their own way, to fix what prices of admission they think most
confiscate and suspend or revoke driver’s license in the enforcement for their own advantage, and that any person who did not approve
of traffic rules and regulations constitutional? could stay away.
The exercise of police power by the local government is valid
HELD: unless it contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of
The MMDA is not vested with police power. It was concluded that the legislature, or unless it is against public policy or is
MMDA is not a local government unit of a public corporation unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation
endowed with legislative power and it has no power to enact of a common right.
Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades the personal and property
ordinances for the welfare of the community.
Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power rights of petitioners for even if We could assume that, on its face,
vested in the legislature to make, ordain, establish all manner of the interference was reasonable, from the foregoing
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances either considerations, it has been fully shown that it is an unwarranted
with penalties of without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they and unlawful curtailment of the property and personal rights of
shall judge to be for good and welfare of the commonwealth and citizens. For being unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade,
for subjects of the same. it cannot, under the guise of exercising police power, be upheld as
valid.
There is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers MMDA or its
council to “enact ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Special Civil Case
funds for the general welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila.” It No. 237 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and judgment is hereby rendered declaring Ordinance No. 640
coordinating with the various national government agencies, unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. This decision is
People’s Organizations, NGOs and private sector for the efficient immediately executory.
and expeditious delivery of services. All its functions are
administrative in nature. 146 SCRA 323; G.R. No. L-63419; 18 Dec 1986
LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ
LAWS FACTS:
A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the
GR. No. L-38429 June 30, 1988 BP 22 was made, contending that no offense was committed, as the
BALACUIT vs. CFI statute is unconstitutional. Such motion was denied by the RTC. The
petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief. The
FACTS: Solicitor General, commented that it was premature for the accused to
Ordinance No. 640 was passed by the Municipal Board of the City elevate to the Supreme Court the orders denying their motions to
of Butuan on April 21, 1969 which penalizes “any person group of quash. However, the Supreme Court finds it justifiable to intervene for
persons, entity or corporation engaged in the business of selling the review of lower court's denial of a motion to quash.
admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, games,
contests or other performances to require children between seven ISSUE: WON BP 22 is constitutional as it is a proper exercise of police
(7) and twelve (12) years of age to pay full payment for tickets power of the State.
intended for adults but should charge only one-half of the said
ticket.” HELD:
The enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power and
The petitioners Carlos Balacuit, Lamberto Tan, and Sergio Yu
Carcel are managers of the Maya and Dalisay Theaters, the is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against
Crown Theater, and the Diamond Theater, respectively. Aggrieved imprisonment for debt.
by the effect of the said ordinance, they filed a complaint before The offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
on June 30, 1969 praying that the subject ordinance be declared presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an
unconstitutional and, therefore, void and unenforceable. obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. future. The trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The
The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled.
an offense against public order. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and
under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks 5946, known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic
and putting them in circulation. An act may not be considered by objectives in the following manner:
society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se but because
of the harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed "SECTION 1. Objectives. — This Act provides for and
and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of
this in the exercise of its police power. medical education; (b) the examination for registration
of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control and
GR. No. 88265 December 21, 1989 regulation of the practice of medicine in the
DEL ROSARIO vs. BENGZON Philippines."
HELD: ISSUE: WON CISAI have acquired a vested right to the cargo handling
From the viewpoint of procedure, there was no grave abuse of operations at the Dumaguete Port.
discretion or want of jurisdiction when the CFI judge lifted ex-parte the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
11
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
HELD: The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from
Supreme Court held that CISAI have no vested rights to the cargo those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police
handling operations because the continuance of their business power; and
was due to hold over permits given by PPA, and such may be The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
revoked anytime by the granting authority. As held in the case of accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation vs. Lazaro, hold over permits are upon individuals. It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines
merely temporary subject to the policy and guidelines as may be that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace and
implemented by the authority granting it. Stevedoring services are order in the society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes,
imbued with public interest and subject to the state’s police power, particularly those committed by NPA, which tends to disturb
therefore, whatever proprietary right the CISAI may have acquired the peace of the community, Pres. Arroyo deemed it best to
must necessarily give way to valid exercise of police power. PPA, impose a nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the motivating
being created for the purpose of promoting the growth of regional factor in the issuance of guidelines is the interest of the
port bodies, it is empowered to make port regulations. With this public in general. Such means of revocation is, thus, a valid
mandate, the decision to bid out cargo holding services is exercise of police power.
properly within the province and discretion of PPA. As for CISAI’s
claim that PPA AO No. 03-2000 violated the constitutional Petition is hereby dismissed.
provision of non-impairment of contract, suffice it to state that all
contracts are subject to the overriding demands, needs, interests
of the greater number as the State may determine in the
legitimate exercise of its police power. Wherefore, Petition is
granted.
FACTS:
Chavez is a gun- owner who filed a petition for prohibition and
injunction seeking to enjoin the implementation of the “ Guidelines
in the Implementation of the Ban on the Carying of Firearms
Outside of Residence” issued by PNP Chief Hermogenes
Ebdane, Jr. In January 2003, Pres. Arroyo delivered a speech
before the members of the PNP stressing the need for a
nationwide gun ban in all public places to avert the rising crime
incidents. She directed PNP Chief Ebdane to suspend the
issuance of permits to carry firearms outside of residence
(PTCFOR). Thus, Chief Ebdane issued the assailed Guidelines.
Chavez contends that such guidelines was a derogation of his
constitutional right to life and to protect life as he, being a law-
abiding licensed gun-owner is the only class subject to the
implementation while leaving the law-breakers (kidnappers, MILF,
hold-uppers, robbers etc.) untouched. Petitioner also averred that
ownership and carrying of firearms are constitutionally protected
property rights which cannot be taken away without due process
of law.
ISSUES:
1. WON the citizens’ right to bear arms is a constitutional right
2. WON the revocation of the PTCFOR pursuant to the assailed
Guidelines is a violation of right to property
3. WON the issuance of said Guidelines is a valid exercise of Police
power
HELD:
1. SC ruled that nowhere fond in our Constitution is the provision on
bearing arms as a constitutional right. The right to bear arms,
then, is a mere statutory privilege unlike in the American
Constitution which was the law invoked by petitioner. Right to
bear arms is a mere statutory creation as was observed by the
laws passed to regulate the use, acquisition, transfer, importation
of firearms; it cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute
right.
2. The bulk of jurisprudence is that a license authorizing a person to
enjoy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right. A
license is merely a privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the granting authority and
the person to whom it is granted; neither is it property right nor
does it create a vested right. Such license may be revoked
anytime when the authority deems it fit to do so, and such
revocation does not deprive the holder of any property, or
immunity.
3. The test to determine the validity of police measure , thus:
HELD: ISSUE: Whether or not the just compensation was achieved with
“While it is true that plaintiff are (sic) only after a right-of-way regards to the fair market value of the residential and agricultural
easement, it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their property?
proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff
upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant HELD:
higher than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of The trial court fixed the just compensation for the property as
the high-tension current conveyed through said transmission follows: (1) P499.00 per sq m on the 17,195 sq m agricultural
lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said portion of the subject land; and (2) P800.00 per sq m on the 6,565
wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all plaintiff sq m residential portion of the lot. Noticeably, the trial court did not
only pays the fee to defendants once, while the latter shall blindly accept the recommendation of majority of the
continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their commissioners of P800.00 per sq m for the residential lot and
property……………n the case at bar, the easement of right-of- P700.00 per sq m for the agricultural lot. Indeed, the trial court
way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. took into account the evidence of the parties, in tandem with the
Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV findings and recommendation of the majority of the
Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC commissioners. Considering that such valuation of the trial court
against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private as affirmed by the CA is reasonable as it is and supported by the
respondents of its ordinary use………For these reasons, the evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to disturb the
owner of the property expropriated is entitled to a just same.
compensation, which should be neither more nor less, whenever
it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent The constant loud buzzing and exploding sounds emanating from
of said property. Just compensation has always been understood the towers and transmission lines, especially on rainy days; the
to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the constant fear on the part of the landowners that the large
owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the transmission lines looming not far above their land and the huge
expropriation tower in front of their lot will affect their safety and health; and the
slim chance that no one would be interested to buy the remaining
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is portions on each side of the residential lot affected by the project,
AFFIRMED. to the damage of the landowners, both as to future actual use of
the land and financial gains to be derived therefrom, makes the
G.R. No. 170945, September 26, 2006 instant case fall within the ambit of expropriation.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. MARIA MENDOZA SAN
PEDRO 328 U.S. 256, May 27, 1946
UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY
FACTS:
The National Power Corporation (NPC) is a government-owned- FACTS:
and-controlled corporation created to undertake the development
of hydro-electric generation of power and the production of Military airplanes are subject to rules of Civil Aeronautics Board.
electricity from any and all sources; and particularly the Respondents own 2.8 acres near an airport outside of
construction, operation, and maintenance of power plants, Greensboro, North Carolina. It has on it a dwelling house, and
auxiliary plants, dams, reservoirs, pipes, mains, transmission also various outbuildings which were mainly used for raising
lines, power stations and substations, and other works for the chickens. The end of the airport's northwest-southeast runway is
purpose of developing hydraulic power from any river, lake, creek, 2,220 feet from respondents' barn and 2,275 feet from their house
spring and waterfalls in the Philippines and supplying such power United States began operations in May, 1942, its four-motored
to the inhabitants thereof.# Under Republic Act No. 6395, as heavy bombers, other planes of the heavier type, and its fighter
amended, the NPC is authorized to enter private property planes have frequently passed over respondents' land buildings in
provided that the owners thereof shall be indemnified for any considerable numbers and rather close together. They come
actual damage caused thereby. close enough at times to appear barely to miss the tops of the
trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blow the
For the construction of its San Manuel-San Jose 500 KV old leaves off. The noise is startling. And at night the glare from
Transmission Line and Tower No. SMJ-389, NPC negotiated with the planes brightly lights up the place. As a result of the noise,
Maria Mendoza San Pedro, then represented by her son, Vicente, respondents had to give up their chicken business. As many as
for an easement of right of way over her property, Lot No. 2076. six to ten of their chickens were killed in one day by flying into the
The property, which was partly agricultural and partly residential
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
22
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
walls from fright. The total chickens lost in that manner was about unconstitutional.
150. Production also fell off. The result was the destruction of the
use of the property as a commercial chicken farm. Respondents
HELD:
are frequently deprived of their sleep and the family has become
The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. It
nervous and frightened. Although there have been no airplane
accidents on respondents' property, there have been several held that to compel print media companies to donate “Comelec
accidents near the airport and close to respondents' place space” amounts to “taking” of private personal property without
payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases.
The United States relies on the Air Commerce Act of 1926, 44
Moreover, the element of necessity for the taking has not been
Stat. 568, 49 U.S.C. 171 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. 171 et seq., as
established by respondent Comelec, considering that the
amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973, 49
newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. The
U.S.C. 401 et seq., 49 U. S.C.A. 401 et seq. Under those statutes
taking of private property for public use is authorized by the
the United States has 'complete and exclusive national
constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also
sovereignty in the air space' over this country. the planes never
Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the
touched the surface would be as irrelevant as the absence in this
police power of the state. In the case at bench, there is no
day of the feudal livery of seisin on the transfer of real estate.
showing of existence of a national emergency to take private
The Fifth Amendment provides that 'private property' shall not 'be property of newspaper or magazine publishers.
taken for public use, without just compensation.' The Court holds
today that the Government has 'taken' respondents' property by
repeatedly flying Army bombers directly above respondents' land G.R. No. 137152 January 29, 2001
at a height of eighty-three feet where the light and noise from CITY OF MANDALUYONG vs. FRANCISCO
these planes caused respondents to lose sleep and their chickens
to be killed FACTS:
The petitioner sought to expropriate the three (3) adjoining land
ISSUE: Whether respondents' property was taken within the meaning with and area of 1,847 sq. meter registered under the name of the
of the Fifth Amendment by frequent and regular flights of army and defendants namely Francisco, Thelma, Eusebio, Rodulfo,
navy aircraft over respondents' land at low altitudes. Antonio, and Virginia wherein they constructed residential houses
several decades ago which they had leased out to tenants until
HELD: the present. In 1983, the lots were classified by the Board of the
The Constitution entrusts Congress with full power to control all Housing and Urban Development Council as an Area of Priority
navigable airspace. Congress has already acted under that Development for Urban Land Reform under Proclamation Number
power. It has by statute, 44 Stat. 568, 52 Stat. 973, provided that of then President Marcos. As a result of this classification, the
'the United States of America is ... to possess and exercise tenants and occupants offered to purchase the lots but the
complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the [328 U.S. 256, respondents refused to sell. On November 1996, upon petition of
272] air space (over) the United States.' navigable airspace the Kapitbisig, an association of tenants and occupants of the
which Congress has placed in the public domain is 'airspace subject land adopted a resolution authorizing Mayor Abalos of the
above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil City of Mandaluyong to initiate action for expropriation of the
Aeronautics Authority. Airspace, apart from the immediate subject lots and construction of a medium-rise condominium for
reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. qualified occupants of the land. On January 1996, Mayor Abalos
allegedly sent a letter to the respondents offering to purchase the
The contribution of courts must be made through the awarding of said property at P3, 000.00 per sq. meter; respondents did not
damages for injuries suffered from the flying of planes, or by the answer the letter. Petitioner thus prayed for the expropriation of
granting of injunctions to prohibit their flying the said lots and the fixing of just compensation at the fair market
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court value of P3, 000.00 per sq. meter.
of Claims so that it may make the necessary findings in The respondents except Eusebio Aguilar who died in 1995,
conformity with this opinion. claimed that they did not received a copy of Mayor Abalos letter to
purchase their lots. They alleged that the expropriation of their
244 SCRA 272; G.R. No. 119694; 22 May 1995 land is arbitrary and capricious, and is not for a public purpose;
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS. COMELEC the subject lots are their only real property and are too small for
expropriation, while petitioner has several properties inventoried
FACTS: for socialized housing; the fair market value of P3,000.00 per
Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing square meter is arbitrary because the zonal valuation set by the
newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one- Bureau of Internal Revenue is P7,000.00 per square meter. On
half page for the common use of political parties and candidates. 1997, Petitioner filed an amended complaint and named as an
The Comelec space shall be allocated by the Commission, free of additional defendant Virginia Aguilar and at the same time,
charge, among all candidates to enable them to make known their substituted Eusebio Aguilar with his five (5) heirs. Petitioner also
qualifications, their stand on public Issue and their platforms of reduced the area sought to be expropriated to 1, 636 square
government. The Comelec space shall also be used by the meters. The Trial Court’s decision was in favor of the
Commission for dissemination of vital election information. respondents, dismiss the amended complaint and declared
respondents as “small property owners” whose land are exempt
Petitioner Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI), a non-profit
from expropriation under RA 7279. Also found out that the
organization of newspaper and magazine publishers, asks the
expropriation was not for public purpose for petitioner’s failure to
Supreme Court to declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772
present evidence that the intended beneficiaries of the
unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the
expropriation are landless and homeless.
prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government
against the taking of private property for public use without just
ISSUES:
compensation. On behalf of the respondent Comelec, the Solicitor
1. W/N the respondents are qualified as small property owners and
General claimed that the Resolution is a permissible exercise of
are thus exempt from expropriation under RA no. 7972.
the power of supervision (police power) of the Comelec over the
2. W/N the subject property is the only real property of respondents
information operations of print media enterprises during the
for them to comply with the second requisite for small property
election period to safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and
owners.
credible election.
