SIMON VS.

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Simon, et. al. to "desist from further demolition, with the warning
GR 100150, 5 JANUARY 1994
that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and
Vitug J
arrest." A motion to dismiss, dated 10 September 1990, questioned

CHR's jurisdiction. During the 12 September 1990 hearing, Simon,
Facts: A "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July 1990, signed by Carlos et. al. moved for postponement, arguing that the motion to dismiss
Quimpo in his capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City set for 21 September 1990 had yet to be resolved, and likewise
Integrated Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the manifested that they would bring the case to the courts. In an
City Mayor, was sent to, and received by, the Roque Fermo, et. al. Order, dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited Simon, et. al. in
(being the officers and members of the North Edsa Vendors contempt for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari
Association, Incorporated). In said notice, Fermo, et. al. were given stores and carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a
a grace-period of 3 days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate fine of P500.00 on each of them.

the premises of North EDSA. Prior to their receipt of the demolition

notice, Fermo, et. al. were informed by Quimpo that their stalls On 1 March 1991, the CHR issued an Order, denying Simon,
should be removed to give way to the "People's Park".
et.al.'s motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss. In an

Order, dated 25 April 1991, Simon, et. al.'s motion for
On 12 July 1990, the group, led by their President Roque Fermo, reconsideration was denied. Simon, et. al. filed the petition for
filed a letter-complaint (Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay) with prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and preliminary
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) against Brigido R. Simon, injunction, questioning the extent of the authority and power of the
Carlos Quimpo, Carlito Abelardo, and Generoso Ocampo, asking CHR, and praying that the CHR be prohibited from further hearing
the late CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista for a letter to be and investigating CHR Case 90 1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs.
addressed to then Mayor Simon of Quezon City to stop the Quimpo, et al."

demolition of Fermo, et. al.'s stalls, sari-sari stores, and carinderia

along North EDSA (CHR Case 90-1580).
Issue: Whether the CHR has the power to issue the order to

desist against the demolition of Fermo, et. al.s stalls, and to cite
On 23 July 1990, the CHR issued an Order, directing Simon, et. al. Mayor Simon, et. al. for contempt for proceeding to demolish said
"to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA stalls despite the CHR order.

pending resolution of the vendors/squatters' complaint before the

Commission" and ordering Simon, et. al. to appear before the CHR. Held: Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision
On the basis of the sworn statements submitted by Fermo, et. al. empowering the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on
on 31 July 1990, as well as CHR's own ocular inspection, and its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
convinced that on 28 July 1990 Simon, et. al. carried out the violations involving civil and political rights." Recalling the
demolition of Fermo, et. al.'s stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia, deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it is readily
the CHR, in its resolution of 1 August 1990, ordered the apparent that the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human
disbursement of financial assistance of not more than P200,000.00 Rights that would focus its attention to the more severe cases of
in favor of Fermo, et. al. to purchase light housing materials and human rights violations; such areas as the "(1) protection of rights
food under the Commission's supervision and again directed of political detainees, (2) treatment of prisoners and the prevention
of tortures, (3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of disappearances,
(5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6) other crimes committed
against the religious." While the enumeration has not likely been
meant to have any preclusive effect, more than just expressing a
statement of priority, it is, nonetheless, significant for the tone it has
set. In any event, the delegates did not apparently take comfort in
peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the CHR's scope of
investigatorial jurisdiction. They have thus seen it fit to resolve,
instead, that "Congress may provide for other cases of violations of
human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission,
taking into account its recommendation." Herein, there is no cavil
that what are sought to be demolished are the stalls, sari-sari
stores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties, erected by
Fermo, at. al. on a land which is planned to be developed into a
"People's Park." More than that, the land adjoins the North EDSA of
Quezon City which, the Court can take judicial notice of, is a busy
national highway. The consequent danger to life and limb is thus to
be likewise simply ignored. It is indeed paradoxical that a right
which is claimed to have been violated is one that cannot, in the
first place, even be invoked, if its is not, in fact, extant. Be that as it
may, looking at the standards vis-a-vis the circumstances obtaining
herein, the Court not prepared to conclude that the order for the
demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia of Fermo, et.
al. can fall within the compartment of "human rights violations
involving civil and political rights" intended by the Constitution. On
its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to
"adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of
Court." Accordingly, the CHR acted within its authority in providing
in its revised rules, its power "to cite or hold any person in direct or
indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in
accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the
Rules of Court." That power to cite for contempt, however, should
be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted operational
guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its
investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt
could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with
the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who
decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative
work. The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining
order) herein, however, is not investigatorial in character but
prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess. As
held in Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights, "The constitutional provision directing the CHR to
'provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need
protection' may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the
Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, it
that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said
so. 'Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law'. It is
never derived by implication. Evidently, the 'preventive measures
and legal aid services' mentioned in the Constitution refer to
extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of preliminary
injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on
behalf of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of
justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ
of preliminary injunction may only be issued `by the judge of any
court in which the action is pending [within his district], or by a
Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. A writ of
preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a
pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the
rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose."
ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS 5. The provision of Section 2 of the challenged ordinance prohibits
ASSOCIATION, INC. vs.
a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such hotels,
THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA
motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied
G.R. No. L-24693. July 31, 1967
by parents or a lawful guardian.

