Cesario Ursua vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Phil. G.R. No.
112170 April 10, 1996
Bellosillo, J.:
Facts: Petitioner was a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. A complaint against the petitioner was initiated regarding his involvement in the illegal cutting trees and illegally-cut logs in the area. The counsel for petitioner wrote a letter to the office of the Ombudsman in Davao City requesting for a furnished copy of the complaint letter against the petitioner. The counsel asked the petitioner to personally bring the letter to the office of the ombudsman because his mail man, Oscar Perez, needs to attend some personal affairs. Oscar told the petitioner to just sign his name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. The petitioner used Oscars name. However, an employee of the office of the ombudsman caught him and immediately reported to her deputy. He was charged in violation of Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R.A. 6085, illegal use of alias, and was found guilty by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The Petitioner contends that he has not violated the law since he never used any alias name. According to him, the term alias connoted the habitual use of another name by which a person is also known.
Issue: Whether or not Ursua is guilty for illegal use of alias.
Ruling: No. Statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes to be achieved and the evil sought to be remedied. The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice or would defeat the clear purpose of the law makers. No evidence were shown that the petitioner intended to use Oscar Perez in addition to his real name.
Pedro Santos To vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano G.R. No. L-55130 January 17, 1983
De Castro, J.:
Facts: Petitioner was found guilty by the respondent judge of the crime estafa for having issued a bouncing check. The petitioner filed for a probation with the respondent judge, who despite the recommendation of the Probation Office, denied the petition on the ground that the probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge erred in denying the petition for probation of the petitioner.
Ruling: The petitioner may not be disqualified from being entitled to the benefits of the probation. Some other provisions have to be sought, if any, upon which to deny petitioner the benefits of probation which, from a reading of the law in its entirety, should with liberality, rather than undue strictness, be extended to anyone not listed as disqualified. SC cannot but find the the respondents reasons for his denial of the petition for probation insufficient to justify a deviation from a policy of liberality with which the law should be applied.
Ernesto M. De Guzman vs. Hon Abelardo Subido G.R. No. L-31683 January 31, 1983
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
Facts: Petitioner Ernesto De Guzman was appointed patrolman in the Quezon City Police department by Mayor Norberto Amoranto. He was civil service eligible having taken and passed the civil service patrolmans examination. He had also passed the usual character investigation conducted before appointment. Petitioner went through and successfully completed the police training course. Petitioners appointment was forwarded to the CSC. After a year after the appointment and with no action on the appointment papers being taken by respondent, the City Treasurer and City Auditor stopped the payment of the petitioners salaries. Respondent Commissioner returned the petitioners appointment papers to the Mayor on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified for appointment under R.A. No. 4864, the Police Act of 1966. The finding was based on petitioners own answer to a question in the information sheet: Have you been accused, indicted, or tried, for the violation of any law, ordinance, or regulation, before any court or tribunal? In said question petitioner answered yes for jaywalking. The CFI dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction. According to the court, the requirement of no criminal record means without any criminal record and makes no distinction whether an act violates a state law or only a municipal or city ordinance.
Issue: Should the petitioner be disqualified from appointment to the Quezon City Police Force
Ruling: No. The requirements for applicants to a policemans position may be quite stringent but the basic policy of attracting the best qualified is not served by automatically excluding any person who in an absent minded mood or while hurrying to an urgent appointment may unwittingly have crossed a street or stepped down from the curb in violation of a jaywalking ordinance. The phrase criminal record governing qualifications for appointment could not have been intended by the Legislature e to automatically cover every violation of a municipal or city ordinance carrying a sanction of a nominal fine to enforce it. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve at least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice, or want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of the pubic office.
Hospicio Nilo vs Court of Appeals and Almario Gatchalian G.R. No. L-34586 April 2, 1984
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
Facts: Gatchalian is the owner of a parcel of Riceland at San Rafael Bulacan. The petitioner is the share-tenant of Gatchalian since the agricultural year 1964-65. The petitioner filed in Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) electing the leasehold system. Gatchalian filed an ejectment suit against the petitioner on the ground of personal cultivation under Sec. 36 (1) of Republic Act 3844. The CAR ruled in favor of Gatchalian since there was a bonafide desire to personally cultivate his own Land. A petition for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner on the ground that personal cultivation as a ground for ejectment of an agricultural lessee has been eliminated under RA No 6389. However, the Court of Appeals Denied the motion resolving that RA No 6389 has no retroactive application.
Issue: Whether or not RA 6389 should be given retroactive application.
Ruling: No. The general rule therefore, is that statutes have no retroactive effect unless otherwise provided therein. No court will hold a statute to be retroactive when the legislature has not said so. There is no indication in RA 6389 that the legislature intends the retroactive application thereof.
Unciano Paramedical College vs Court of Appeals, Hon. Tayao-Jaguros, Elena Villegas thru Victoria Villegas and Ted Magallanes thru Jacinta Magallanes G.R. No. 100335 April 7, 1993
Nocon, J.:
Facts: Elena and Ted are enrolled at the petitioner school on 1989-1990 The trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the petitioner from not enrolling the private respondents in its school. Petitioner filed an opposition prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction on the ground that the private respondents are not entitled thereto and no clear legal right to relief demanded. A Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was issued in favor of the private respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and appealed to the Court of Appeals but all were denied. The petitioners aver that according to the decision of the Supreme Court to the Alcuaz Case on May 2, 1988, a student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester only and the school is not obliged to readmit the student because the contract between them have already been terminated upon the end of the First Semester of 1989-1990. However, in the more recent case of Ariel Non promulagated on May 20, 1990, the doctrine on Alcuaz Case was abandoned (when a student registers to the school it should be understood that he enrols for the whole school year).
Issue: Whether or not the decision of the SC to the Ariel Non case be applied retroactively in the instant case.
Ruling: No. It would appear that, in the interest of justice, the holding in said case should not be given retroactive effect, that is to cases that arose before its promulgation. And according to the ruling in People vs Jabinal, that it is a well settled rule that when a doctrine of the SC is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who relied in the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.
Caltex Inc. vs Enrico Palomar G.R. No. L-19650 September 20, 1966
Castro, J.:
Facts: In 1960, the petitioner launched a promotional scheme called "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" which calls for participants to estimate the actual number of litters a hooded gas pump of each Caltex Station will dispense within a specific period. Such contest is open to all motor vehicle owners and licensed drivers. There is no required fee or consideration. The forms are available upon request at each Caltex Station and there is a sealed can where accomplished entry stubs may be deposited. Seeing the extensive use of mails for publicizing and transmission of communication purposes, Caltex sent representatives to the postal authorities for advance clearing for the use of mails for the contest. However, the respondent denied the request of Caltex in view of Sections 1954 (a), 1982 and 1983 of the Revised Administrative Code. The aforesaid sections prohibit the use of mail conveying any information concerning non-mailable schemes, such as lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme. Consequently, Caltex invoked a judicial intervention by filing a petition of declaratory relief against the respondent, ordering him to allow the petitioner to use the mails to bring the contest to the attention of the public and that the aforesaid contest does not violate the Postal Law.
Issue: Whether or not the promotional scheme of Caltex violated the Postal Law.
Ruling: In the case at bar, there is no requirement in the rules that any fee be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to participate. The scheme is merely a gratuitous distribution of property by chance which does not violate the provisions of the Postal Law. Construction is used where there is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law. Hence, the Court is tasked to look beyond the fair exterior, to the substance, in order to unmask the real element and pernicious tendencies that the law is seeking to prevent.
Statutory the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and the intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.