FACTS: 4. That the parties agree that they will abide by the terms of
the foregoing agreement in good faith and the Decision to be
On May 15, 1981, private respondent Philippines Export rendered based on this Compromise Agreement is
Processing Zone (PEZA), then called as the Export Processing immediately final and executory.
Zone Authority (EPZA), initiated before the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite expropriation proceedings on three (3) parcels of irrigated
riceland in Rosario, Cavite. One of the lots, Lot 1406 (A and B) of The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for the
the San Francisco de Malabon Estate, with an approximate area approval of the said compromise agreement entered into between
of 29,008 square meters, is registered in the name of Salud the parties, consequent with the withdrawal of the appeal with the
Jimenez under TCT No. T-113498 of the Registry of Deeds of Court of Appeals. In the Order dated August 23, 1993, the trial
Cavite. court approved the compromise agreement.
More than ten (10) years later, the said trial court in an Order However, private respondent failed to transfer the title of Lot 434
dated July 11, 1991 upheld the right of private respondent PEZA to petitioner inasmuch as it was not the registered owner of the
to expropriate, among others, Lot 1406 (A and B). covering TCT No. T-14772 but Progressive Realty Estate, Inc.
Reconsideration of the said order was sought by petitioner Thus, on March 13, 1997, petitioner Estate filed a "Motion to
contending that said lot would only be transferred to a private Partially Annul the Order dated August 23, 1993."
corporation, Philippines Vinyl Corp., and hence would not be In the Order dated August 4, 1997, the trial court annulled the
utilized for a public purpose.
said compromise agreement entered into between the parties and
In an Order dated October 25, 19997, the trial court reconsidered directed private respondent to peacefully turn over Lot 1406-A to
the Order dated July 11, 1991 and released Lot 1406-A from the petitioner. Disagreeing with the said Order of the trial court,
expropriation while the expropriation of Lot 1406-B was respondent PEZA moved13 for its reconsideration. The same
maintained. Finding the said order unacceptable, private proved futile since the trial court denied reconsideration in its
respondent PEZA interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Order14 dated November 3, 1997.
Meanwhile, petitioner wrote a letter to private respondent offering
two (2) proposals, namely: On December 4, 1997, the trial court, at the instance of petitioner,
corrected the Orders dated August 4, 1997 and November 3,
1997 by declaring that it is Lot 1406-B and Lot 1406-A that should
1. Withdrawal of private respondent's appeal with respect to be surrendered and returned to petitioner.
Lot 1406-A I consideration of the waiver of claim for On November 27, 1997, respondent interposed before the Court
damages and lass of income for the possession of said lot
of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify
by private respondent.
the Orders dated August 4, 1997 and November 3, 1997 of the
court. Petitioner filed its Comment17 on January 16, 1998.
2. The swap of Lot 1406-B with Lot 434 covered by TCT No.
T-14772 since private respondent has no money yet to pay ISSUE: The petition anchored on the following assignment of errors:
for the lot.
HELD:
ISSUE:
Whether Rule 67 of the Rules of Court or Rep. Act No. 8974 governs The 20% sales discount given to senior citizens may be claimed
the expropriation proceedings in this case as a tax credit and not as a deduction from the gross sales.
Wherefore the petition is DENIED and the decision of the CA is
HELD: AFFIRMED.
Rep. Act No. 8974 applies in this case, particularly insofar as it Legal Basis:
requires the immediate payment by the Government of at least Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 provides:
the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities to PIATCO and
provides certain valuation standards or methods for the Sec. 4. Privileges for the Senior citizens. – The senior citizens
determination of just compensation. shall be entitled to the following:
Since funds have been spent by PIATCO in their construction, for
the to take over the said facility, it has to compensate respondent (a) The grant of twenty percent (20%) discount
PIATCO as builder of the said structures. The compensation must from all establishments relative to utilization
be just and in accordance with law and equity for the government of transportations services, hotels and similar
cannot unjustly enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its lodging establishments, restaurants and
investors. recreation centers and purchase of medicines
Sec 2 Rule 67, states that plaintiff shall have the right to take or anywhere in the country: Provided, that
enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he private establishments may claim the cost as
deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount tax credit.
equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of
taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. The above provision explicitly employed the word “tax
In contrast, Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8974 relevantly states: credit.” Nothing in the provision suggests for it to mean a
Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the “deduction” from gross sales. To construe it otherwise would be a
defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the departure from the clear mandate of the law.
owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of one It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that the legislative
hundred percent of the value of the property based on the current intent must be determined from the language of the statute itself
relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and especially when the words and phrases therein are clear and
the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined unequivocal. The statute in such a case must be taken to mean
under Section 7. exactly what it says. Its literal meaning should be followed to
If Sec2 Rule 67 applies then PIATCO would be enjoined from depart from the meaning expressed by the words is to alter the
receiving a single centavo as just compensation before the statute.
Government takes over the NAIA 3 facility by virtue of a writ of The tax credit benefit granted to the establishments can be
possession. deemed as their just compensation for private property taken by
Hence the Court ruled that just compensation should be made the State for public use. The privilege enjoyed by the senior
before the Government may take over the NAIA 3. citizens does not come directly from the State, but rather from the
private establishments concerned.
GR No. 148512, June 26, 2006
CMSR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS CENTRAL LUZON DRUG GR No. 148083, July 21, 2006
CORPORATION CMSR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS BICOLANDIA DRUG CORP.
*no case digest submitted*
FACTS:
From January 1995 to December 1995, Central Luzon Drug
Corporation has been granting 20% discount on the sale of
JUST COMPENSATION: DETERMINATION OF JUST
medicines to qualified senior citizens amounting to P219,778.00. COMPENSATION
Pursuant to Revenue Regulations No. 2-94 implementing R.A.
No. 7432, which states that the discount given to senior citizens 149 SCRA 305 (1987)
shall be deducted by the establishment from its gross sales for EPZA vs. DULAY
value-added tax and other percentage tax purposes, respondent
deducted the total amount of P219, 778.00 from its gross income FACTS:
for the taxable year 1995. Subsequently on December 27, 1996,
the Central Luzon Drug Corporation claimed for a tax credit On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued
amounting to P150, 193.00 (P219, 778.00 20% sales discount Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain parcel of land of the
given to senior citizen – P69, 585.00 income tax). public domain situated in the city of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan,
Cebu and covering a total area of 1,193,669 square meters, more
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
38
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
or less, for the establishment of an export processing zone by We, therefore, hold that P.D. No. 1533, which eliminates the
petitioner Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). court’s discretion to appoint commissioners pursuant to Rule 67 of
Not all the reserved area, however, was public land. it included the Rules of Court, is unconstitutional and void.
four parcel of land registered in the name of private individual. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
The petitioner, therefore offered to purchase the parcels of land hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on
from the respondent in accordance with the valuation set forth in February 16, 1982 is LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
section 92, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464, as amended. The
parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the sale of the 263 SCRA 708
property. PANES vs. VISAYAS STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
The petitioner filed with the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, *no case digest submitted
Branch Lapu-Lapu City, a complaint for expropriation with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the private 195 SCRA 59
respondent, to expropriate the parcel of land in pursuant to P.D. BELEN vs. CA
66, as amended, which empowers the petitioner to acquire by
condemnation proceedings any property for the establishment of FACTS:
export processing zones in relation to Proclamation No. 1811. A small portion of land measuring a hundred (100) square meters,
On October 21, 1980, the respondent judge issued a writ of more or less, belonging to the Manotoc Services, Inc. was leased
possession authorizing the petitioner to take immediate to Pedro M. Belen. That piece of land is known as Lot No. 10,
possession of the premises. On December 23, 1980, the private Block 18 and is situated at Sunog Apog, Tondo, Manila. On it
respondent filed its answer. stood a house built by Belen.
At the pre-trial conference, the respondent judge issued an order Part of the land came to be occupied by Alfredo Juliano and his
stating that the parties have agreed that the only issue to be family in the early part of 1978; Juliano bought a house standing
resolved is the just compensation for the properties and that the thereon, not belonging to Belen, and move in without the latter’s
pre-trial is thereby terminated and the hearing on the merits is set knowledge. On learning of this, Belen had a talk with Juliano, and
on April 2, 1981. they came to an agreement that Juliano could continue staying on
The respondent judge issued the order appointing certain persons the land temporarily and would pay one half of the rental to
as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just Manotoc Reality, inc. Later a fire razed both Belen’s and Juliano’s
compensation for the properties sought to be expropriated. houses to the ground. Belen told Juliano not to build anything on
the land anymore. However, on juliano’s pleas, Belen acceded to
Subsequently the three commissioners submitted their Juliano’s continued stay on the land on the explicit condition that
consolidated report recommending a certain amount of P15.00 his occupancy should not be longer than two and a half years.
per square meter as the fair and reasonable value of just When Juliano failed to leave the premises after the stipulated
compensation of the properties. term despite demand, Belen brought suit in the Metropolitan Trial
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order and Court sometime in September, 1982, and succeeded in obtaining
objection to commissioner’s report on the grounds that P.D. No judgment dated September 5, 1984, a order of the MTC to the
1533 has superseded Sections 5 to 8 Rule 67 of the rules of court defendant to vacate the subject lot and pay plaintiff the amount of
on the ascertainment of just compensation must not exceed the P3,000.00 as a attorney’s fees, plus cost of suit.
maximum amount set by P.D. No. 1533. In addition the petitioner Juliano appealed to the Regional Trial Court of manila. That court
filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with temporary reversed the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court, but the
restraining order, enjoining the trial court from enjoining the order. decision was made to rest on the expropriation of the Manotoc
Estate effected by Presidential Decree No. 1670, where the
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 5 to 8, Rule 67 of the revised rules of
court had been repealed or deemed amended by P.D. NO. 1533 Manotoc Reality Incorporated ceased to be the owner of the land.
insofar as appointment of commissioners are concerned. Stated in Belen has perfected an appeal by certiorari to SC and prays for
another way, is the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just judgment on the following essential propostions that Manotoc
compensation in P.D. NO. 1533 valid and constitutional? Reality Services has been denied of its right of just compensation,
not having receive any money as payment for the subject
HELD: property, and the NHA not having taken possession thereof in an
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the appropriate action of eminent domain.
aforecited decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on
judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this court inutile in a matter ISSUE: Is the passage of Presidential Decree No. 1670 constitutional,
which under the constitution is reserved to it for final whereas it disregarded the right of compensation and due process of
determination. The courts task would be relegated to simply law?
stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the
owner or the assessor and its choice must be limited to the lower HELD:
of the two. However, the strict application of the decrees during Presidential Decree No 1670, together with the companion
the proceedings would be nothing short of a mere formality or a decree, numbered 1669 was struck down by this court as
charade.the court cannot exercise its discretion or independence unconstitutional and therefore, null and void. The Court found that
in determining what is just or fair. The court is empowered to both decrees, being “violative of the petitioners’ (owners) right to
appoint commissioners to assess the just compensation of these due process of law.
properties under eminent domain proceedings in order for the The court said on the determination of just compensation: “The
owner of the property is entitled to recover the fair and full value decrees do not by themselves, provide for any form of hearing or
of the lot. In fine, the decree only establishes a uniform basis for procedure by which the petitioners can question the propriety of
determining just compensation which the court may consider as the expropriation of their properties or the reasonableness of the
one of the factors in arriving at just compensation, as envisage in just compensation.
the constitution. The executive department or the legislature may
make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation Having failed to provide for a hearing, the government should
of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights, no statute, decree or have filed an expropriation case under Rule 67 of the Revised
executive order can mandate that its own determination shall Rules of Court.
prevail over the court’s findings. The determination of “just WHEREFORE, PD 1670 being void ab initio, all acts done in
compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. reliance thereon and in accordance therewith must also be viod
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
39
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
ab initio, including particularly the taking of possession of property filing of the instant expropriation case. In Presidential Decree No.
by the National Housing Authority and its attempts to convert the 1533 provides that just compensation should be the value of the
same into a housing project and the selection of the beneficiaries land "prior to the recommendation or decision of the appropriate
thereof. Government office to acquire the property." In the case, it should
The decision of the Court of Appeals of October 2, 1986 and that be noted that the expropriation undeniably increased the value of
of Regional Trial Court thereby affirmed, are REVERSED AND the remainder of her land with an area of 121,700 square meters.
SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Metropolitan Trial She was already paid P1, 036,360 for her expropriated land.
Court(Branch VII), Manila, rendered on September 5, 1984 in Civil Furthermore, the commissioners should not have glossed over
Case No. 078756-cv is REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED, with cost the undisputed fact that 14 claimants out of 44 had winningly sold
against the private respondents. SO ORDERED. their lands to the Government at P40 a square meter as fixed by
the provincial Appraisal Committee of which the provincial
227 SCRA 401 assessor was a member. Evidently, they were satisfied that that
REPUBLIC VS CA was a reasonable price. According to section 8 of Rule 67, the
*no case digest submitted* court is not bound by the commissioners' report. It may make
such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff
206 SCRA 196 the property essential to the exercise of his right of condemnation,
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. VS. PINEDA and to the defendant just compensation for the property
*no case digest submitted* expropriated.
As noted in the Velasquez case, the moment a parcel of land is
263 SCAR 758 sought to be condemned, the price, for some occult reason,
DAR VS. CA immediately soars far beyond what the owner would think of
*no case digest submitted* asking or receiving in the open market. Owners ask fabulous
prices for it and neighbours look on with an indulgent smile or
G. R. No. L-57524 January 8, 1986 even persuade themselves that the land is worth the price for
REPUBLIC VS.,SANTOS which the owner holds out in view of the fact that it is wanted by
an entity whose financial resources are supposed to be
FACTS: inexhaustible. Consequently, the petitioner should pay only P40
The case is an expropriation case which involved the 66,096 square per square meter for the expropriated lands. CMC (CMS)
meters of land claimed by 44 persons, located in Paranaque and Investments, Inc. was paid P35 a square meter for its 530 square
Muntinlupa, Rizal. The expropriation was necessary for the widening meters. It is entitled to a deficiency on which 6% legal rate of
of, and construction of interchanges in the Manila South Diversion interest per annum should be paid from the time the petitioner
Road. The Appraisal Committee for the province of Rizal fixed at forty took possession of its land up to the date of payment. The
pesos (P40) per square meter, or an amount of P2, 641,190. The decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are reversed
Government deposited that amount with the provincial treasurer who and set aside. The just compensation for the lands described in
deposited it in the Philippine National Bank but some of the paragraph 2 of petitioner's complaint is forty pesos (P40) per
respondents withdrew including Maura Santos. The Court of First square meter.
Instance at Pasig, Rizal in its order of June 19, 1969 granted the
fiscal's motion fixing the provisional value at P2, 641,190. Fourteen GR No. 170422, March 07, 2008
(14) claimants did not object to the valuation of P40 a square meter. As SPS. LEE VS LBP
to those who did not settle at the price of P40 a square meter, the trial *please read full text*
court, pursuant to section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, appointed
three commissioners to determine the just compensation: Benjamin
Morales for the court as chairman; Pacifico Javier, the provincial JUST COMPENSATION: WHEN DETERMINED
assessor, for the Republic, and Pacifico I. Guzman for the claimants.
The commissioners in their report dated October 2, 1970
G. R. No. L-50147 August 3, 1990
recommended that the just compensation for the lands should be P100
ANSALDO VS. TANTUICO
a square meter except the land of Maura Santos with an area of
25,909 square meters. The trial court in its decision dated May 13,
FACTS:
1972 modified that recommendation. It fixed P100 a square meter as
Two lots of private ownership were taken by the Government and used
the uniform price to be paid to the claimants. The Court of Appeals in
for the widening of a road for more than forty-three years, without
its decision of June 29, 1981 in turn modified the trial court's decision
benefit of an action of eminent domain or agreement with its owners.
and adopted the commissioners' report and it added 6% legal rate of
The owners of the land are Jose Ma. Ansaldo and Maria Angela
interest.
Ansaldo, are covered by title in their names and have an aggregate
area of 1,041 square meters. These lots were taken from the Ansaldos
ISSUES:
sometime in 1947 by the Department of Public Work Transportation
1. Whether or not the just compensation to be paid by the
and Communication and made part of what used to be Sta. Mesa
Government is 40 or 100, as recommended by the
Street and is now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue at San Juan, Metro
commissioners.
Manila. The said owners did not make any action until twenty six years
2. Whether or not the Appellate Court erred in not holding that the
later asking for the compensation of their land. The case was referred
commissioners should not have relied on the price of P100 for the
to the Secretary of Justice who rendered an opinion that the just
land of Jose Alcaraz which was sold in November, 1969 and on
compensation be made in accordance with Presidential Decree 76
other irrelevant evidence.
which provide that the basis for the payment of just compensation of
3. Whether or not Appellate Court erred in disregarding the fact that
property taken for public use should be the current and fair market
14 out of the 44 claimants already sold their lots to the Republic at
value thereof as declared by the owner or administrator, or such
P40 a square meter.
market value as determined by the assessor, whichever was lower.
Commissioner of Public Highways requested the Provincial Assessor
HELD:
of Rizal to make a redetermination of the market value of the Ansaldos'
We hold that the trial court and the Appellate Court erred in property in accordance with PD 76. The new valuation was made, after
relying on the commissioners' report whose recommendation was which the Auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways forwarded the
not substantiated by trustworthy evidence. As pointed out by the Ansaldos' claim to the Auditor General with the recommendation that
Assistant Solicitor General, the appraisal of P100 a square meter payment be made on the basis of the current and fair market value and
for the land of Alcaraz was made about eight months after the not on the fair market value at the time of taking. The Commission on
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
40
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
Audit declined the recommendation and decided that the G.R. No. 170846 February 6, 2007
compensation be from the actual time of the taking of the land. NAPOCOR, vs. TIANGCO
ISSUE: (As to the precise time the just compensation be based) FACTS:
Whether or not the just compensation be based on the time of the Respondents are owners of a parcel of land with an area of
actual taking of the possession or PD 76. 152,187 square meters at Barangay Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal.
NPC requires 19,423 square meters of the respondents’
HELD:
aforementioned property, across which its 500Kv Kalayaan-San
In the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, Jose Transmission Line Project will traverse.
there is a taking when the owner is actually deprived or
dispossessed of his property; when there is a practical destruction NPC’s Segregation Plan# for the purpose shows that the desired
or a material impairment of the value of his property or when he is right-of-way will cut through the respondents’ land. Within the
deprived of the ordinary use thereof. There is a taking in this portion sought to be expropriated stand fruit-bearing tress, such
sense when the expropriator enters private property not only for a as mango, avocado, jackfruit, casuy, santol, calamansi, sintones
momentary period but for a more permanent duration, for the and coconut trees.
purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner After repeated unsuccessful negotiations, NPC filed an
as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment expropriation complaint against the land of the respondent in the
thereof. For ownership, after all, "is nothing without the inherent RTC of Tanay, Rizal. The RTC issued a writ of possession in favor
rights of possession, control and enjoyment. Where the owner is of NPC after paying the deposit requirement.
deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property or of its
value by its being diverted to public use, there is taking within the The trial court rendered its decision on the value of the property
Constitutional sense. Under these norms, there was undoubtedly using the 1984 tax declaration. (which is incorrect as stated in the
a taking of the Ansaldos' property when the Government obtained decision of the supreme court)
possession thereof and converted it into a part of a thoroughfare The respondents filed a motion for recon. but it was denied by
for public use. RTC. So They filed an appeal and the CA gave merit to the
It is as of the time of such a taking, to repeat, that the just contention of the respondents and made its revised valuation
compensation for the property is to be established. As stated in using the 1993 tax declaration (increasing the value of the
Republic v. Philippine National Bank; property). The case went up to the SC.
When plaintiff takes possession before the institution of the
condemnation proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the ISSUE:
time of the taking of said possession, not of filing of the complaint 1. Whether or not the property should be valued using the 1984
and the latter should be the basis for the determination of the or the 1993 tax declarations.
value, when the taking of the property involved coincides with or 2. Whether or not Sec. 3-A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended by
is subsequent to, the commencement of the proceedings. Indeed, P.D. 938 will apply.
otherwise, the provision of Rule 69, Section 3, directing that
compensation be determined as of the date of the filing of the HELD
complaint' would never be operative. As intimated in Republic v. 1. In eminent domain cases, the time of taking is the filing of
Lara (supra), said provision contemplates normal circumstances, the complaint, if there was no actual taking prior thereto.
under which the complaint coincides or even precedes the taking Hence, in this case, the value of the property at the time of
of the property by the plaintiff. the filing of the complaint on November 20, 1990 should be
considered in determining the just compensation due the
The reason for the rule, as pointed out in Rpublic v. Larae, is that; respondents. Normally, the time of taking coincides with the
Where property is taken ahead of the filing of the filing of complaint for expropriation as ruled in the case of
condemnation proceedings, the value thereof may be enchanced Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.The
by the public purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff expropriation proceedings in this case having been initiated
upon the property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, by NPC on November 20, 1990, property values on such
there may have been a natural increase in the value of the month and year should lay the basis for the proper
property from the time the complaint is filed, due to general determination of just compensation.
economic conditions. The owner of private property should be 2. It should not apply in the case at bar, the acquisition of such
compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended easement is not gratis. The limitations on the use of the
that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And property taken for an indefinite period would deprive its
what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it owner of the normal use thereof. For this reason, the latter is
is taken. This is the only way that compensation to be paid can be entitled to payment of a just compensation, which must be
truly just i.e.,"just; not only to the individual whose property is neither more nor less than the monetary equivalent of the
taken but, to the public, which is to pay for it. land taken.
Clearly, then, the value of the Ansaldos' property must be G.R. No. 142971 May 07, 2002
ascertained as of the year 1947, when it was actually taken, and CITY OF CEBU VS SPOUSES DEDAMO
not at the time of the filing of the expropriation suit, which, by the
way, still has to be done. It is as of that time that the real measure FACTS:
of their loss may fairly be adjudged. The value, once fixed, shall On 17 September 1993, petitioner City of Cebu filed in Civil Case
earn interest at the legal rate until full payment is effected, No. CEB-14632 a complaint for eminent domain against
conformably with other principles laid down by case law. The respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo. For the
petition is denied and the challenged decision of the Commission construction of a public road which shall serve as an access/relief
on Audit is affirmed, and the Department of Public Works and road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General Maxilum
Highways is directed to forthwith institute the appropriate Avenue and the back of Magellan International Hotel Roads in
expropriation action over the land in question so that the just Cebu City. The lots are the most suitable site for the purpose
compensation due its owners may be determined in accordance
with the Rules of Court, with interest at the legal rate of six Deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of
percent (6%) per annum from the time of taking until full payment P51,156 representing 15% of the fair market value of the property
is made. to enable the petitioner to take immediate possession of the
property pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160
FACTS:
Felciano Wycoco owned 94.1690 hectares unirrigated and
untenanted rice land- TCT No. NT.206422 and voluntarily offered
JUST COMPENSATION: WRIT OF POSSESSION
to sell the land to Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in line
G.R. No. 142304, June 20, 2001
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
48
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
CITY OF MANILA V. OSCAR SERRANO rendered by the court, the 2004 Resolution: the government
should fully paid first the owner of the properties subject for
FACTS: expropriation before it took the properties in its possession and
Ordinance No. 7833, enacted by the City Council of Manila ownership. This decision is final and executor.
authorizing the expropriation of certain properties in Manila’s First Rule 67 stated:
District in Tondo: TCT Nos. 70869,105201, 105202, and 138273 SEC. 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized
of the Register of the Deeds of Manila, which are to be sold to government depository. - Upon the filing of the complaint or at any
qualified occupants pursuant to Land Use Development Program time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff
of the City. shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the
Lot 1-C real property involved if he deposits with the authorized
One of the lots to be expropriated government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed
Consists of 343.10 square meters / 7 = produced 49 square value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such
meters for each person bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in
Covered by TCT No. 138272 from TCT No. 70869 money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a
This lot belongs to Feliza De Guia, upon her death, said lot certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the
was transferred to Alberto De Guia and then to Edgardo de Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government
Guia heir of Alberto, after the former’s death. depositary.
The said lot was again transferred to Lee Kuan Hui-TCT No. R.A. No. 8974
217018 and subsequently sold to Demetria De Guia – TCT No. SEC. 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings.- Whenever it is
226048. necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way, site or
location for any national government infrastructure project through
ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation of the property is proper in expropriation, the appropriate proceedings before the proper court
relation to R.A. 7279. under the following guidelines:
a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the
HELD: defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the
On Sept 26, 1997 the petitioner filed an amended complaint for owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1)
expropriation (RTC) to the supposed owners of the lots with TCT one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based
Nos. 70869 (including 1-c), 105201,105202 and 138273, the on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Serranos, heirs of late Demetria De Guia. Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or
structures as determined under Section 7 hereof; . . .
RTC issued an order to the petitioner to deposite P 1,825,241.00 c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project
equivalent to the assessed value of the lot and the issuance of a is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing
writ of possession in their favor. valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall
CA reversed RTC’s decision and rather favored the respondents, immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value
in the reason that the petitioner failed to do the other modes of taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5
acquisition of property, that is to tried first in the city government hereof.
before it can resort to expropriation, under R.A.7279 Upon completion with the guidelines abovementioned, the court
SC reinstated the decision of RTC, because in this case it is very shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to
early to determine if the petitioner has been granted the right to take possession of the property and start the implementation of
expropriate the property, since what has been issued by the RTC the project.
to them is just a writ of possession, which is not a right of an Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing
ownership. Under R.A. 7279 there are requirements that the agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of
petitioner’s need to complied with before expropriating a property. funds from the proper official concerned. . . .