Fernando, J.



ISSUE: Whether Ordinance No. 4760 is violative of the due process
FACTS: The principal question in this appeal from a judgment of clause, hence unconstitutional.

the lower court in an action for prohibition is whether Ordinance No.

4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause.
HELD: NO. The mantle of protection associated with the due

process guaranty does not cover petitioners. The assailed
The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on ordinance in this case, which is a measure of police power, is
July 5, 1963 by the petitioners, Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel specifically aimed to safeguard public morals. It aims to do
Operators Association(lets call it Association for brevity, okie?), one something about the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution,
of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and a certain Go Chiu, who is adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the
"the president and general manager of the second petitioner" existence of motels. As a measure of police power, it is immune
against the respondent Mayor of the City of Manila.
from any imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and

unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be
The Association asserted that the ordinance was unconstitutional to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has
because:
been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the
1. It was beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of less limitable of powers extending as it does to all great public
Manila to enact insofar as it would regulate motels, on the ground needs.

that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or in any other law,

no reference is made to motels;
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It
2. Section 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and furnishes though a standard to which the governmental action
void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in
it would impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard of due
P4,500.00 for second class motels;
process which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive
3. It requires the owners or managers of the motels/hotels to refrain requisite to free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental
from letting probable customers to enter without first accomplishing action for that matter, from the imputation of legal infirmity sufficient
the prescribed forms, in a lobby open to public view at all times. to spell its doom? It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason,
The said form also asks for personal information such as surname, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is
citizenship, passport number, date of birth, address etc.
ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process
4. It requires that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels requirement, official action, must not outrun the bounds of reason
and lodging houses to be open for inspection either by the City and result in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any
Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly authorized official action marred by lack of reasonableness. Correctly it has
representatives.

been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven (445,377) shares of
of the sporting idea of fair play.
stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc.

The provision in Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila, making it On April 14, 2011, petitioner received an Order3 signed by
unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. requiring him and his co-
representative of any hotel, motel, lodging house, tavern or respondents to submit their respective written explanations under
common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or portion thereof oath. In compliance therewith, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss
more than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam manifesting that a case involving the
payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression same transaction and charge of grave misconduct entitled, "Rustico
against the command of due process. The prohibition is neither B. Tutol, et al. v. Prospero Pichay, et al.", and docketed as OMB-C-
unreasonable nor arbitrary, because there appears a A-10-0426-I, is already pending before the Office of the

correspondence between the undeniable existence of an Ombudsman.

undesirable situation and the legislative attempt at correction.

Moreover, every regulation of conduct amounts to curtailment of ISSUE

liberty, which cannot be absolute.
Whether E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for abrogating unto an

administrative office a quasi-judicial function through and E.O. and
PICHAY V. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY not through legislative enactment by Congress.

(2012)


ODES no power to try and decide cases E.O. No. 13 empowering HELD

it is unconstitutional
NO.


The President has Continuing Authority to Reorganize the
FACTS
Executive Department under E.O. 292. In the case of Buklod ng
On November 15, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora the Court affirmed that the President's
issued Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC and authority to carry out a reorganization in any branch or agency of
transferring its functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive the executive department is an express grant by the legislature by
Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more particularly to its virtue of Section 31, Book III, E.O. 292

newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD).
(the Administrative Code of 1987), "the President, subject to the

policy of the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity,
On April 6, 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to
filed before the IAD-ODESLA a complaint-affidavit for grave reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the
misconduct against petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Chairman of President."

the Board of Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration

(LWUA), as well as the incumbent members of the LWUA Board of The law grants the President this power in recognition of the
Trustees, namely, Renato Velasco, Susana Dumlao Vargas, recurring need of every President to reorganize his office "to
Bonifacio Mario M. Pena, Sr. and Daniel Landingin, which
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." The Office of the
arose from the purchase by the LWUA of Four Hundred Forty-Five
President is the nerve center of the

Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office of On the other hand, the ODESLA, to which the functions of the
the President must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by PAGC have now been transferred, is an office within the Office of
the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his directives the President Proper. Since both of these offices belong to the
and policies. After all, the Office of the President is the command Office of the President Proper, the reorganization by way of
post of the President. (Emphasis supplied)
abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the ODESLA
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to is allowable under Section 31 (1) of E.O. 292.

a division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within

the prerogative of the President under his continuing "delegated What actions does reorganization include?

legislative authority to reorganize" his own office pursuant to E.O.

