Ma Graciela A.

Cuenco
Section 1 – A – 1
LEGAL RESEARCH
1. The United States VS Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-5272
March 19, 1910
J. Carson

Facts of the Case –

The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a Cook where at the same time; Pascual Gualberto was engaged as a
Muchacho at “Officers’ quarters No. 27’ at Fort McKinley, Rizal Province. Both of them occupied a small room
detached from the main house, with vines growing all over. It had a small window and a door secured by only a hook
thus, they sometime secure it with a chair. More so, Ah Chong and Gualberto were known have a friendly and
amicable relation. They also agreed that upon returning late at night, either of them shall knock at the door and
acquaint the other of his identity.

On the evening of August 14, 1908, the defendant, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by a loud noise of someone
forcefully trying to open the door. He called out twice “Who’s there?” but there was no answer. The room was dark,
and there was no way he could escape from the window. He jolted upright and warned the “intruder' not to enter, else
“I will kill you”. At that moment, the door went flying open and Ah Chong was struck by the chair. He thought the
intruder had hit him, and so, he took the knife from under his pillow and stabbed him wildly with it. The supposed
intruder fled outside deeply wounded. Ah Chong followed him, who immediately recognized his roommate at
moonlight. He then called to his employers who slept in the next house, and tend to Pascual’s wounds with
bandages.

A couple of robberies in the area not long prior the incident, including one where they are employed, took place;
explaining why the defendant kept a kitchen knife under his pillow for personal protection.

Unfortunately, Pascual Gualberto passed a day after the incident, due to the effects of his fatal wounds on the
stomach.

The trial court charged the defendant, Ah Chong, Guilty with Simple Homicide and sentenced to six years and one
day Presidio Mayor.

Issues –
Whether or not, the defendant can be held criminally liable for the crime of Simple Homicide.

Held/Rationale –
No.

As per Article 1 of the Penal Code:

1. Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law;
2. Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the contrary shall appear;
3. A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the
wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit.

Therefore, acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed voluntarily and with malice, in order that the
perpetrator may be held criminally liable

By the above-mentioned situation, on how the offense took place, it is safe to say that the defendant held no criminal
liability upon his actions, as he only acted by reason of a mistake as to the facts.
To reference Article 8 of the Penal Code:
The following are not delinquent, and therefore are exempt from criminal liability;
4. He who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are the following attendant circumstances:
a. Illegal aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defending himself.

Ah Chong’s situation calls exemption from criminal liability, as he only acted out on the notion that there is an intruder
trying to get hold of his space. And with full knowledge that him and Gualberto agreed to some terms considering
their living conditions, it is in the belief that the defendant was only practicing his legitimate rights to self-defense, and
that negligence or recklessness on his acts of defending himself was lacking. It is also important to note the
significance of how the situation presented itself to the defendant, which might justify his means of responding.

Therefore under the defendant’s circumstances, there is no criminal liability, and it is evident that he only committed
the acts purely based on how he perceived the situation was, and to defend himself and his property.
2. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines VS Philippine Airlines Inc., et al.
G.R. No, 178083
March 13, 2018
Bersamin, J.

Facts –
On the 15th of June 1998 with an effective date of 15th July 1998, Philippine Airlines (PAL) retrenched not less than
1,400 of its employees in light of the financial crisis, and financial rehabilitation it was facing. Accordingly, Flight
Attendants and Stewards Association of the Phillipines (FASAP) found the action unlawful and in bad faith, and filed
a case against PAL.

The Labor Arbiter found the retrenchment illegal, but the said Decision was negated by NLRC, when PAL appealed it
to the higher courts. The CA affirmed as well, NLRC decision. In lieu to this, FASAP filed an MR on the Supreme
Courts, until it arrived to the decision of July 22, 2008.

Although, it was evident in this period that the 3rd Division has a different take compared to the CA, in regards to
PAL’s claim of serious financial losses which later on became the basis in seeing the retrenchment an unlawful
implementation and in bad faith. The division was also not convinced by PAL’s changed in theory (strike of nearly
600 pilots) as to why they went on with the retrenchment.

PAL wasn’t satisfied with the findings and filed for Motions for Reconsideration on decision of October 9, 2009 and
July 22, 2008. Due to the SC’s reorganization, the case was endorsed to 1st Division and then to the 2nd Division due
to seating personnel’s Personal Reason. The case came to a Decision via the 2nd Division, denying PAL of its
request for MR. Thereafter, PAL’s Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza and his legal counsel, sent a series of letter inquiring as
to the reason the case’s successive transfers.

On October 4, 2011 the inquiry was heard and to avoid any further damage, the Court en Banc issued a resolution
and took jurisdiction over the case. It was then re-opened and re-raffled. The case was awarded to the previous
division’s (3rd Division) remaining members.

FASAP disagreed and argued that the resolution isn’t valid and that the case had reach finality long before. They
again stressed on the issues of (1) PAL having acted on bad faith in lieu of Retrenchment, (2) PAL’s failure to submit
supplementary documents proving its financial crisis, and (3) PAL’s failure to observe the proper criterion in choosing
whom to retrench.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is that PAL is eligible for the MRs, and they have reversed their decision on July 22,
2008 and October 2, 2009, and adapted the CA’s ruling.

Issues –
1. Whether or not, PAL is eligible of their request to Second Motion for Reconsideration on the July 22, 2008
decision.
2. Whether or not, PAL practiced unlawful labor practice in their retrenchment program;
3. Whether or not, PAL is still required to provide supplemental document in proving their critical financial
situation.

Held/Rationale –
1. Yes
The PAL may be granted the MRs, taking into consideration, how their party wasn’t made fully aware of the
facts behind its successive transfers. It is also important to note that the decision may be final and
 executory, only if both PAL and FASAP agreed with the result, which is evidently lacking in the case
considering that PAL filed for numerous Motions for Reconsideration.
There is also the IRSC that allows exception to cases wherein there is higher interest of justice when the
assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of
causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. Thus, we can say that the Court en
Banc only practiced its right to execute a sensible and justifiable preceedings.

2. No.
It is vital to honor the fact that FASAP, upon having known that PAL is facing financial difficulties,
cooperated with the latter in devising the criterion in choosing whom to retrench if the need arises. They also
offered suggestions which might aid to the airlines’ situation

Evident in the program as well, is the fact that PAL observed the conditions needed to consider
RETRENCHMENT or Downsizing as a lawful act. They were forced to act on a drastic measure simply
because the Financial Loss is palpable and any other minor damage-control can no longer save the
situation. To add, the mere fact that they’ve been engaged to a Financial Rehabilitation and opened their
doors to investors, is an obvious reason there is something serious going on internally.

3. No,
On the previous courts the case was held, they did not require PAL to provide the Audited financial
statements, as the Global circumstance and internal situation (e.g. Notice of Payables) justified itself. But
this was looked through by the 3rd division, and insisted PAL failed to prove their critical financial situation.

It was also known that even the Security Exchange Commission honored PAL’s claims to a dire financial
situation.