To determine whether or not the petitioner complied it and the
expropriation of the property is proper in relation to R.A. 7279, Clearly that, applying Rule 67 would be a direct rebuke to 2004
further proceeding must be made in RTC. Resolution in Agan and the court cannot sanction deviation from
its own final and executor orders. It would violate 2004
Thus the case was remanded back to RTC. Resolution. Thus, it would be R.A.No. 8974 the applicable law for
the expropriation- in which the government must pay first the just
G. R. No. 166429, December 19, 2005 compensation to the property owner before it can took and use it.
REPUBLIC VS. GINGOYON R.A. No. 8974 well complemented with 2004 Resolution.
FACTS: Judge Gingoyon cannot be compelled to inhibit himself, for
A dispute occurred after the contract between the government and incompetency may be ground for administrative sanction but not
PIATCO has been nullified for its being contrary to law and public for inhibition, which requires lack of objectivity or impartiality to
policy. PIATCO and other investors who funded the facilities for NAIA 3 sit on a case.
cannot operate it and the government as well cannot took it over, for
doing so the government would enrich itself unjustly by the PIATCO
and other investor’s expense. The government wanted to expropriate JUST COMPENSATION: EXPROPRIATION OF UTILITIES,
NAIA 3, but isn’t it illogical that a government would expropriate the
property it already owned? So, the expropriation would only be limited LANDED ESTATES, AND MUNICIPAL PROPERTY
to the facilities and improvement that have been introduced to NAIA 3,
with its equivalent just compensation. G.R. No. L-12032, August 31, 1959
CITY OF BAGUIO vs. THE NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND
ISSUE: SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
1. Whether R.A. No.8974 or Rule 67 is applicable in property
expropriation in the case at bar. FACTS:
2. Whether Judge Gingoyon can be compelled to inhibit himself in
the case On April 25, 1956 a municipal corporation filed a complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Baguio for declaratory relief against
HELD: defendant, a public corporation created by Republic Act No. 1383,
which contends that said Act does not include within its preview
Prior to this case a decision to Agan v PIATCO has been the Baguio Workshop System. In which the said Act is
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
49
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
unconstitutional because it has the effect of depriving plaintiff of compensation.
the ownership, control and operation of said waterworks system It is clear that the State may, in the interest of National welfare,
without compensation and without due process of law, and that it transfer to public ownership any private enterprise upon payment
is oppressive, unreasonable and unjust to plaintiff and other cities, of just compensation. At the same time, one has to bear in mind
municipalities and municipal districts similarly situated. that no person can be deprived of his property except for public
On May 22, 1956, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the use and upon payment of just compensation. There is an attempt
ground that Republic Act No. 1383 is a proper exercise of the to observe this requirement in Republic Act No. 1383 when in
police power of the State, that assuming that said Act providing for the transfer of appellee's waterworks system to a
contemplates an act of expropriation, it is still a constitutional national agency it was directed that the transfer be made upon
exercise of the power of eminent domain, that at any rate the payment of an equivalent value of the property. Has this been
Baguio Waterworks System is not a private property but a "public implemented? Has appellant actually transferred to appellee any
works of public service" over which the Legislature has control asset of the NAWASA that may be considered just compensation
and that the provision of the said Act being clear and for the property expropriated? There is nothing in the record to
unambiguous, there is no necessity for construction. show that such was done. Neither is there anything to this effect
On June 21, 1956, the Court, acting on the motion to dismiss as in Office Memorandum No. 7 issued by the NAWASA in
well as on the answer and rejoinder filed by both parties, denied implementation of the provision of the Republic Act No. 1383. The
the motion and ordered defendant to file its answer to the law speaks of assets of the NAWASA by they are not specified.
complaint. On July 6, 1956, defendant filed its answer reiterating While the Act empowers the NAWASA to contract indebtedness
and amplifying the ground already advanced in this motion to and issue bonds subject to the approval of the Secretary of
dismiss, adding thereto that the action for the declaratory relief is Finance when necessary for the transaction of its business (sec.
improper for the reason that the Baguio waterworks System has 2, par. (L), sec. 5, Act No. 1383), no such action has been taken
already been transferred to defendant pursuant to Republic Act to comply with appellant's commitment in so far as payment of
No. 1383 or, if such has not been done, there has already been a compensation of appellee is concerned. As to when such action
breach of said Act. should be taken no one knows. And unless this aspect of the law
is clarified and appellee is given its due compensation, appellee
ISSUES: cannot be deprived of its property even if appellant desires to take
1. Plaintiff's action for Declaratory relief is improper because there over its administration in line with the spirit of the law. We are
has already been a breach by plaintiff of Republic Act No. 1383 therefore persuaded to conclude that the law, insofar as it
2. Republic Act No. 1383 does not contemplates the exercise of the expropriates the waterworks in question without providing for an
power of eliminate domain but the exertion of the police power of effective payment of just compensation, violates our Constitution.
the State; and In this respect, the decision of the trial court is correct.
3. Assuming arguendo that Republic Act No. 1383 involves the Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without
exercise of the power of eminent domain the same does not pronouncement as to costs.
violate our Constitution.
G.R. No. L-24440, March 28, 1968
HELD: THE PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE vs. CITY OF
The decision maintain that the property held by a municipal ZAMBOANGA
corporation units private capacity is not subject to the unrestricted
control of the legislature, and the municipality cannot be deprived FACTS:
of such property against its will, except by the exercise of eminent Prior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of
domain with payment of full compensation. (McQuillin Municipal Zamboanga used to be the provincial capital of the then
Corporation, 2nd Ed., Vol. I, pp. 670-681). Zamboanga Province. On 12 October 1936, Commonwealth Act
In its private capacity a municipal corporation is wholly different. 39 was approved converting the Municipality of Zamboanga into
The people of a compact community usually require certain Zamboanga City. Section 50 of the Act also provided that
conveniences which cannot be furnished without a franchise from "buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon
the State and which are either unnecessary in the rural districts, the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and
such as a system of sewers, or parks and open spaces, or which paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the
on account of the expenses it would be financially impossible to Auditor General." The properties and buildings referred to
supply except where the population is reasonably dense, such as consisted of 50 lots and some buildings constructed thereon,
water or gas. But in so far as the municipality is thus authorized to located in the City of Zamboanga and covered individually by
exercise the functions of a private corporation, it is clothed with Torrens certificates of title in the name of Zamboanga Province.
the capacities of a private corporation and may claim its rights The lots are utilized as the Capitol Site (1 lot), School site (3 lots),
and immunities, even as against the sovereign, and is subject to Hospital site (3 lots), Leprosarium (3 lots), Curuan school (1 lot),
the liabilities of such a corporation, even as against third parties. Trade school (1 lot), Burleigh school (2 lots), burleigh (9 lots), high
(19 R.C. L. p. 698) school playground (2 lots), hydro-electric site (1 lot), san roque (1
lot), and another 23 vacant lots. In 1945, the capital of
The attempt of appellant in having waterworks considered as Zamboanga Province was transferred to Dipolog and on 16 June
public property subject to the control of Congress or one which 1948, RA 286 created the municipality of Molave and making it
can be regulated by the exercise of police power having failed, the capital of Zamboanga Province. On 26 May 1949, the
that question that now arises is: Does Republic Act No. 1383 Appraisal Committee formed by the Auditor General, pursuant to
provide for the automatic expropriation of the waterworks in CA 39, fixed the value of the properties and buildings in question
question in the light of our Constitution? In other words, does said left by Zamboanga Province in Zamboanga City at
law comply with the requirements of section 6, Article XIII, in P1,294,244.00. However, on 14 July 1951, a Cabinet Resolution
relation to section 1(2), Article III, of our Constitution? was passed, conveying all the said 50 lots and buildings thereon
Section 6, Article XIII of our Constitution provides: to Zamboanga City for P1.00, effective as of 1945, when the
SEC. 6. The State may, in the interest of National Welfare and provincial capital of the Zamboanga Province was transferred to
defense, establish and operate industries and means of Dipolog.
transportation and communication, and, upon payment of just On 6 June 1952, RA 711 was approved dividing the province of
compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other Zamboanga into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur.
private enterprises to be operated by the Government. As to how the assets and obligations of the old province were to
Section 1 (2), Article III, of our Constitution provides: be divided between the two new ones, Section 6 of the law
(2) Private property shall not be taken for public use without just provided that “upon the approval of the Act, the funds, assets and
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
50
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
other properties and the obligations of the province of Zamboanga
shall be divided equitably between the Province of Zamboanga
del Norte and the Province of Zamboanga del Sur by the
President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the
Auditor General." On 11 January 1955, the Auditor General
apportioned the assets and obligations of the defunct Province of
Zamboanga, apportioning 54.39% for Zamboanga del Norte and
45.61% for Zamboanga del Sur. On 17 March 1959, the Executive
Secretary, by order of the President, issued a ruling holding that
Zamboanga del Norte had a vested right as owner (should be co-
owner pro-indiviso) of the properties mentioned in Section 50 of
CA 39, and is entitled to the price thereof, payable by Zamboanga
City. This effectively revoked the Cabinet Resolution of 14 July
1951. The Secretary of Finance then authorized the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue to deduct an amount equal to
25% of the regular internal revenue allotment for the City of
Zamboanga for the quarter ending 31 March 1960, then for the
quarter ending 30 June 1960, and again for the first quarter of the
fiscal year 1960-1961. The deductions, all aggregating
P57,373.46 was credited to the province of Zamboanga del Norte,
in partial payment of the P704,220,05 due it.
However, on 17 June 1961, RA 3039 was approved amending
Section 50 of CA 39 by providing that "all buildings, properties
and assets belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and
located within the City of Zamboanga are hereby transferred, free
of charge, in favor of the said City of Zamboanga." On 12 July
1961, the Secretary of Finance ordered the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue to stop from effecting further payments to
Zamboanga del Norte and to return to Zamboanga City the sum
of P57,373.46 taken from it out of the internal revenue allotment
of Zamboanga del Norte. Zamboanga City admits that since the
enactment of RA 3039, P43,030.11 of the P57,373.46 has already
been returned to it.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Republic Act 3039 be declared unconstitutional for
depriving plaintiff province of property without due process and
just compensation
2. Whether or not the City of Zamboanga be ordered to continue
paying the balance of P704,220.05 in quarterly installments of
25% of its internal revenue allotments to Zamboanga del Norte.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Republic
Act No. 3039 unconstitutional insofar as it deprives plaintiff
Zamboanga del Norte of its private properties, consisting of 50
parcels of land and the improvements thereon under certificates
of title (Exhibits "A" to "A-49") in the name of the defunct province
of Zamboanga; ordering defendant City of Zamboanga to pay to
the plaintiff the sum of P704,220.05 payment thereof to be
deducted from its regular quarterly internal revenue allotment
equivalent to 25% thereof every quarter until said amount shall
have been fully paid; ordering defendant Secretary of Finance to
direct defendant Commissioner of Internal Revenue to deduct
25% from the regular quarterly internal revenue allotment for
defendant City of Zamboanga and to remit the same to plaintiff
Zamboanga del Norte until said sum of P704,220.05 shall have
been fully paid; ordering plaintiff Zamboanga del Norte to execute
through its proper officials the corresponding public instrument
deeding to defendant City of Zamboanga the 50 parcels of land
and the improvements thereon under the certificates of title
(Exhibits "A" to "A-49") upon payment by the latter of the
aforesaid sum of P704,220.05 in full; dismissing the counterclaim
of defendant City of Zamboanga; and declaring permanent the
preliminary mandatory injunction issued on June 8, 1962,
pursuant to the order of the Court dated June 4, 1962. No costs
are assessed against the defendants.
It is SO ORDERED.
HELD:
PURPOSE OF GUARANTY The Court held that section 2145 of the Administrative Code does
not deprive a person of his liberty of abode and does not deny to
110 US 516, 1884 him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in
HURTADO VS CALIFORNIA reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute
*no case digest submitted* slavery and involuntary servitude. The Court is further of the
opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a
legitimate exertion of the police power. Section 2145 of the
MEANING OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional.
Assigned as reasons for the action: (1) attempts for the
431 SCRA 534 advancement of the non-Christian people of the province; and (2)
CHAVEZ VS. ROMULO the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was
*no case digest submitted* to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-
General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes;
(4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the
233 SCRA 163 necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes.
LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered
*no case digest submitted* without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is
considered. They are restrained for their own good and the
general good of the Philippines.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS “Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law
for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the
86 SCRA 275, 1978 peace and order of society and the general well-being. No man
VILLEGAS VS. HU CHONG TSAI PAO HO can do exactly as he pleases.
*no case digest submitted* None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due
process of law.
39 Phil 660; No. 14078; March 7, 1919 Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
RUBI VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.
FACTS:
The provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 VOID FOR VAGUENESS/OVERBREADTH
wherein non-Christian inhabitants (uncivilized tribes) will be
directed to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public
lands. It is resolved that under section 2077 of the Administrative 292 SCRA 141 (1998)
Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan BLAS OPLE VS RUBEN TORRES
Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of
Mangyanes in Mindoro. Further, Mangyans may only solicit FACTS:
On December 12, 1996 President Fidel V. Ramos issued
homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead
applications are previously recommended by the provincial Administrative Order 308 entitled “Adoption of National and
governor. Computerized Identification Reference System”. The purposes of
In that case, pursuant to Section 2145 of the Revised the said order are: (a) it will provide the Filipino and foreign
Administrative Code, all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan residents with the convenience to transact businesses with basic
and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including service and social security providers and other government
those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, instrumentalities (b) it will reduce if not totally eradicate fraudulent
were ordered to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, transactions and misrepresentations because it will require a
Naujan Lake. Also, that any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply computerized system to properly and efficiently identify person
with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in seeking basic services on social security.