292.
The Reorganization Did not Entail the Creation of a New, Separate

and Distinct Office. The abolition of the PAGC did not require the
The President's power to reorganize the Office of the President creation of a new, additional and distinct office as the duties and
under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 should be distinguished functions that pertained to the defunct anti-graft body were simply
from his power to reorganize the Office of the President Proper. transferred to the ODESLA, which is an existing office within the
Under Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the President can reorganize the Office of the President Proper. The reorganization required

Office of the President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or no more than a mere alteration of the administrative structure of the

merging units, or by transferring functions from one unit to another. ODESLA through the establishment of a third division the
In contrast, under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, the
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division through which ODESLA
President's power to reorganize offices outside the Office of the could take on the additional functions it has been tasked to
President Proper but still within the Office of the
discharge under E.O. 13.

President is limited to merely transferring functions or agencies

from the Office of the President to Departments or gencies, and Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the
vice versa.
existing structure of government offices or units therein, including

the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them. It
The distinction between the allowable organizational actions under involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or
Section 31(1) on the one hand and Section 31 (2) and (3) on the abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.

other is crucial not only as it affects employees' tenurial security but The IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body not
also insofar as it touches upon the validity of the reorganization, vested with quasi-judicial powers.

that is, whether the executive actions undertaken fall within the

limitations prescribed under E.O. 292. When the
While the term "adjudicatory" appears part of its appellation, the
PAGC was created under E.O. 12, it was composed of a Chairman IAD-ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its authority being
and two (2) Commissioners who held the ranks of Presidential limited to the conduct of investigations, preparation of reports and
Assistant II and I, respectively,9 and was placed directly "under the submission of recommendations. E.O. 13 explicitly states that the
Office of the President."
IAD- ODESLA shall "perform powers, functions and duties xxx, of

PAGC."

Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to "investigate or of probable cause and the adjudication of the merits of a criminal
hear administrative cases or complaints against all presidential accusation, the investigative authority of the IAD- ODESLA is
appointees in the government" and to "submit its report and
limited to that of a fact-finding investigator whose determinations
recommendations to the President." The IAD-ODESLA is a fact- and recommendations remain so until acted upon by the President.

finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having the Finally, petitioner doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully perform
power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases. As the Court its duties as an impartial tribunal, contending that both the IAD-
ruled in Cario v. Commission on Human Rights, and later ODESLA and respondent Secretary Purisima are connected to the
reiterated in Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission:
President. The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice to
Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the invalidate the actions of the IAD-ODESLA. Mere allegation is not
judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi- judicial equivalent to proof. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed.
agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and Petitioner must present substantial proof to show that

ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably sided against him in the conduct
function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence of the investigation. No such evidence has been presented as to
and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must
defeat the presumption of regularity in the performance of the fact-
be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual
finding investigator's duties. The assertion, therefore, deserves
conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or scant consideration.

determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such

appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.
Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and
The IAD-ODESLA does not encroach upon the powers and duties to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal
of the Ombudsman.
breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.39

Petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proving the illegality
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the IAD-ODESLA did not of E.O. 13, which IS indubitably a valid exercise of the President's
encroach upon the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction when it took continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President.

cognizance of the complaint affidavit filed against him

notwithstanding the earlier filing of criminal and administrative

cases involving the same charges and allegations before the Office WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and
of the Ombudsman. The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to STA. MESA TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
investigate and prosecute cases refers to criminal cases cognizable CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR
by the Sandiganbayan and not to administrative cases. It is only in
ALFREDO S. LIM, G.R. No. 122846/ January 20, 2009/ Tinga, J.:

the exercise of its primary jurisdiction that the Ombudsman may, at

any time, take over the investigation being conducted by another Doctrines: The Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas (high
investigatory agency.
seriousness) alone. Indeed, it is those "trivial" yet fundamental

freedoms which the people reflexively exercise any day without
Section 15 (1) of R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
the impairing awareness of their constitutional consequence that
While the Ombudsman's function goes into the determination of the accurately reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people.

existence

The exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, The RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and
liberty or property is affected.
void. The RTC noted that the ordinance "strikes at the personal

liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded by the
The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose Constitution."

claim to privacy and interference demands respect. The right to Before the Court of Appeals, the City asserted that the Ordinance is
privacy, independently of its identification with liberty, in itself, is a valid exercise of police power pursuant to the Local Government
fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers Code which confers on cities, among other local government units,
should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the the power: [To] regulate the establishment, operation and
citizen.
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels,

inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar
Facts: This Petition challenges the validity of Manila City Ordinance establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The
No. 7774 entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-Time Admission, Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the
Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in City under Article III, Section 18(kk) of the Revised Manila Charter,
Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and Similar thus:

Establishments in the City of Manila" (the Ordinance). City Mayor

Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance.
Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void

since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it
The Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and
complaint for declaratory relief with prayer for a writ of preliminary oppressive interference in their business.

injunction and/or temporary restraining order. MTDC prayed that

the Ordinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as among its The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the
prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional.
constitutionality of the Ordinance.

