You are on page 1of 7

Orencia v. Enrile Case No. 92G.R. No.

L-28997 (February 22, 1974) FACTS: Petitioner is alleging that he is the deputy clerk of court of the Clerks of Court Division of the Land Registration Commission, and he has been performing functions of Assistant Chief of said division and has been considered and recognized as such until RA 4040, increasing the salaries of Assistant Chiefs of Divisions, among others, was implemented where he was left out while co-assistant chief of the nine other divisions of the Land Registration Commission were so recognized and extended increased compensation. Respondents filed their answer, and after usual admissions and denials, interposed a defense that Petitioner is unqualified for the position of Assistant Chief, and being a new position created under RA 4040, the same can only be filed by a qualified person; that Respondent, being a lawyer, is more qualified than Petitioner, who is only a high school graduate with second grade civil service eligibility, and praying that the petition be dismissed ISSUE: W/N the Petitioner should be recognized as the deputy clerk of court of the Clerks of Court Division of the Land Registration Commission. HELD: For Respondent officials, the answer was not in doubt. Since there was a new legal provision to be construed, one which admittedly, to follow the approach of counsel for Petitioner, has an ambiguous aspect, they chose to follow the principle that a public office is a public trust. Certainly, such a contemporaneous construction, one moreover dictated by the soundest constitutional postulate, is entitled to the highest respect from the judiciary.

Aisporna v. Court of Appeals and People Case No. 6G.R. No. L-39419 (April 12, 1982)Chapter VI, Page 248, Footnote No. 8 FACTS: Petitioner Mrs. Aisporna was charged with violation of Sec. 189 o f t h e Insurance Act for allegedly acting as an insurance agent without first securing a certificate of authority to act as such from the office of the Insurance Commissioner. Mrs. Aisporna, however, maintained that she was not liable because she only assisted her husband, and that she did not receive any compensation. ISSUE: W/N the receipt of compensation is an essential element for violation of Sec.189. HELD: Receipt of compensation is essential to be considered an insurance agent. Every part of a statute must be considered together with the other parts, a kept s u b s e r v i e n t t o t h e g e n e r a l i n t e n t o f t h e e n a c t m e n t , a n d n o t s e p a r a t e l y a n d independently. The term agent used in par. 1 of Sec. 189 is defined in par. 2 of the same section. Applying the definition of an insurance agent in par. 2 to the agent in par. 1 would give harmony to the aforementioned 3 paragraphs of Sec. 189. A statute must be construed so as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions wherever possible. Every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.

China Banking Corporation v. Ortega Case No. 21G.R. No. L-34964 (January 31, 1973) FACTS: A complaint was filed against B&B Forest Development Corporation for the collection of a sum of money. The trial court declared the said corporation in default. The Plaintiff sought the garnishment of the bank deposit of B&B Forest with current Petitioner Bank. Thus, a notice of garnishment was issued by the Deputy Sheriff and served on Petitioner Bank through its cashier, Tan Kim Liong. He refused to disclose the sought information, citing the provisions of RA 1405 which prohibits the disclosure of any information relative to bank deposits to any person except upon written permission of the depositor. Furthermore, RA 1405 also imposes criminal liability on any official or employee of a banking institution who breaks the confidential nature of this law. ISSUE: W/N a banking institution may validly refuse to comply with a court process garnishing the bank deposit of a judgment debtor, by invoking RA 1405. HELD: No. It was not the intention of the lawmakers to place bank deposits beyond the reach of execution to satisfy a final judgment. The discussion of the conference committee report of the two houses of Congress indicates that the prohibition against examination of or inquiry into a bank deposit under RA 1405 does not preclude its being garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment.