Petitioner Senator Blas Ople prays to invalidate A.O. 308 for two
sixty days, in accordance with section 2759 of the revised
Administrative Code. vital constitutional grounds: (a) it is a usurpation of power of
Said resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro were claimed as Congress to legislate (b) it intrudes the citizenry’s protected zone
necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of of privacy.
Mindoro as well as the protection of public forests in which they
roam, and to introduce civilized customs among them. ISSUE: Whether or not Administrative Order 308 is unconstitutional for
being overbreadth?
It appeared that Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not
fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable HELD:
to be punished.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is inarguable that the broadness,
It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of vagueness and overbreadth of A.O. 308 will put the people’s right
their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his to privacy in clear and present danger.
companions are said to be held on the reservation established at
Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be Administrative Order 308 does not state: (a) what specific
held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at biological characteristics will be gathered (b) what particular
Calapan for having run away form the reservation. biometrics technology will be employed (c) whether data is limited
to use for identification purposes only (d) how data will be handled
ISSUES: (e)who shall control and access the data.
Thus A.O 308 does not assure the individual of a reasonable
1. Whether or Not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code deprives
a person of his liberty? expectation of privacy because, as technology advances, the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
52
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
level of reasonable expected privacy decreases.
HELD:
G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 The Supreme Court ruled that a statute or act may be said to be
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
FACTS: differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant
The Office of the Ombudsman accuses President Joseph Ejercito to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates due process for
Estrada together with Jinggoy Estrada, Charlie Atong Ang, failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair
Edward Serapio, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro Eleuterio Tan, notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers
and Delia Rajsas of the crime of plunder defined and penalized unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an
under R.A. No. 7080 as amended by Sec. 12 R.A. No. 7659. arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. But the doctrine does
During the term of President Estrada, he together with the not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in
individuals mentioned above wilfully, unlawfully and criminally imprecise language but which nonetheless specify a standard
amass, accumulate and acquire by himself, directly or indirectly though defectively phrased; or to those that are apparently
ill-gotten wealth amounting to four billion ninety seven million ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain types of activities. The
eight hundred four thousand one hundred seventy three pesos first may be "saved" by proper construction, while no challenge
and seventeen centavos (4,097,804,173.17), thereby unjustly may be mounted as against the second whenever directed
enriching himself or themselves at the expense and to the against such activities. With more reason, the doctrine cannot be
damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. invoked where the assailed statute is clear and free from
ambiguity, as in this case.
Under RA 7080 “An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder” as amended by RA 7659 Section 2, the crime of plunder The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for
is defined as an act of any public officer who, by himself or in uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other understanding and practice. It must be stressed, however, that the
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
through a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts certainty for the statute to be upheld - not absolute precision or
described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest.
value of at least fifty million pesos (50,000,000) and shall be Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity, is permissible as long
punished by reclusion perpetua to death. as the metes and bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. An
act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been
Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions, especially
property, business, enterprise or material possession of any where, because of the nature of the act, it would be impossible to
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by provide all the details in advance as in all other statutes.
him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or GR No. 171390, May 3, 2006
series of the following means or similar schemes: DAVID VS. ARROYO
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, *no case digest submitted*
or malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury; GR No. 126858, September 16, 2005
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any ONG VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any
other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or FACTS:
entity in connection with any government contract or Congressman Bonifacio Gallego executed a complaint against
project or by reason of the office or position of the public petitioner Ong, a former Commissioner of the BIR claiming that
office concerned; petitioner has amassed properties worth disproportionately more than
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or his lawful income. The Director of the Fact Finding Committee of the
disposition of assets belonging to the National office of the Ombudsman ordered the conduct of investigation on the
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or matter; of which petitioner was required to submit counter affidavit and
instrumentalities, or government owned or controlled controverting evidence. Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit submitting
corporations and their subsidiaries; his Statements of Assets and Liabilities, income tax return, bank
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or certificates showing that he obtained a loan from Allied Banking
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of Corporation, certificate from SGV and company and other documents
interest or participation including the promise of future explaining the sources of funds with which he acquired the questioned
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; assets. Ombudsman finds and recommend for recovery of ill-gotten
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or wealth under Ra 1379, in relation to RA’s 3019 and 6770 against Ong
commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or and all other person’s concerned.
implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or ISSUE/S:
(6) By taking advantage of official position, authority, 1. WON, the right to preliminary investigation is withheld by RA 1379
relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich from a co-respondent Nelly Ong, who is not herself a public officer
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage or employee.
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the 2. WON, petitioner is correct in his contention that the office of the
Philippines. Ombudsman is disqualified to file a petition for forfeiture
Petitioner Estrada questions the validity of the law for it is void for considering of the duality of function, as investigator and
vagueness. He bewails the failure of the law to provide for the prosecutor of the case.
statutory definition of the terms and “combination” and “series” in 3. WON, petitioner is correct in the contention that RA1379 is
the key phrase “a combination or a series of overt or criminal unconstitutional since it violates the presumption of innocence
acts” found in Section 1 par. d, and the word “pattern” in Section and the right against self incrimination.
4.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not the Plunder Law is unconstitutional for it suffers 1. No, even if RA 1379 appears to be directed only against the
from the vice of vagueness? public officer or employee who has acquired during his
FACTS:
PURPOSE In this case the provincial city assessor of Abra filed a certiorari
and mandamus against the ruling made by Judge Harold M.
G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 Hernando of the Court of First Instance of Abra, it was because
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. ALGUE respondent denied a motion for declaratory relief by Roman
Catholic Bishop of Bangued desirous of being exempted from a
FACTS: real estate tax followed by a summary judgment granting such
The Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company (PSEDC) exemption without even hearing the side of the petitioner.
appointed Algue Inc. as its agent, authorizing it to sell its land, Petitioner further argued that clearly the judge ignored the
factories, and oil manufacturing process. The Vegetable Oil Investment pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and disregards the
Corporation (VOICP) purchased PSEDC properties. For the sale, basic laws of procedure and basic provisions of due process in
Algue received a commission of P125,000 and it was from this the constitution. The important argument made by the petitioner is
commission that it paid Guevara, et. al. organizers of the VOICP, that the judge failed to abide by the provisions of Presidential
P75,000 in promotional fees. In 1965, Algue received an assessment Decree No. 464 which states that" No court shall entertain any
from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the amount of suit assailing the validity of a tax assessed under this Code until
P83,183.85 as delinquency income tax for years 1958 amd 1959. the taxpayer, shall have paid, under protest, the tax assessed
Algue filed a protest or request for reconsideration which was not acted against him nor shall any court declare any tax invalid by reason
upon by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The counsel for Algue of irregularities or informalities in the proceedings of the officers
had to accept the warrant of distrant and levy. Algue, however, filed a charged with the assessment or collection of taxes, or of failure to
petition for review with the Coourt of Tax Appeals. perform their duties within this time herein specified for their
performance unless such irregularities, informalities or failure
ISSUE: Whether the assessment was reasonable. shall have impaired the substantial rights of the taxpayer; nor
shall any court declare any portion of the tax assessed under the
HELD: provisions of this Code invalid except upon condition that the
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be taxpayer shall pay the just amount of the tax, as determined by
collected without unnecessary hindrance. Every person who is the court in the pending proceeding."
able to pay must contribute his share in the running of the The judge responded by saying there is no dispute that the
government. The Government, for his part, is expected to respond properties including their procedure are actually, directly and
in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to improve exclusively used by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bangued, Inc.
the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material for religious or charitable purposes."
values. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and
should dispel the erroneous notion that is an arbitrary method of HELD:
exaction by those in the seat of power. The Supreme Court ruled that the petition be granted since the
Tax collection, however, should be made in accordance with law judge would not have made such a grave mistake if he had only
as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government made a clear distinction between the present provisions of the
itself. For all the awesome power of the tax collector, he may still constitution to the provisions of the 1935 constitution regarding
be stopped in his tracks if the taxpayer can demonstrate that the tax exemptions on land, buildings and improvements. The main
law has not been observed. Herein, the claimed deduction difference is that in order for a land, building, or improvement to
(pursuant to Section 30 [a] [1] of the Tax Code and Section 70 [1] be tax exempt, there must be and exclusive, actual and direct use
of Revenue Regulation 2: as to compensation for personal of the enumerated for religious or charitable purposes. It is also a
services) had been legitimately by Algue Inc. It has further proven rule that tax exemption is not favored nor presumed so that if
that the payment of fees was reasonable and necessary in light of granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer.
the efforts exerted by the payees in inducing investors (in VOICP) Affirmatively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation,
to involve themselves in an experimental enterprise or a business hence, an exempting provision should be construed strictissimi
requiring millions of pesos. juris
The assessment was not reasonable. The petition was also justly invoked on the grounds for the
protection of due process to clearly show if the respondents really
177 SCRA 27, 1989 did not violate any constitutional provisions in regards to tax
COMMISSIONER VS. MAKASIAR exemption but instead, what respondent judge did was directly
*no case digest submitted* ruled on the case of declaratory relief on the basis that it was
exclusive, actual, and directly as sources of support of the parish
priest and his helpers and also of private respondent Bishop as
TAX EXEMPTIONS compared to the motion to dismiss the case due to lack of
jurisdiction since the validity of a tax assessment may be
questioned before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and
33 PHIL 217, 1916 not with a court. There was also mention of a lack of a cause of
YMCA VS. CIR action, but only because, in its view, declaratory relief is not
*no case digest submitted* proper, as there had been breach or violation of the right of
government to assess and collect taxes on such property. It
51 PHIL 352, 1927 clearly appears, therefore, that in failing to accord a hearing to
BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA VS PROVINCIAL BOARD petitioner Province of Abra and deciding the case immediately in
*no case digest submitted* favor of private respondent, respondent Judge failed to abide by
the constitutional command of procedural due process.
14 SCRA 292, 1965
LLADOC VS CIR 162 SCRA 106, 1988
*no case digest submitted* ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE, INC. VS. HON. JUAN P. AQUINO
FACTS:
107 SCRA 104, 1981
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
62
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
This is a case for a review or certiorari on the decision made by
the defunct Court of First Instance of Abra Branch I, dated June HELD:
14, 1974, rendered in Civil Case No. 656. In this case the court In the case at bar the Supreme Court used Section 22, paragraph
decided that the seizure and sale by the Municipal Treasurer of 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution, which
Bangued, Abra and Provincial Treasurer of the said province of expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for "Cemeteries,
the lot and building of Abra Valley College, Inc. to be valid since churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and
the said school was not tax exempt. What transpired was the all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for
school was issued a “Notice of Seizure” of the lot and building of religious, charitable or educational purposes ... Relative thereto,
the school covered by Original Certificate of Title No. Q-83 duly Section 54, paragraph c, Commonwealth Act No. 470 as
registered in the name of petitioner for failure to pay the amount amended by Republic Act No. 409, otherwise known as the
of P5,140.31 back taxes by the respondent The "Notice of Sale" Assessment Law, provides that churches and parsonages or
was caused to be served upon the petitioner by the respondent convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and
treasurers on July 8, 1972 for the sale at public auction of said improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific
college lot and building, which sale was held on the same date. or educational purposes
Dr. Paterno Millare, then Municipal Mayor of Bangued, Abra, The Supreme court ruled that the exemption in favor of property
offered the highest bid of P6,000.00 which was duly accepted. used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is 'not
The certificate of sale was correspondingly issued to him. limited to property actually indispensable but extends to facilities
After the sale Dr. Paterno filled a case for the dismissal of the which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
case and after exchange of pleadings the court ordered the accomplishment of said purposes and that while this Court allows
respondent treasurers to deliver the proceeds of the auction sale. a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of the phrase
Finally the parties involved entered into a Stipulation of Facts "exclusively used for educational purposes" as provided for in
administered by the court dismissing the notice of seizure and Article VI, Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 Philippine
notice of sale in favor of Dr. Paterno and relieving him of all the Constitution, reasonable emphasis has always been made that
back taxes of the school upon the payment of the auction price. exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and
Despite the Stipulation of Facts the trial courts found out that the reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main
school was recognized by the government offering Primary High purposes.