MTDC claimed that as owner and operator of the Victoria Court in

Malate, Manila it was authorized by P.D. No. 259 to admit Issue: Is the Ordinance a valid exercise of police power?

customers on a short time basis as well as to charge customers

wash up rates for stays of only three hours.
Held: No. However well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in

effect an arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the
Petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC), Titanium Corporation establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance needlessly
(TC) and Sta. Mesa Tourist and Development Corporation (STDC) restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as well
filed a motion to intervene on the ground that the Ordinance directly as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient
affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and justification. The Ordinance rashly equates wash rates and renting
motels in Manila. The three companies are components of the Anito out a room more than twice a day with immorality without
Group of Companies which owns and operates several hotels and accommodating innocuous intentions.

motels in Metro Manila.



For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform
to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene
the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but
may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public
policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.
privacy, independently of its identification with liberty, in itself, is
Viewed cynically, one might say that the infringed rights of these
customers were trivial since they seem shorn of political
consequence. Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished
rights that, when proscribed, would impel the people to tear up their
cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas (high
seriousness) alone.
renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are
Indeed, it is those "trivial" yet fundamental freedoms which the
people reflexively exercise any day without the impairing
awareness of their constitutional consequence that accurately
reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people.
abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups
Liberty, as integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the
Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of
what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere of
freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother
presence as they interact with each other, their society and nature,
in a manner innately understood by them as inherent, without doing
harm or injury to others.
heavy instrument. The Ordinance makes no distinction between
It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is
the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this
Court that the subject establishments "have gained notoriety as
venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications in Manila since they
provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence
and exit and thus became the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-
seekers."
Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is
accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior
among willing married or consenting single adults which is
constitutionally protectedwill be curtailed as well.
The concept of liberty compels respect for the individual whose
claim to privacy and interference demands respect. The right to
fully deserving of constitutional protection. Governmental powers
should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the
citizen.
Other legitimate activities would be proscribed or impaired by the
Ordinance. There are very legitimate uses for a wash rate or
known to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power
is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish
to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for
of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a
few hours with purposes other than having sex or using illegal
drugs can legitimately look to staying in a motel or hotel as a
convenient alternative.
Similar to the Comelec resolution requiring newspapers to donate
advertising space to candidates, this Ordinance is a blunt and
places frequented by patrons engaged in illicit activities and patrons
engaged in legitimate actions. Thus it prevents legitimate use of
places where illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain
reading of section 3 of the Ordinance shows it makes no
classification of places of lodging, thus deems them all susceptible
to illicit patronage and subject them without exception to the
unjustified prohibition.
The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to curtail is in fact already
prohibited and could in fact be diminished simply by applying
existing laws. Less intrusive measures such as curbing the
proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through active police flowering tops. As a result of the discovery of the presence of
work would be more effective in easing the situation. So would the marijuana in the union office and after the police conducted an
strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing investigation of the incident, a complaint against the 13 union
prostitution and drug use. (*santos*)
officers was filed before the Fiscals Office of Manila. RTC acquitted

the accused. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the
Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance can easily be decision of the trial court.

circumvented by merely paying the whole day rate without any

hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities. Moreover, drug ISSUE:

dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect "wash rates" from their Whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of
clientele by charging their customers a portion of the rent for motel constitutional rights?

rooms and even apartments.



HELD:


Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code,
SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. and JOSE MARCEL allows so.

PANLILIO, vs.


ROGELIO S. SOLUTA, JOSELITO SANTOS, EDNA BERNATE, ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
VICENTA DELOLA, FLORENTINO MATILLA, and GLOWHRAIN- who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
SILAHIS UNION CHAPTER
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties
G.R. No. 163087 February 20, 2006
of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: x x x x

FACTS:



In the present case, petitioners had, by their own claim, already
Loida Somacera (Loida), a laundrywoman of the hotel, stayed received reports in late 1987 of illegal activities and Maniego
overnight at the female locker room at the basement of the hotel. At conducted surveillance. Yet, in the morning of January 11, 1988,
dawn, she heard pounding sounds outside, she saw five men in petitioners and their companions barged into and searched the
barong tagalog whom she failed to recognize but she was sure union office without a search warrant, despite ample time for them
were not employees of the hotel, forcibly opening the door of the to obtain one.

union office. In the morning, as union officer Soluta was trying in

vain to open the door of the union office, Loida narrated to him The course taken by petitioners and company was illegal.
what she had witnessed at dawn. Soluta immediately lodged a Petitioners violation of individual respondents constitutional right
complaint before the Security Officer. And he fetched a locksmith. against unreasonable search thus furnishes the basis for the award
At that instant, men in barong tagalog armed with clubs arrived and of damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code. For respondents,
started hitting Soluta and his companions. Panlilio thereupon being the lawful occupants of the office had the right to raise the
instructed Villanueva to force open the door, and the latter did. question of validity of the search and seizure.

