Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BUSTOS
Facts: In the latter part of 1915, numerous
citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled,
and prepared and signed a petition to the
Executive Secretary (privileged communication)
through the law office of Crossfield and O'Brien,
and five individuals signed affidavits, charging
Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe
and Masantol, Pampanga, with malfeasance in
office and asking for his removal. The specific
charges against the justice of the peace include
the solicitation of money from persons who have
pending cases before the judge. Now, Punsalan
alleged that accused published a writing which was
false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and
libelous against him.
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia
Question
Conclusion
2. No. The Court held that the evidence in the case did
not support the damages award under the proper
constitutional standard.
FACTS
HELD
BRIDGES VS CALIFORNIA
Question
Conclusion
FACTS
ISSUE:
HELD:
IN RE: LAURETA
Facts:
Issue
Held
The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter
of concern for the entire court.
IN RE: TULFO
Facts:
In Oct. 13, 1989, Tulfo wrote an article in his column in PDI 'On
Target' stating that the Supreme Court rendered an idiotic
decision in legalizing checkpoints, and again on Oct. 16, 1989,
where he called the Supreme Court stupid and "sangkatutak
na mga bobo justices of the Philippine Supreme Court". Tulfo
was required to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt. Tulfo said that he was just reacting emotionally
because he had been a victim of harassment in the
checkpoints, and “idiotic" meant illogical and unwise, and
"bobo" was just quoted from other attorneys, and since the
case had been decided and terminated, there was not
contempt. Lastly, the article does not pose any clear and
present danger to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Held:
Yes. At the time Tulfo wrote the article, the checkpoints case
had not yet been decided upon, and the Supreme Court was
still acting on an MR filed from the CA. There are two (2) types
of publication of newspaper comments on proceedings in
court, which have been considered in contempt proceedings,
namely: (1) those in which the object of the publication is to
affect the decision in a pending case or action, and (2) those
which have for their purpose the bringing of courts or judges
or other court officers into discredit. Tulfo's articles comprise
both types of publication. As already pointed out, at the time
his articles were written and published, the case on the
checkpoints was sub judice as the Court's decision therein had
not became final.
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
Gonzales filed a motion for reconsideration. He was found
guilty of contempt of court and of gross misconduct as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar.
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Gonzales v. Katigbak
The Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television, upon
condition that certain parts be changed and removed,
classified the motion picture “Kapit sa Patalim” as “for adults
only.”
Facts:
Ruling:
People v. Go Pin
Go Pin held an exhibition of what was alleged to be indecent
and/or immoral pictures in a recreational center.
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
US v. Apurado
Several individuals compelled the members of the municipal
council to dismiss several officials and replace them with the
people they had recommended.
Facts:
Ruling:
Malabanan v. Ramento
Student leaders at the Gregorio Araneta University, after
holding the meeting, marched towards the Life Science
building using megaphones and giving utterance to language
severely critical of the school authorities. Classes were
disturbed while the non-academic personnel’s work was
interrupted.
Facts:
Ruling:
Villar v. TIP
The facts are similar with Malabanan v. Ramento. However,
the petitioners have incurred failing grades thus were
disallowed to enrol.
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
1. Benjamin Victoriano was a member of the Iglesia ni
Cristo and was employed by Elizalde Rope Factory,
Inc. since 1958. He was a member of the Workers’
Union, whose collective bargaining agreement with
the company provided that “[m]embership in the
Union shall be required as a condition of employment
for all permanent employees.”
2. Republic Act 3350 was enacted on June 18, 1961. It
introduced amendment to Section 4[4(a)] of RA 875.
Said section of RA 875 did not preclude the employer
from making an agreement with a labor organization
to require as a condition of employment membership
therein, if such labor organization is the
representative of the employees. However, due to
the amendment introduced by RA 3350, such
agreement (between employer and labor
organization) shall not cover members of any
religious sect which prohibit affiliation of their
members in any such labor organization.
3. Being a member of a religious sect which prohibits
affiliation of its members with any labor organization,
Victoriano tendered his resignation to the Union in
1962. However, no action was taken by the Union;
thus, petitioner reiterated his resignation 12 years
later. The Union, on the other end, wrote a formal
letter to the Company asking for the separation of
Victoriano from service as he was resigning from the
Union as a member.
4. The management in turn notified Victoriano and his
counsel that unless they (Victoriano) could achieve a
satisfactory arrangement with the Union, the
Company would be constrained to dismiss him from
service.
Ruling:
In re: Edillon
Atty. Edillon did not want to pay the membership dues. He
questioned the so-called infringement of the integration of the
Integrated Bar on right to association.
Facts:
Ruling:
Subido v. Ozaeta
Petitioner wanted the Register of Deeds of Manila, in
compliance to Justice Circular No. 128, to furnish him a list of
real estates sold to aliens and registered with the Register of
Deeds of Manila.
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
Facts:
Ruling:
vs.
Facts:
On June 11, 1987, the SSS filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction against petitioners, alleging that on
June 9, 1987, the officers and members of SSSEA staged an
illegal strike and baricaded the entrances to the SSS Building,
preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work
and SSS members from transacting business with the SSS; that
the strike was reported to the Public Sector Labor -
Management Council, which ordered the strikers to return to
work; that the strikers refused to return to work; and that the
SSS suffered damages as a result of the strike. The complaint
prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin
the strike and that the strikers be ordered to return to work;
that the defendants (petitioners herein) be ordered to pay
damages; and that the strike be declared illegal.
It appears that the SSSEA went on strike after the SSS failed to
act on the union's demands, which included: implementation
of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) on check-off of union dues; payment of
accrued overtime pay, night differential pay and holiday pay;
conversion of temporary or contractual employees with six (6)
months or more of service into regular and permanent
employees and their entitlement to the same salaries,
allowances and benefits given to other regular employees of
the SSS; and payment of the children's allowance of P30.00,
and after the SSS deducted certain amounts from the salaries
of the employees and allegedly committed acts of
discrimination and unfair labor practices.
Issue:
Held:
People vs Ferrer
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that when the act is viewed in its
actual operation, it will be seen that it does not specify the
Communist Party of the Philippines or the member thereof for
the purpose of punishment. What it does is simple to declare
the party to be an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of
the Government for the purposes of the prohibition.
The term "Communist Party of the Philippines" issues solely for
definitional purposes. In fact the act applies not only to the
Communist Party of the Philippines but also to "any
organization having the same purpose and their successors."
Its focus is not on individuals but on conduct.
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Question Hour:
In aid of Legislation:
But even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still
recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry, which
exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege”. This
is the power of the government to withhold information from
the public, the courts, and the Congress. This is recognized only
to certain types of information of a sensitive character. When
Congress exercise its power of inquiry, the only way for
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a
valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact
that they are department heads. Only one official may be
exempted from this power -- the President.
Section 2 & 3 of E.O. 464 requires that all the public officials
enumerated in Section 2(b) should secure the consent of the
President prior to appearing before either house of Congress.
The enumeration is broad. In view thereof, whenever an
official invokes E.O.464 to justify the failure to be present, such
invocation must be construed as a declaration to Congress that
the President, or a head of office authorized by the President,
has determined that the requested information is privileged.