School and College courses and has a population of more than While the use of the second floor of the main building in the case
100,000 students all in all; that the school was situated right in the at bar for residential purposes of the Director and his family, they
heart of town of Bangued, Abra a few meters from the plaza and may find justification under the concept of incidental use, which is
about 120 meters from the Court of First Instance building; that complimentary to the main or primary purpose—educational, the
the elementary pupils are housed in a two-storey building across lease of the first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing
the street; that the high school and college students are housed in Corporation cannot by any stretch of the imagination be
the main building; that the Director with his family is in the second considered incidental to the purpose of education.
floor of the main building; and that the annual gross income of the Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly arrived at the
school reaches more than one hundred thousand pesos. In light conclusion that the school building as well as the lot where it is
of the evidences it was left after the courts to determine whether built should be taxed, not because the second floor of the same is
the said school was exclusively for educational purposes. being used by the Director and his family for residential purposes,
The succeeding Provincial Fiscal, Hon. Jose A. Solomon and his but because the first floor thereof is being used for commercial
Assistant, Hon. Eustaquio Z. Montero, filed a Memorandum for purposes. However, since only a portion is used for purposes of
the Government on March 25, 1974, and a Supplemental commerce, it is only fair that half of the assessed tax be returned
Memorandum on May 7, 1974, wherein they opined "that based to the school involved.
on the evidence, the laws applicable, court decisions and PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of First
jurisprudence, the school building and school lot used for Instance of Abra, Branch I, is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
educational purposes of the Abra Valley College, Inc., are modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to the
exempted from the payment of taxes. petitioner
The trial court disagreed because of the use of the second floor
by the Director of petitioner school for residential purposes. He 101 PHIL 386, 1957
thus ruled for the government and rendered the assailed decision. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY vs. CITY OF MANILA
After having been granted by the trial court ten (10) days from
August 6, 1974 within which to perfect its appeal petitioner FACTS:
instead availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari with In this case the plaintiff is a foreign, non-stock, religious,
prayer for preliminary injunction before this Court, which petition missionary organization duly registered in the Philippines and
was filed on August 17, 1974. In the resolution dated August 16, doing business through its agency here in Manila. In the course of
1974, this Court resolved to give DUE COURSE to the petition their ministry, their Philippine agency has been distributing and
Respondents were required to answer said petition. The selling bibles and/or gospel portions thereof (except during the
petitioners raised the arguments that the courts a quo: 1. made an Japanese occupation) throughout the Philippines and translating
error in sustaining a valid seizure and sale of the college lot and the same into several Philippine dialect Upon knowledge the
building used for educational purpose 2. Made an error in acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed plaintiff that it
declaring that the college was not exclusively for educational was conducting the business of general merchandise since
purposes merely because the college president resides in it 3. November, 1945, without providing itself with the necessary
made an error in declaring the college not tax exempt from Mayor's permit and municipal license, requiring the plaintiff to
property taxes and in ordering petitioner to pay P5,140.31 as secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and license
realty taxes. 4. made an error in ordering the confiscation of the fees, together with compromise covering the period from the 4th
P6,000.00 deposit made in the court by petitioner as payment of quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, in the total sum of
the P5,140.31 realty taxes. P5,821.45 To avoid the closing of its business as well as further
fines and penalties in the premises on October 24, 1953, plaintiff
ISSUE: Whether Abra Valley College Inc. subject to tax exemption as paid to the defendant under protest the said permit and license
stated in the constitution that a school should be “exclusively for fees in the aforementioned amount, giving at the same time notice
educational purpose” despite the proof that there are other purpose to the City Treasurer that suit would be taken in court to question
attached to the lot and building such as a residence of the College the legality of the ordinances under which, the said fees were
president? being collected which was done on the same date by filing the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
63
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
complaint that gave rise to this action. The plaintiff prays that
judgment be rendered declaring the said Municipal Ordinance No.
3000, as amended, and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364
illegal and unconstitutional, and a refund should be made by the
DOUBLE TAXATION
defendant of the payments made and the legal costs. The
defendant replied that, maintaining in turn that said ordinances 95 PHIL 46, 1954
were enacted by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila by PUNZALAN VS MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA
virtue of the power granted to it by section 2444, subsection (m-2) *no case digest submitted*
of the Revised Administrative Code, superseded on June 18,
1949, by section 18, subsection (1) of Republic Act No. 409,
known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila, and praying LICENSE FEES
that the complaint be dismissed, with costs against plaintiff. This
answer was replied by the plaintiff reiterating the
unconstitutionality of the often-repeated ordinances GR No. 10448, August 30, 1957
PHYSICAL THERAPY ORG. VS MUNICIPAL BOARD
Before the trial the party submitted a stipulation of facts stating
*no case digest submitted*
the sales made by the petitioner from 1945 to 1953. When the
case was set for hearing the plaintiff argued that it never made
any profit from the sale of its bibles, which are disposed of for as
low as one third of the cost, and that in order to maintain its
operating cost it obtains substantial remittances from its New York
office and voluntary contributions and gifts from certain churches,
both in the United States and in the Philippines, which are
interested in its missionary work. The defendant answered that
due to the cross-examination of the lone witness of plaintiff it was
proven that the claim of plaintiff that if having no profit from the
sales is evidently untenable. This made the judge to dismiss the
case for lack of merit on the grounds thatfrom the repealed
section (m-2) of the Revised Administrative Code and the
repealing portions (o) of section 18 of Republic Act No. 409,
although they seemingly differ in the way the legislative intent is
expressed, yet their meaning is practically the same for the
purpose of taxing the merchandise mentioned in said legal
provisions, and that the taxes to be levied by said ordinances is in
the nature of percentage graduated taxes (Sec. 3 of Ordinance
No. 3000, as amended, and Sec. 1, Group 2, of Ordinance No.
2529, as amended by Ordinance No. 3364).
Not satisfied with the decision, they took up the matter to the
Court of Appeals which was certified to the Supreme Court where
the petitioner argued these points 1. In holding that Ordinances
Nos. 2529 and 3000, as respectively amended, are not
unconstitutional 2. In holding that subsection m-2 of Section 2444
of the Revised Administrative Code under which Ordinances Nos.
2592 and 3000 were promulgated, was not repealed by Section
18 of Republic Act No. 409; 3. In not holding that an ordinance
providing for taxes based on gross sales or receipts, in order to
be valid under the new Charter of the City of Manila, must first be
approved by the President of the Philippines; and 4. In holding
that, as the sales made by the plaintiff-appellant have assumed
commercial proportions, it cannot escape from the operation of
said municipal ordinances under the cloak of religious privilege.
HELD:
In the case at bar the Supreme court held that that Ordinance No.
3000 cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to
plaintiff Society. But as Ordinance No. 2529 of the City of Manila,
as amended, is not applicable to plaintiff-appellant and defendant-
appellee is powerless to license or tax the business of plaintiff
Society involved herein for, as stated before, it would impair
plaintiff's right to the free exercise and enjoyment of its religious
profession and worship, as well as its rights of dissemination of
religious beliefs, We find that Ordinance No. 3000, as amended is
also inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the
plaintiff.
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations,
We hereby reverse the decision appealed from, sentencing
defendant return to plaintiff the sum of P5,891.45 unduly collected
from it. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
64
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
Labor Code. The petitioner assumes that it is unreasonable
- EQUAL PROTECTION - simply because of its impact on the right to travel, but as we have
stated, the right itself is not absolute. The disputed Order is a
valid qualification thereto.
SEXUAL DISCRIMNINATION Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No.
1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power. It is true that
police power is the domain of the legislature, but it does not mean
163 SCRA 386, 1988 that such an authority may not be lawfully delegated. As we have
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON mentioned, the Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor
and Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement
FACTS: whereof.
The Department of Labor and Employment issued Department "Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of
Order No. 1, Series of 1988 in the character of "GUIDELINES employment alone. What concerns the Constitution more
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF paramountly is that such an employment be above all, decent,
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD just, and humane. It is bad enough that the country has to send
WORKERS”. its sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. their employment needs at home. Under these circumstances, the
(PASEI, for short), a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates
Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement," have adequate protection, personally and economically, while
challenges its Constitutional validity. away from home. In this case, the Government has evidence, an
evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute, of the lack or
On May 25, 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the inadequacy of such protection, and as part of its duty, it has
respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment.
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, filed a Comment
informing the Court that on March 8, 1988, the respondent Labor The non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by the
Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq, Jordan, petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targetted by the
Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United States, Italy, Norway, Austria, Government. 31 Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other
and Switzerland. * In submitting the validity of the challenged freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this jurisdiction,
"guidelines," the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the where laissez faire has never been fully accepted as a controlling
Philippine State. economic way of life.
Petition dismissed.
ISSUE:
WON Department Order No. 1 in the nature of a police power measure
is valid under the Constitution, assailing: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
"discrimination against males or females;"
that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to
domestic helpers and females with similar skills;" 99 PHIL, 1856
and that it is violative of the right to travel PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ
it is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking
power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in FACTS:
character. This is a case of kidnapping with murder involving the Huks,
members of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan, the military
HELD: arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines.
The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the Counsel for Faustino del Mundo, alias Commander Sumulong,
contested measure should be nullified. There is no question that admits that the said accused ordered the killing of the victim,
Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract Marciano T. Miranda, 41, the barrio captain of Barrio Balitucan,
workers," but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination Magalang, Pampanga, who was an alleged army informer and
between the sexes. It is well-settled that "equality before the law" who was opposed to the candidacy of Rogelio Tiglao, a provincial
under the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights board member.
among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided The kidnapping and killing were politically motivated. Miranda
that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) refused to support Tiglao, the candidate for Congressman of the
they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not Huks. He supported Rafael Lazatin, the Nacionalista candidate.
confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all
members of the same class. ISSUE: Del Mundo contends that he should be convicted only of
As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal medium and that the
unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, trial court erred in convicting him of the said complex crime and in
especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse. The
sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers, HELD:
even rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies Del Mundo did not testify in his defense. As already stated, the
of returning workers, are compelling motives for urgent trial court convicted him of kidnapping with murder together with
Government action. As precisely the caretaker of Constitutional Pangilinan, Macasaquit and Cabrera, sentenced him to reclusion
rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In perpetua and ordered him to pay an indemnity of P17,000 to
fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the Government's efforts. Miranda's heirs. Macalino and Meneses were acquitted. Salas
The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel died during the pendency of the case. Only Del Mundo appealed.
does not impair the right. The right to travel is subject, among His counsel de oficio contends that there was no intention to
other things, to the requirements of "public safety," "as may be deprive Miranda of his liberty and no premeditated plan to kill him.
provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid That contention is not well-taken. The fact is that Miranda was
implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy to forcibly removed from his barrio and deprived of his liberty for
"afford protection to labor," pursuant to the respondent several hours and was then brought to another place where he
Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the was killed. While under interrogation, his grave was already being
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
65
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
prepared. The fatal blow, which was inflicted upon him, caused treasury and the systematic subjugation of the country's
him to fall into his grave. economy," alleges that what impelled him to bring this action were
We find that there was a conspiracy to liquidate Miranda and that several news reports bannered in a number of broadsheets
the kidnapping was utilized as a means to attain that objective. sometime in September 1997. These news items referred to (1)
From the surrounding circumstances, it maybe inferred that Del the alleged discovery of billions of dollars of Marcos assets
Mundo masterminded the kidnapping or induced it and that, as deposited in various coded accounts in Swiss banks; and (2) the
observed by the Solicitor General, the killing was intended to reported execution of a compromise, between the government
terrorize the supporters of Lazatin. (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to split or share
these assets.
Miranda was a public officer. His kidnapping is covered by article
267(4) of the Revised Penal Code which imposes the penalty of Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information and the
reclusion perpetua to death for that offense. correlative duty of the state to disclose publicly all its transactions
involving the national interest, demands that respondents make
The killing of Miranda was murder because his hands were bound public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to
when he was mortally assaulted (U.S. vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil. 209 PCGG's task of recovering the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. He
and other cases). claims that any compromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten
Even without taking into account evident premeditation, the death wealth involves an issue of "paramount public interest," since it
penalty has to be imposed because article 48 of the Revised has a "debilitating effect on the country's economy" that would be
Penal Code requires that the graver penalty for kidnapping, which greatly prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino people.
is more serious than murder, has to be meted out to Del Mundo
ISSUE: WON the government, through the Presidential Commission
However, inasmuch as Del Mundo is now seventy-eight (78)
on Good Government (PCGG), be required to reveal the proposed
years old, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon him.
terms of a compromise agreement with the Marcos heirs as regards
WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment is modified in the sense their alleged ill-gotten wealth.
that the death penalty imposable on Del Mundo is commuted to
reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in article HELD:
40. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. In general, writings coming into the hands of public officers in
connection with their official functions must be accessible to the
85 PHIL 648, 1950
public, consistent with the policy of transparency of governmental
PEOPLE vs. ISNAIN
affairs. This principle is aimed at affording the people an
opportunity to determine whether those to whom they have
FACTS:
entrusted the affairs of the government are honesty, faithfully and
Accused was caught in the act of stealing coconut while his two competently performing their functions as public servants.
other companions managed to ran away. Undeniably, the essence of democracy lies in the free flow of
Accused admitted to committing the said crime thought; but thoughts and ideas must be well-informed so that the
public would gain a better perspective of vital issues confronting
ISSUE: The only question raised with much earnestness by his them and, thus, be able to criticize as well as participate in the
attorney de oficio is that article 310 of the Revised Penal Code affairs of the government in a responsible, reasonable and
classifying as qualified theft, the stealing of coconut is unconstitutional, effective manner.
because it punishes the larceny of such products more heavily than the With such pronouncements of our government, whose authority
taking away of similar produce, such as rice and sugar, and thereby emanates from the people, there is no doubt that the recovery of
denies him the equal protection of the laws. the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public
concern and imbued with public interest. We may also add that
HELD: "ill-gotten wealth," by its very nature, assumes a public character.
In the matter of theft of coconuts, the purpose of the heavier Clearly, the assets and properties referred to supposedly
penalty is to encourage and protect the development of the originated from the government itself. To all intents and purposes,
coconut industry as one of the sources of our national economy.3 therefore, they belong to the people. As such, upon reconveyance
Unlike rice and sugar cane farms where the range of vision is they will be returned to the public treasury, subject only to the
unobstructed, coconut groves can not be efficiently watched satisfaction of positive claims of certain persons as may be
because of the nature of the growth of coconut trees; and without adjudged by competent courts. Another declared overriding
a special measure to protect this kind of property, it will be, as it consideration for the expeditious recovery of ill-gotten wealth is
has been in the past the favorite resort of thieves.4 There is that it may be used for national economic recovery. The foregoing
therefore, some reason for the special treatment accorded the disquisition settles the question of whether petitioner has a right to
industry; and as it can not be said that the classification is entirely respondents' disclosure of any agreement that may be arrived at
without basis, the plea of unconstitutionality must be denied concerning the Marcoses' purported ill-gotten wealth. Petition
granted.