Once inside, Panlilio and his companions began searching the

office, over the objection of Babay who even asked them if they had Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or
a search warrant. A plastic bag was found containing marijuana indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights
and liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor alone who must any other citizen of this country. dissenting opinion of Justice
answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly Moir]

responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to

the aggrieved party. Such being the case, petitioners, together with FACTS:

Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the illegal

search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and Under Section 2145, Revised Administrative Code, with prior
exemplary damages to herein individual respondents in accordance approval of the Department Head, the governor of any province in
with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when he
Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code which provides:
deems it necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct non-
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and Christian inhabitants to make permanent settlements on
analogous cases, among others, (6) Illegal search and (10) Acts unoccupied public land to be selected by the provincial governor
and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and and approved by the provincial board.

35. (*sta.ana*)



In February 1, 1917, the Provincial Board of Mindoro adopted

Resolution No. 25 which was presented by Provincial Governor of
RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD
Mindoro Juan Morente Jr. The resolution presents that since
G.R. No. L-14078, March 7, 1919
several attempts and schemes of the past for the advancement of
MALCOLM, J.:
the non-Christian people of Mindoro have failed, it is deemed

necessary to oblige the Manguianes to live in one place in order to
(mahirap i-digest, kaya di ko malagyan na nung contentions, pero make a permanent settlement. The reasons for the resolution are:

andyan naman na lahat)
[1] failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-

Christian people of Mindoro

Doctrine:
[2] the only successful method is to oblige them to live in a
Civil liberty may be said to mean the measure of freedom which permanent settlement

may be enjoyed in a civilized society, consistent with the peaceful [3] protection of the Manguianes

enjoyment of others. The right to liberty guaranteed by the [2] protection of public forests

constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from [3] introduce civilized customs

arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. It includes right to use his

faculties in all lawful ways.
Governor Morente Jr. chose the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan,

containing 800 hectares of public land for approximately 15,000

Manguianes. The resolution was approved by the Secretary of the
[If all are to be equal before the law, all must be approximately Interior.

equal in intelligence. main opinion by Justice Malcolm]



Executive Order No. 2 was then issued by the governor directing all
[They (Manguianes) are citizens of the Philippine Islands. Legally the Mangyans in Naujan, Pola, Dulangan and Calapan [Rubis
they are Filipinos. They are entitled to all the rights and privileges of place] to take their habitation in the site not later than December
31, 1917. Section 2759Revised Administrative Code provides for civilize those backward races. Provincial authorities should help
an imprisonment not exceeding 60 days for those who refuse to the priests in their mission to civilize. To attain their mission, the
obey the order.
Spaniards adopted the policy of bringing under the bell [establish

homes of Indios within the reach of the sound of the bell].
Rubi and his companions did not fix their dwelling within the Incentives in terms of tax and labor reductions were offered.

reservation and they were punished with imprisonment. On the

other hand, Doroteo Dabalos was detained by the sheriff of B. After the Acquisition of the Philipines by the United States

Mindoro because he escaped from the reservation.



President MacKinleys Instructions was ratified by the Philippine Bill
Rubi and the rest of the Manguianes sued out a writ of habeas and the Act of Congress of 1902. In essence, these laws provide
corpus alleging that they are deprived of their liberty. They are also that the reservation approach was the same course used by US
questioning the validity of Section 2145 of the Administrative Code Congress in dealing with tribes of North American Indians. The
of 1917.
approach was deemed a wise and firm regulation to prevent

barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs.

Exposition of the Court (Baka magtanong si Dean)



Jones Law was later passed empowering the Philippine
II. History [Court wants to say that the reservation approach is not Legislature. The law established the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes
new and in fact accepted in the past. In short, Court is saying that that recognized the dividing line between the territory occupied by
they deserve it.]
Christians and that of non-Christians. The distinction is latter

recognized by special laws.

A. Before acquisition of the Philippines by the United States



C.D. Terminology and Meaning

During the Spanish period, the Indios were already

reduced [reducciones] into poblaciones [communities]. The Non-Christian tribes was common term used. Religious
purpose is to instruct them in the Catholic faith so that the Indios signification of the term was removed. The whole intent of the term
will forget the blunders of their ancient rights and ceremonies is to denote the civilization or lack of civilization of the inhabitants. It
eventually allowing them to live in a civilized manner. The crown relates to degree of civilization rather than religious denomination.

offered tax exemptions for those who obeyed.



In United States v. Tubban, the term was used for an uncivilized
Pueblos and reducciones were provided with basic facilities for tribe, of a low order of intelligence, uncultured and uneducated. It
survival. Lands previously owned by the Indios were not was held that mere baptism in the Christian faith will not changed
confiscated. Each town contained around 80 Indios supervised by ones degree of civilization.

an Indio mayor.



E. Manguianes

Later, the Governor General issued a decree in 1881, saying that it

is the duty to conscience and humanity for all governments to
They are placed in the third class in the four-stage classification exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be
approaching civilization used by the Philippine census. In local done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. Section 2145
dialect, Manguianes means ancient, savage etc.
was issued under the second mode of delegation.