Prasnik v. Republic of the Philippines Case No. 125G.R. No. L-8639 (March 23, 1956) FACTS: Petitioner seeks to adopt four children which he claims to be his and Paz Vasquez children without the benefit of marriage. The Solicitor General opposed this stating that Art. 338 of the Civil Code allows a natural child to be adopted by his father refers only to a child who has not been acknowledged as natural child. It maintains that in order that a natural child may be adopted by his natural father or mother there should not be an acknowledgment of the status of the natural child for it will go against Art. 335. ISSUE: W/N the Civil Code allows for the adoption of acknowledged natural children of the father or mother. HELD: The law intends to allow adoption whether the child be recognized or not. If the intention were to allow adoption only to unrecognized children, Article 338 would be of no useful purpose. The rights of an acknowledged natural child are much less than those of a legitimated child. Contending that this is unnecessary would deny the illegitimate children the chance to acquire these rights. The trend when it comes to adoption of children tends to go toward the liberal. The law does not prohibit the adoption of an acknowledged natural child which when compared to a natural child is equitable. An acknowledged natural child is a natural child also and following the words of the law, they should be allowed adoption.

People v. Concepcion Case No. 205G.R. No. 19190 (November 29, 1922)Chapter IV, Page 176, Footnote No.202 FACTS Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favor of Puno Y Concepcion,S. en C, a co- partnership. Defendants wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant was found guilty of violating Sec. 35 of Act No. 2747 which says that The National Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the members of the Board of Directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks. This Section was in effect in 1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938 approved on January 30, 1921. ISSUE W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747, which were repealed by Act No. 2938. HELD: In the interpretation and construction, the primary rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Section 49 in relation to Sec. 25 of Act No.2747 provides a punishment for any person who shall violate any provisions of the Act. Defendant contends that the repeal of these Sections by Act No. 2938 has served to take away basis for criminal prosecution. The Court holds that where an act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former act which penalized the same offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the Courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law.

De Jesus v. City of Manila Case No. 86G.R. No. L-9337 (December 24, 1914)Chapter IV, Page 134, Footnote No.41 FACTS: In 1907, Petitioner bought from an original owner a piece of land in Manila which was under the Torrens system. Apparently, the original owner incorrectly declared the size of the land. So, from 1901 1907, the original owner was paying lesser taxes than he should have and same for Petitioner from 1907 1910. Upon finding out that he was not paying the correct amount of taxes, Petitioner paid the taxes, fees, and interest of P2, 096.49 for the unpaid balance of the years 1901-1910.Soon after, he protested and filed an action to recover the same amount. Petitioner was awarded P1, 649.82.Petitioner contends that the supposed taxes from before 1910 were not actually taxes because they had not yet been assessed. Taxes may not be due and payable until they are assessed. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner should still pay the taxes which were not assessed before. HELD: Petitioner should only pay the taxes when he was the owner of the property.

The plaintiff is liable for all taxes and assessments which were levied or assessed, or which might have been levied or assessed, during his ownership of the lands. It appears that he realized that he was so liable and has paid the taxes for the years 1907 to 1910. He claims only the right to recover for the taxes paid for the years previous to the date of his purchase; and those taxes not having been either due or payable and not having ever been assessed or levied prior to the time when he purchased the land, his contention is well founded. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Regalado v. Yulo Case No. 255G.R. No. L-42293 (February 13, 1935)Chapter II, Page 55, Footnote No.25 FACTS: Petitioner was Justice of Peace of Malinao, Albay. On November 16, 1931, Act No. 3899 which provided for the age retirement among justices was approved. Afew years later, Petitioner became 65 years of age (age retirement as provided bySec. 203 of the Administrative Code, amended further by Act. No.3899). Shortly thereafter, Esteban T. Villar was appointed as Justice of Peace to take the place of Petitioner. On December 17, 1934, Villar assumed office. ISSUE: W/N under the provisions of Section 203 of the Administrative Code, as further amended by Act No. 3899, the Justices of Peace and auxiliary justices appointed prior to the approval of the Act shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of65. HELD: Justices appointed prior to the approval of the Act will not be affected by said amendment (Act No. 3899).