The crime is punished by article 309, paragraph 5, in connection
with article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by 111 SCRA 433, 1982
Commonwealth Act No. 417. (Republic Act No. 120, enacted after NUNEZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
the offense, is not applicable.) The penalty is prision correccional
to its full extent. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence law, the FACTS:
appellant should be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 4
years and 2 months of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 Petitioner in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding assails the
months of prision correccional. Thus modified, the appealed validity of the Presidential Decree creating the Sandiganbayan,
decision will be affirmed, with costs. so ordered. He was accused before such respondent Court of estafa through
falsification of public and commercial documents committed in
GR No. 130716, December 09, 1998 connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in
CHAVES VS. PCGG several cases. Upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to quash
on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. Respondent Court
FACTS: denied such motion. There was a motion for reconsideration filed
the next day; it met the same fate. Hence this petition for certiorari
Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as "taxpayer, citizen and former and prohibition
government official who initiated the prosecution of the Marcoses
and their cronies who committed unmitigated plunder of the public ISSUE: WON Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended, creating the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
66
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
respondent Court is violative of the due process and equal protection granted the motion. A special prosecutor recommended the
clauses of the Constitution. dismissal of the case but Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto
disapproved the recommendation. The Sandiganbayan denied
HELD: petitioners’ motion.
To assure that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end
of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and ISSUE: WON the petitioners are denied due process and not accorded
property. Those adversely affected may under such the equal protection of laws.
circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can
show that the governmental act assailed, far from being inspired HELD:
by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit Petitioners claimed that they were denied due process because
of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto disapproved the
in reason. To quote from the Tuason decision anew "that the laws recommendation of the special prosecutor.
operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar The Ombudsman, contrary to the investigating prosecutor’s
circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same conclusion, was of the conviction that petitioners are probably
manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges guilty of the offense charged, and for this, he is not required to
conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue conduct an investigation anew. Whatever course of action that the
preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal Ombudsman may take, whether to approve or to disapprove the
protection and security shall be given to every person under recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, is but an
circumstances which, if not Identical, are analogous. exercise of his discretionary powers based upon constitutional
The premise underlying petitioner's contention on this point is set mandate.[17] Generally, courts should not interfere in such
forth in his memorandum thus: " 1. The Sandiganbayan exercise.
proceedings violates petitioner's right to equal protection, The equal protection clause requires that the law operates
because - appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all
mere matter of discretion; - appeal likewise was shrunk and persons are treated in the same manner, the conditions not being
limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts different, both in privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. It
and trial evidence; and - there is only one chance to appeal allows reasonable classification. If the classification is
conviction, by certiorari to the Supreme Court, instead of the characterized by real and substantial differences, one class may
traditional two chances; while all other estafa indictees are be treated differently from another. Simply because the
entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts respondent Ombudsman dismissed some cases allegedly similar
and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the Court of Appeals and to the case at bar is not sufficient to impute arbitrariness or
thereafter to the Supreme Court." ,that is hardly convincing, caprice on his part, absent a clear showing that he gravely
considering that the classification satisfies the test requiring that it abused his discretion in pursuing the instant case. The
"must be based on substantial distinctions which make real Ombudsman dismissed those cases because he believed there
differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must were no sufficient grounds for the accused therein to undergo
not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally trial. On the other hand, he recommended the filing of
to each member of the class. The Constitution specifically appropriate information against petitioners because there are
mentions the creation of a special court, the Sandiganbayan ample grounds to hold them for trial. He was only exercising his
precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot power and discharging his duty based upon the constitutional
be denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that mandate of his office. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED
those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have for lack of merit
been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present
Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the
accused therein, whether a private citizen as petitioner is or a PUBLIC POLICY
public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. WHEREFORE, the petition is [G.R. No. 157279. August 9, 2005.]
dismissed. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. GIOVANNI PALMA ET AL.
HELD: ISSUE: Whether or not a provision of law, initially valid, can become
The respondents were not entitled to the benefits because they subsequently unconstitutional, on the ground that its continued
were hired only after JUNE 30 1989. An incumbent is a person operation would violate the equal protection of the law
who is in present possession of an office.
HELD:
Finally, to explain what July 1, 1989 pertained to, we held in the
prior cases as follows: The date July 1, 1989 becomes crucial Supreme Court held that with the passage of the subsequent laws
only to determine that as of said date, the officer was an amending the charter of seven (7) other governmental financial
incumbent and was receiving the RATA, for purposes of entitling institutions (GFIs), the continued operation of the last proviso of
him to its continued grant." Respondents were not deemed Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. No. 7653, constitutes invidious
incumbents as defined by settled jurisprudence. Petitioner was discrimination on the 2,994 rank-and-file employees of the BSP.
correct in contending that by extending the assailed benefits to The Supreme Court struck down the assailed proviso and held
respondents on January 1, 1997, it was not thereby admitting that that with the passage of the subsequent laws amending the
the latter were priorly entitled to them. It contends that its charter of seven (7) other governmental financial institutions
privatization on May 27, 1996 enabled it to grant benefits as it (GFIs), the continued operation of the last proviso of Section
deemed fit. It could not have granted them while it was still a 15(c), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7653, constitutes
government agency, because RA 6758 barred such grant as an invidious discrimination on the 2,994 rank-and-file employees of
illegal disbursement of public funds. It allegedly accorded them the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The disparity of treatment
those benefits, not because it had finally acceded to their between BSP rank-and-file and the rank-and-file of the other
interpretation of the law, but because it was only then that — as a seven GFIs definitely bears the unmistakable badge of invidious
private entity — it could legally do so. discrimination. No one can, with candor and fairness, deny the
The collateral attack on the constitutionality of RA 6758 due to discriminatory character of the subsequent blanket and total
alleged violation of the equal protection clause cannot prosper, exemption of the seven other GFIs from the SSL when such was
because constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly — not withheld from the BSP. Alikes are being treated as unalikes
collaterally. Furthermore, the constitutional issue was not raised in without any rational basis. The Court emphasized that the equal
the trial court; hence, it cannot now be availed of on appeal to this protection clause does not demand absolute equality but it
Court. Besides, the arguments of respondents rest upon the requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
validity of Section 12 of RA 6758. How then can they now circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
challenge the very basis of their arguments? liabilities enforced. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be
allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security
A law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a shall be given to every person under circumstances which, if not
competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly identical, are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden
pleaded in the trial court. The question of constitutionality must be or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the
raised at the earliest opportunity. Respondents not only failed to same fashion; whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is
challenge the constitutionality of RA 6758; worse, they used it in equally binding on the rest. With the lack of real and substantial
seeking compensation from petitioner. The settled rule is that distinctions that would justify the unequal treatment between the
courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in rank-and-file of BSP from the seven other GFIs, it is clear that the
advance of the necessity of deciding it. enactment of the seven subsequent charters has rendered the
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. continued application of the challenged proviso anathema to the
equal protection of the law, and the same should be declared as
[G.R. No. 148208. December 15, 2004.] an outlaw.
CENTRAL BANK (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) EMPLOYEES Wherefor, the continued operation and implementation of the last
ASSOCIATION, INC., vs. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS and proviso of Section 15(c), Article II of Republic Act No. 7653 is held
the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY unconstitutional.
FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not the Executive Orders issued by President for
Petitioner United Democratic Opposition (UNIDO), in two letter- the implementation of the tax exemptions constitutes executive
requests to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated March 10 legislation.
and 17,1981, asked for exactly the same opportunity, the same prime
time and the same number of television and radio stations all over the HELD:
country to be used in its campaign for "NO" votes in the plebiscite for To limit the tax-free importation privilege of enterprises located
the amendments to the 1973 Constitution proposed by the Batasang inside the special economic zone only to raw materials, capital
Pambansa as that utilized by President Marcos in his nationwide and equipment clearly runs counter to the intention of the
"Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo" in campaigning for "YES" votes on the Legislature to create a free port where the “free flow of goods or
proposed constitutional amendments. The Commission, in its capital within, into, and out of the zones” is insured.
Resolution of March 18, 1981 denied petitioner's "demand'' being of The phrase “tax and duty-free importations of raw materials,
the view that the President's remarks on the proposed amendments in capital and equipment” was merely cited as an example of
the forementioned radio-television program carried live by twenty-six incentives that may be given to entities operating within the zone.
(26) television and two hundred forty-eight (248) radio stations Public respondent SBMA correctly argued that the maxim
throughout the country were initiated under his leadership and capacity expressio unius est exclusio alterius, on which petitioners
as President/prime Minister in the exercise of his constitutional impliedly rely to support their restrictive interpretation, does not
prerogative to determine the program and guidelines of national policy apply when words are mentioned by way of example. It is obvious
pursuant to Article IX, Section 2 of the Constitution and not as the head from the wording of RA No. 7227, particularly the use of the
of any political party. Petitioner's Motion for reconsideration proved phrase “such as,” that the enumeration only meant to illustrate
futile, hence this present action, assailing the Comelec's resolutions as incentives that the SSEZ is authorized to grant, in line with its
contrary to the Constitution, unjust, unfair and inequitable for violating being a free port zone.
the basic principles of equality, good faith and fair play, the same not
conducive to insure a free, orderly and honest elections. The Court finds that the setting up of such commercial
establishments which are the only ones duly authorized to sell
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC violated the equal protection clause consumer items tax and duty-free is still well within the policy
for denying UNIDO the same air time in Media as that of the President enunciated in Section 12 of RA No. 7227 that “. . .the Subic
in campaigning for the “NO” votes in the plebiscite for the amendments Special Economic Zone shall be developed into a self-sustaining,
to the 1973 Contstitution. industrial, commercial, financial and investment center to
generate employment opportunities in and around the zone and
HELD: to attract and promote productive foreign investments.” However,
The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that when the the Court reiterates that the second sentences of paragraphs 1.2
President spoke in the nation-wide program "Pulong-Pulong sa and 1.3 of Executive Order No. 97-A, allowing tax and duty-free
Pangulo" on March 21, 1981, he did so in his capacity as President- removal of goods to certain individuals, even in a limited amount,
Prime Minister and not as the head of the KBL; and that what petitioner from the Secured Area of the SSEZ, are null and void for being
asks cannot be granted for being beyond what the charter, the laws contrary to Section 12 of RA No. 7227. Said Section clearly
and pertinent Comelec regulations contemplate, for being more than provides that “exportation or removal of goods from the territory of
what the opposition is duly entitled vis-a-vis the duty, obligation and/or the Subic Special Economic Zone to the other parts of the
privilege inherent in the head of state to directly dialogue with the Philippine territory shall be subject to customs duties and taxes
sovereign people when the occasion demands, for being impractical under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax laws of
under prevailing circumstance, and for its failure to join in the petition the Philippines.”
the television and radio stations as indispensable parties, thereby
depriving the Court of jurisdiction to act. G.R. No. 128845. June 1, 2000
Appeal dismissed. ISAE v. Hon. Leonardo A. Quisumbing
HELD:
The petitioners’ contention, that the repeal of Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code pertaining to elective officials gives undue
benefit to such officials as against the appointive ones and
violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, is tenuous.
The equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is not
absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the
groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make
real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
differently from the other.# The Court has explained the nature of
the equal protection guarantee in this manner:
FACTS: ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the restrictions must prevail over the ordinance,
Bel-Air Village is located north of Buendia Avenue extension (now
specially since these restrictions were agreed upon before the
Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave.) across a stretch of commercial block
passage of MMC Ordinance No. 81-01?
Bel-Air Village was owned and developed into a residential 2. Whether or not respondent Mathay III, as a mere lessee of the lot
subdivision in the 1950s by Makati Development Corporation in question, is a total stranger to the deed of sale and is thus
(hereinafter referred to as MDC), which in 1968 was merged with barred from questioning the conditions of said deed
appellant Ayala
The lots which were acquired by appellees Sangalang and HELD:
spouse Gaston and spouse and Briones and spouse in 1960, The legal system upholds the sanctity of contract so that a
1957 and 1958, respectively, were all sold by MDC subject to contract is deemed law between the contracting parties,#
certain conditions and easements contained in Deed Restrictions nonetheless, stipulations in a contract cannot contravene “law,
which formed a part of each deed of sale morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Non
The owner of this lot/s or his successors in interest is required to impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yield
be and is automatically a member of the Bel-Air Association and to the superior and legitimate exercise by the State of police
must abide by such rules and regulations laid down by the power to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
Association in the interest of the sanitation, security and the order, safety, and general welfare of the people.# Moreover,
general welfare statutes in exercise of valid police power must be read into every
contract.
On April 4, 1975, the municipal council of Makati enacted its
ordinance No. 81, providing for the zonification of Makati . Under A real party in interest is defined as “the party who stands to be
this Ordinance, Bel-Air Village was classified as a Class A benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the
Residential Zone, with its boundary in the south extending to the avails of the suit.” It is noted that the lessee who built the
center line of Jupiter Street commercial structure, it is he and he alone who stands to be
either benefited or injured by the results of the judgment in Civil
There is a perimeter wall then standing on the commercial side of Case No. 64931. He avers he is the party with real interest in the
Jupiter Street the destruction of which opened the street to the subject matter of the action, as it would be his business, not the
public. Hermosos.