III. Comparative The American Indians [Court is saying that the - Section 2145 falls under the exception to the general rule
reservation approach was used also for the American Indians sanctioned by immemorial practice: The central legislative body is
which was perfectly ok.]
permitted to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. The

Philippine Legislature conferred authority upon the Province of
The treatment for the Manguianes is no different form the methods Mindoro.

used by the US Government in dealing with the Indian tribes. Their

relationship is one in a state of pupilage between a guardian and - The reason is that provincial officers are better fitted to select sites
a ward. Congress had plenary authority in this guardianship.
for reservations.




The Indians were not treated as having a state or nation. They are 2. WON there was religions discrimination against non-Christian
treated as a separate people. Thus, the US Government is there tribes under Section 2145.

to protectthe Indians form the people of the State that harbor ill- - NO. It is clear that the Legislature meant that non-Christian tribes
feelings against them.
refers to natives of low grade of civilization and does not

discriminate on account of religious differences.

These laws were deemed political in nature not subject to the

jurisdiction of the Courts.
3. WON the protection afforded by President MacKinleys

Instructions, the Philippine Bill and the Jones Law providing that no
In United States v. Crook, a group of Indians led by Standing Bear person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due
who fled from their reservation to avoid disease and starvation were process of law extends to members of non-Christian tribes.

issued habeas corpus after they were detained.
- NO. Civil liberty can be said to mean that measure of freedom

which may be enjoyed in a civilized community. It is a legal and
Using this case, Rubi was then declared as a citizen of the refined idea, the offspring of high civilization. Considering the that
Philippines, a person within the Habeas Corpus Act.
the Manguianes do not have a civilized conception of liberty, they

cannot claim the they were deprived of it. Furthermore, Section
ISSUES:
2145 is applicable to all of a class. The classification based on

degree of civilization is not arbitrary.

1. WON there was Section 2145 involved an undue delegation of

legislative power to the provincial board of Mindoro.
- Due process means that:

- NO. Judge Ranney declared that the true distinction therefore is [1] there is a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of
between the [1] delegation of power to make the law, which the legislature

necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and [2] [2] that law is reasonable in its application

conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be [3] it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure

[4] it is applicable to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class
- In fact, the Manguianes liked the plan. There were encouraging

reactions from the children who attended the schools. They were
- Liberty as understood in democracies, is not license; it is liberty eager to be receiving benefits of civilization in the reservations.

regulated by law. It is not unrestricted license. It is only freedom

from restraint. It is not an absolute right. However, it is not limited to HOLDING:

freedom from physical restraint.
Section 2145 of the Administrative Code is valid. Their confinement

in the reservation does not amount to slavery and involuntary
- Chief elements of the civil liberty are right to contract, right to servitude. Habeas corpus cannot issue.

chose ones employment, right to labor and right of locomotion.



Carson, J. concurring:

4. WON bringing the Manguianes into the reservation amounts to - I agree that non-Christian tribes denote a low grade of
slavery and involuntary servitude.
civilization. The test for civilizations has been:

- NO. Slavery and involuntary servitude denote a condition of [1] mode of life

enforced, compulsory service of one to another. In the reservation, [2] degree of advancement in civilization

the Manguianes are working for no other but for themselves.
[3] connection or lack of connection with some civilized community


- Degree of civilization can only increase by withdrawal of
- If the Manguianes are not in the reservation, there are vulnerable permanent allegiance or adherence to non-Christian tribes.

subjects to involuntary servitude of civilized communities who may

take advantage of their ignorance. They are being protection from Johnson, J., dissenting:

involuntary servitude and abuse. They are, through Bureau of non- - They were deprived of their liberty without a hearing. All persons
Christian Tribes, slowly fused with the civilized world bringing in the Philippines are entitled to a hearing, at least, before they are
them under the bells.
deprived of their liberty.




5. WON Section 2145 is a valid exercise of police power.
Moir., with Araullo and Street, dissenting:

- YES. Without attempting to define police power, it is the power co- - The case of the Indian nations in the US cannot apply to this case
extensive with self-protection. It is the inherent and plenary power because the Indian nations were considered a separate nations
to prohibit all things hurtful to the welfare of society. Thus, the law where the US dealt with them using treaties. Also, the reservations
protects the forests from the illegal caingins [slash and burn given to them were very large about thousand of square miles.

agriculture in forested areas]. They are restrained for their own - In this case, the Manguianes are not a separate state. There are
good and the general good of the Philippines.
not treaties. They are Filipinos, legally speaking. They are entitled

to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen of this country.

- The whole tendency therefore of the Court is toward non- - The caingin argument will not lie because the fires never spread
interference on the political ideas of the legislature.
to the tropical undergrowth. These burnings are isolated these

are not great abuses meriting their incarceration.