ISSUE: Whether or not the MMC Ordinance represents a legitmate
exercise of police power? ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
HELD :
Undoubtedly, the MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate exercise of G.R. No. L-32312 November 25, 1983
police power. The petitioners have not shown why we should hold AURELIO TIRO vs. HONORABLE AGAPITO HONTANOSAS
otherwise other than for the supposed "non-impairment" guaranty of
the Constitution, which, as we have declared, is secondary to the more
compelling interests of general welfare. The Ordinance has not been FACTS:
shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to warrant the In Civil Case No. 11616 of the defunct Court of First Instance of
reversal of the judgments so appealed. Cebu, Zafra Financing Enterprise sued Aurelio Tiro in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Schools in Cebu City. It appears
[G.R. No. 126102. December 4, 2000] that Zafra had extended loans to public school teachers in Cebu
ORTIGAS & CO. LTD., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS City and the teachers concerned executed promissory notes and
and ISMAEL G. MATHAY III, respondents. special powers of attorney in favor of Zafra to take and collect
their salary checks from the Division Office in Cebu City of the
FACTS: Bureau of Public Schools. However, Tiro forbade the collection of
On August 25, 1976, petitioner Ortigas & Company sold to Emilia the checks on the basis of Circular No. 21, series 1969, dated
Hermoso, a parcel of land known as Lot 1, Block 21, Psd-66759, December 5, 1969, of the Director of Public Schools.
with an area of 1,508 square meters, located in Greenhills Zafra sought to compel Tiro to honor the special powers of
Subdivision IV, San Juan, Metro Manila, and covered by Transfer attorney; to declare Circular No. 21 to be illegal; and to make Tiro
Certificate of Title No. 0737. The contract of sale provided that pay attorney's fees and damages. The trial court granted the
the lot: be used exclusively…for residential purposes only, and prayer of Zafra but the claim for money was disallowed on the
not more than one single-family residential building will be
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
75
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
ground that he acted in good faith in implementing Circular No. doubt.
21. In any event, it is now beyond question that the constitutional
guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by
ISSUE: The core issue is whether or not Circular No. 21 is valid and and subject to the exercise of police power of the state in the
enforceable and the answer is definitely in the affirmative. interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. This
power can be activated at anytime to change the provisions of the
contract, or even abrogate it entirely, for the promotion or
HELD: protection of the general welfare. Such an act will not militate
The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a against the impairment clause, which is subject to and limited by
teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to the paramount police power.
him. Until that time the check belongs to the Government. Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is derived from P.D. No. 20 which has
Accordingly, before there is actual delivery of the check, the been declared by this Court as a police power legislation,
payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it without the applicable to leases entered into prior to July 14, 1971 (effectivity
consent of the Government. On this basis Circular No. 21 stands date of RA 6539), so that the applicability thereof to existing
on firm legal footing. contracts cannot be denied.
Zafra's claim that the Circular impairs the obligation of contracts Finally, petitioner invokes, among others, the promotion of social
with the teachers is baseless. For the Circular does not prevent justice policy of the New Constitution. Like P.D. No. 20, the
Zafra from collecting the loans. The Circular merely makes the objective of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is to remedy the plight of
Government a non-participant in their collection which is within its lessees, but such objective is not subject to exploitation by the
competence to do. lessees for whose benefit the law was enacted. Thus, the
prohibition provided for in the law against the sublease of the
premises without the consent of the owner. As enunciated by this
ADMIN REG - RENTAL LAWS Court, it must be remembered that social justice cannot be
invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who under
G.R. No. 77365 April 7, 1992 our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The
Caleon vs. Agus Development Corporation social justice consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to
take away rights from a person and give them to another who is
FACTS: not entitled thereto.
Respondent is the owner of a parcel of land which it leased to The petition is denied for lack of merit.
petitioner Rita Caleon for a monthly rental of P180.00. Petitioner
constructed on the lot leased a 4-door apartment building. Without the
consent of the private respondent, the petitioner sub-leased two of the ADMIN REG - TAX EXEMPTIONS
four doors of the apartment for a monthly rental of P350.00 each. Upon
learning of the sub-lease, private respondent through counsel
demanded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased premises. For G.R. No. 131359 May 5, 1999
failure of petitioner to comply with the demand, private respondent filed MERALCO vs. Province of Laguna and Benito Balazo
a complaint for ejectment against the petitioner citing as ground
therefor the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, Section 5, which is FACTS:
the unauthorized sub-leasing of part of the leased premises to third Province of Laguna by virtue of existing laws issued resolutions
persons without securing the consent of the lessor within the required through their respective municipal councils granting franchise in
sixty (60)-day period from the promulgation of the new law (B.P. 25). favor of petitioner Manila Electric Company (“MERALCO”) for the
The petitioner argued that the said law cannot be applied because supply of electric light, heat and power within their concerned
there is a perfected contract of lease without any express prohibition in areas.
subleasing which had been in effect between the parties long before On 1991, Republic Act No. 7160 was enacted to take effect on
the enactment of BP 25.
1992 enjoining local government units to create their own sources
of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges, subject to the
ISSUES:
limitations expressed therein, consistent with the basic policy of
1. WON the petitioner violated the provisions of Section 5, Batas
local autonomy. Pursuant to the provisions of the Code,
Pambansa Blg. 25 which is a ground for Ejectment.
respondent province enacted an Ordinance imposing a tax on
2. WON Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 in application to the case at bar, is
business enjoying a franchise, at a rate of fifty percent (50%) of
unconstitutional as an impairment of the obligation of contracts.
one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts, which shall include
3. WON the petitioner can invoke the promotion of social justice
both cash sales and sales on account realized during the
policy of the New Constitution.
preceding calendar year within this province, including the
territorial limits on any city located in the province.
HELD:
Based on the ordinance, respondent Provincial Treasurer sent a
The issue has already been laid to rest in the case of Duellome
demand letter to MERALCO for the corresponding tax payment.
vs. Gotico where the court ruled that the leased of the building
Petitioner paid the tax which is under protest. A formal claim for
naturally includes the lease of the lot, and the rentals of the
refund was thereafter sent by MERALCO to the Provincial
building to the lot. Under our Civil Code, the occupancy of a
Treasurer of Laguna claiming that the franchise tax it had paid
building or house not only suggests or implies the tenancy or
and continued to pay to the National Government pursuant to P.D.
possession in fact on the land on which they are constructed. In
551 already included the franchise tax imposed by the Provincial
the case at bar, it is beyond dispute that petitioner in leasing her
Tax Ordinance. MERALCO contended that the imposition of a
apartment has also subleased the lot on which it is constructed
franchise tax under Laguna Provincial Ordinance, contravened
which lot belongs to private respondent. Consequently, she has
the provisions of Section 1 of P.D. 551 which provides, “Any
violated the provisions of Section 5, Batas Pambansa Blg. 25
provision of law or local ordinance to the contrary
which enumerates the grounds for judicial ejectment, among
notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of
which is the subleasing of residential units without the written
franchises to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light,
consent of the owner/lessor.
heat and power shall be two per cent (2%) of their gross receipts
Well settled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of received from the sale of electric current and from transactions
constitutionality; one who attacks a statute, alleging incident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric
unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable current.*** Such franchise tax shall be payable…be in lieu of all
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
76
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed by any La Insular vs. Machuca
national or local authority on earnings, receipts, income and
privilege of generation, distribution and sale of electric current.” FACTS:
The claim was denied; respondents relied on a more recent law, La Insular is a commercial partnership engaged in the
Republic Act No. 7160 than the old decree invoked by petitioner. manufacture of cigars and cigarettes in the city of Manila. On
Petitioner MERALCO filed a complaint for refund. 1913, a contract was entered into between its general agent and
the two defendants, Manuel Nubla Co-Siong and Rafael Machuca
ISSUE: WON Laguna Provincial ordinance is violative of the non- Go-Tauco, whereby the plaintiff became obliged to supply
impairment clause of the Constitution and of PD No. 551. cigarettes daily to Manuel Nubla. The price was fixed at 172 per
box. Manuel is the principal obligor while Rafael Machuca bound
HELD: himself as surety, jointly and severally with Manuel Nubla. It
Local governments do not have the inherent power to tax except appears that when the contract was executed cigarettes were
to the extent that such power might be delegated to them either subject to a specific tax of the peso for each thousand cigarettes.
by the basic law or by statute. Under the now prevailing This tax was, under the law then prevailing, paid by the
Constitution, where there is neither a grant nor a prohibition by manufacturer, and the liability for said tax naturally fell upon the
statute, the tax power must be deemed to exist although plaintiff. By Act No. 2432, enacted December 23, 1914, the
Congress may provide statutory limitations and guidelines. The Philippine Legislature increased the specific tax on cigarettes
basic rationale for the current rule is to safeguard the viability and from P1 to P1.20 per thousand cigarettes, and by amendatory Act
self-sufficiency of local government units by directly granting them No. 2445, effective from January 1, 1915, it was declared that, as
general and broad tax powers. Nevertheless, the fundamental regards contracts already made for future delivery, the burden of
law did not intend the delegation to be absolute and the increased tax should, unless the parties should have
unconditional; the constitutional objective obviously is to ensure otherwise agreed, be borne by the person to whom the article
that, while the local government units are being strengthened and taxed should be furnished.
made more autonomous, the legislature must still see to it that (a) After this provision become effective, the plaintiff continued, as
the taxpayer will not be over-burdened or saddled with multiple before, to pay the internal-revenue taxes and in order to
and unreasonable impositions; (b) each local government unit will reimburse itself to the extent of the outlay incident to the increase
have its fair share of available resources; (c) the resources of the in the tax added the amount of P10 per box to the price of the
national government will not be unduly disturbed; and (d) local cigarettes. The monthly statements thereafter submitted to the
taxation will be fair, uniform, and just. purchaser by the plaintiff showed this increase; and as payments
Indicative of the legislative intent to carry out the Constitutional were from time to time made by Nubla, they were credited by the
mandate of vesting broad tax powers to local government units, plaintiff upon account, with the result that, upon the showing of
the Local Government Code has effectively withdrawn under the plaintiff's books and assuming that Nubla had been properly
Section 193 of RA 7160, tax exemptions or incentives enjoyed by charged with the increased tax, all cigarettes delivered prior to
certain entities. August 1, 1916, had been fully paid for. During the months of
August and September, however, fifty-six cases of cigarettes were
In the recent case the Court has held that the phrase in lieu of all taken by Nubla, for which no payment has been made; and for the
taxes “have to give way to the peremptory language of the Local recovery of the amount alleged to be due for these cigarettes this
Government Code specifically providing for the withdrawal of such action was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance.
exemptions, privileges,” and that “upon the effectivity of the Local Judgment having been there rendered in favor of the plaintiff, both
Government Code all exemptions except only as provided therein defendants have appealed. The trial court ruled that as a
can no longer be invoked by MERALCO to disclaim liability for the surety, Machura’s liability was limited to the payment of the price
local tax.” In fine, the Court has viewed its previous rulings as stipulated in the original contract.
laying stress more on the legislative intent of the amendatory law
– whether the tax exemption privilege is to be withdrawn or not – ISSUE: WON Legislative Acts mentioned altered the obligation of the
rather than on whether the law can withdraw, without violating the contract in question as to release the surety in his indebtedness.
Constitution, the tax exemption or not.
While the Court has, not too infrequently, referred to tax HELD:
exemptions contained in special franchises as being in the nature Article 1827 of the Civil Code declares that the liability of a surety
of contracts and a part of the inducement for carrying on the is not to be extended, by implication, beyond the terms of his
franchise, these exemptions are far from being strictly contractual contract. Well-recognized rule of jurisprudence, that if any
in nature. Contractual tax exemptions, in the real sense of the material alteration or change in the obligation of the principal
term and where the non-impairment clause of the Constitution can obligator is effected by the immediate parties to the contract,
rightly be invoked, are those agreed to by the taxing authority in without the asset of the surety, the latter is discharged. In order to
contracts, such as those contained in government bonds or effect a release of the surety, the change in the contract must, as
debentures, lawfully entered into by them under enabling laws in a general rule, be made by the principal parties to the contract.
which the government, acting in its private capacity, sheds its Indeed, no valid or effective change in the contract can, generally
cloak of authority and waives its governmental immunity. Truly, speaking, be made by any other person than the actual parties
tax exemptions of this kind may not be revoked without impairing thereto. A recognized exception — more apparent than real — is
the obligations of contracts. found in cases where sureties on official bonds have been held to
These contractual tax exemptions are not to be confused be released as a result of changes effected by the Legislature in
with tax exemptions granted under franchises. A franchise the duration of the official term or in the duties of the officer whose
partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of fidelity is intended to be secured by the bond. The law is
the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Article XII, particularly watchful over the rights of sureties. To permit parties
Section 11, of the 1987 Constitution, like its precursor provisions to alter and modify their contracts as they please, and to hold the
in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, is explicit that no sureties answerable for the performance of such parts as were
franchise for the operation of a public utility shall be granted not altered, would be transferring their responsibility, without their
except under the condition that such privilege shall be subject to consent, from one contract to another. The contract, by the
amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress as and when the modification and alternation, becomes a new and different
common good so requires. contract, and one for which the sureties never become
responsible.
Petition is dismissed.
Based on the recognized exemption, the Acts of the Legislature
G.R. No. L-13307 February 3, 1919 by which the increased tax on cigarettes was imposed neither
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS / ROOM 410
77
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS
impaired, in a constitutional sense, the obligation of the contract contract from said system to leasehold tenancy. The Ilusorios
which is the basis of this action nor changed that obligation in having refused to agree thereto, said respondents — and three
such sense as to occasion the discharge of the surety. other tenants whose claims were dismissed by the Court of
The surety is clearly bound by the application of the payments Agrarian Relations — instituted this proceedings, in said court, on
made by the creditor with the assent of the principal debtor, and November 16, 1960. The main defense set up by petitioners
no doubt that when Manuel Nubla from time to time paid the bills herein, as respondents in said court, is that the aforementioned
submitted by the plaintiff, and which, after January 1, 1915, Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, is
showed an increased of P10 per case in the price of the unconstitutional, which was rejected by the lower court. Hence
cigarettes, he very well knew that this additional amount was due this appeal in which the Ilusorios maintain: (1) that said provision
to the inclusion of the new tax paid by the plaintiff. is unconstitutional; and (2) that the lower court had acted
arbitrarily in fixing the rentals collectible by them from
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. respondents herein at 20% of the average harvest for the
agricultural years 1959-1960, 1960-1961, and 1961-1962.