- The Manguianes have never been a burden to the State. They
have not committed any crimes. In fact, they were described as
peaceful, timid, primitive, semi-nomadic. When there are in On suspicion of union mismanagement, petitioners, together with
reservations, there are more vulnerable to involuntary servitude. some other union members, filed a complaint for impeachment of
The needs for survival in an enclosed community like food and their union president, Reynato Siozon, before the executive board
clothing would be tempting incentives for the Manguianes, who do of RPN, which was eventually abandoned. They later relodged
not have the means to produce these things, to trade their freedom the impeachment complaint, this time, against all the union
to involuntary servitude.
officers and members of RPNEU before the (DOLE)

- The majority claim that Section 2145 is substantially the same as

Act, No. 547 of the Philippine Commission. However, the (2) written complaints, dated May 26, 2005 and May 27, 2005,
constitutionality of this earlier Act was not passed upon by the were filed against petitioners and several others for alleged
Court.
violation of the unions Constitution and ByLaws o Grounds:
- If the rationale of the Court is applied, then decapitation en masse "commission of an act which violates RPNEU Constitution and
will result. It will be an open air jail for all natives even those who ByLaws, specifically, Article IX, Section 2.2 for joining or forming a
have proven their progress measured against standards of the union outside the sixty (60) days period and o Article IX, Section
civilized world like the Ifugaos and Tinguianes.
2.5 for urging or advocating that a member start an action in any
- Like the case of Standing Bear in the US, I think that the Court court of justice or external investigative body against the Union or
should rule that the Manguianes were deprived of their right to its officer without first exhausting all internal remedies open to
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (tecson)
him or available in accordance with the CBL




G.R. No. 194709 July 31, 2013
Petitioners received a memorandum notice from Jeric Salinas,
MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, and MA.
Chairman of the Committee, requesting them to answer the
FEDAYON, Petitioners, vs. ROSARIO VILLANUEVA, JANETTE
complaint and attend a hearing scheduled on October 3, 2005

ROLDAN, DANILO OLAYVAR, ONOFRE ESTRELLA, CATALINO


LEDDA, MANOLO GUBANGCO, GILBERT ORIBIANA,
On November 9, 2005, the Committee submitted their
CONSTANCIO SANTIAGO, RUTH BAYQUEN, RUBY CAST
recommendation of expulsion from the union to RPNEUs Board
ANEDA, ALFRED LANDAS, JR., ROSEL YN GARCES, EUGENE
of Directors.The directors affirmed and approved the
CRUZ, MENANDRO SAMSON, FEDERICO MUNOZ and
recommendation

SALVADOR DIWA, Respondents.



Petitioners filed for ULP

FACTS:


Petitioners were former union members of Radio Philippines ISSUE: WON there was ULP. NONE

Network Employees Union (RPNEU) and is the sole and

exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of RATIO:

Radio Philippines Network (RPN) while the respondents were the The importance of a unions constitution and bylaws cannot be

unions elected officers and members.
overemphasized. They embody a covenant between a union and its


members and constitute the fundamental law governing the

members rights and obligations. As such, the unions constitution

and bylaws should be upheld, as long as they are not contrary to
law, good morals or public policy.
When the Constitution and bylaws of both unions dictated the
remedy for intraunion dispute, such as petitioners complaint
against private respondents for unauthorized or illegal
disbursement of union funds, this should be resorted to before
recourse can be made to the appropriate
to sufficiently show that the respondents unduly persuaded
administrative or judicial body, not only to give the grievance
machinery or appeals body of the union the opportunity to decide
the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to administrative or judicial bodies. Thus, a party with an
administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its
appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention.
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, THE
In essence, ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress
the workers right to organize. As specified in Articles 248 and 249
of the Labor Code, the prohibited acts must necessarily relate to
the workers' right to self organization and to the observance of a
CBA.30 Absent the said vital elements, the acts complained,
although seemingly unjust, would not constitute ULP.
against Herminigilda Pedro and Mariano Lising for allegedly
It is wellsettled that workers and employers organizations shall
have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules to elect their
Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of an assignment of Lot 689 made by
representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and
Ledesma in favor of said corporation. Trial continued for three
activities and to formulate their programs
decades.
In this case, RPNEUs Constitution and ByLaws expressly
mandate that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of
the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the
internal remedies within the organization. Petitioners were found to
have violated the provisions of the unions Constitution and ByLaws
when they filed petitions for impeachment against their union
officers and for audit before the DOLE without first exhausting all
internal remedies available within their
March 30, 1998, from the trial court.
organization
Unfortunately, petitioners failed to discharge the burden required
to prove the charge of ULP against the respondents. Aside from
their self-serving allegations, petitioners were not able to establish
how they were restrained or coerced by their union in a way that
curtailed their right to self organization. The records likewise failed
management into discriminating against petitioners. other than to
bring to its attention their expulsion from the union, which in turn,
resulted in the implementation of their CBA' s union security clause.
VICTOR ORQUIOLA and HONORATA ORQUIOLA vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG, Presiding
SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY and HIS/HER DEPUTIES and PURA
KALAW LEDESMA, substituted by TANDANG SORA
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Quisumbing, J.:
FACTS: Sometime in 1969, Pura Kalaw Ledesma filed a complaint,
encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of the action,
Tandang Sora Development Corporation replaced Pura Kalaw
On August 21, 1991, the trial court finally adjudged Pedro and
Lising jointly and severally liable for encroaching on Tandang Sora
Development Corporations land.
As a result, in February 1998, the Deputy Sheriff of Quezon City
directed Victor and Honorata Orquiola, through an alias writ of
execution, to remove the house they constructed on the land they
were occupying.
On April 2, 1998, the Orquiolas received a Special Order dated

Tandang Sora Development Corporation should have impleaded
To prohibit Judge Vivencio Baclig of the Regional Trial Court of them in Civil Case No. Q-12918. Since they failed to do so,
Quezon City from issuing a writ of demolition and the Quezon City Orquiolas cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man
sheriff from implementing the alias writ of execution, Orquiolas filed shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and
with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with prayer for a strangers to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the
restraining order and preliminary injunction on April 17, 1998. court. In the same manner, a writ of execution can be issued only
Orquiola alleged that they bought the subject parcel of land in good against a party and not against one who did not have his day in
faith and for value, hence, they were parties in interest. Since they court. Only real parties in interest in an action are bound by the
were not impleaded in Civil Case No. Q-12918, the writ of judgment therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued
demolition issued in connection therewith cannot be enforced pursuant thereto. In our view, the spouses Victor and Honorata
against them because to do so would amount to deprivation of Orquiola have valid and meritorious cause to resist the demolition
property without due process of law.
of their house on their own titled lot, which is tantamount to a
ISSUE: Could we consider petitioners builders in good faith? We deprivation of property without due process of law. (*Villanueva*)

note that this is the first time that petitioners have raised this issue.


HELD: NO. As a general rule, this could not be done. Fair play, EVELIO B. JAVIER v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and
justice, and due process dictate that parties should not raise for the ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

first time on appeal issues that they could have raised but never did G.R. Nos. L-68379-81 September 22, 1986

during trial and even during proceedings before the Court of

Appeals. Nevertheless, we deem it proper that this issue be DOCTRINE:

resolved now, to avoid circuitous litigation and further delay in the

disposition of this case. On this score, we find that Orquiolas are Due process of law - that ancient guaranty of justice and fair play
indeed builders in good faith.
which is the hallmark of the free society.

A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land

he is building on is his, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his FACTS:

title. As earlier discussed, Orquiolas acquired the land in question The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in
without knowledge of any defect in the title of Mariano Lising. Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 elections. The
Shortly afterwards, they built their conjugal home on said land. It former appeared to enjoy more popular support but the latter had
was only in 1998, when the sheriff of Quezon City tried to execute the advantage of being the nominee of the KBL with all its
the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-12918, that they had notice of perquisites of power. On May 13, 1984, the eve of the elections, the
Tandang Sora Development Corporations adverse claim. The bitter contest between the two came to a head when several
institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918 cannot serve as notice of such followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by
adverse claim to Orquiolas since they were not impleaded therein the latter's men. Seven suspects, including respondent Pacificador,
as parties.
are now facing trial for these murders. The incident naturally
As builders in good faith and innocent purchasers for value, heightened tension in the province and sharpened the climate of
Orquiolas have rights over the subject property and hence they are fear among the electorate. Conceivably, it intimidated voters
proper parties in interest in any case thereon. Consequently,
against supporting the Opposition candidate or into supporting the
candidate of the ruling party.
and intimidation, snatching of ballot boxes perpetrated by the
It was in this atmosphere that the voting was held, and the post-
election developments were to run true to form. Owing to what he
claimed were attempts to railroad the private respondent's
proclamation, the petitioner went to the Commission on Elections to
question the canvass of the election returns. His complaints were
dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by
the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner thereupon
came to this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because
made only by a division and not by the Commission on Elections en
banc as required by the Constitution. Meanwhile, on the strength of
his proclamation, the private respondent took his oath as a member
of the Batasang Pambansa.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The case was still being considered by this Court when on
February 11, 1986, the petitioner was gunned down in cold blood
and in broad daylight. The nation, already indignant over the
obvious manipulation of the presidential elections in favor of
Marcos, was revolted by the killing, which flaunted a scornful
disregard for the law by the assailants who apparently believed
they were above the law. This ruthless murder was possibly one of
the factors that strengthened the cause of the Opposition in the
February revolution that toppled the Marcos regime and installed
the present government under President Corazon C. Aquino.
Yes. Article XII-C Section 3 1973 Constitution provides: The
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
election cases may be heard and decided by divisions except
Petitioner complained against the terroristic acts of his
opponents. All the electoral body did was refer the matter to the
Armed Forces without taking a more active step as befitted its
constitutional role as the guardian of free, orderly and honest
elections. A more assertive stance could have averted the
Sibalom election eve massacre and saved the lives of the nine
victims of the tragedy.
have taken place, not the least significant of which was the
The petitioner charged that the elections were marred by
"massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, vote-buying, fraud,
tampering and falsification of election returns under duress, threat
armed men of respondent Pacificador.
The petitioner complains that the Proclamation made by the
Second Division is invalid because all contests involving the
members of the Batasang Pambansa come under the jurisdiction
of the Commission on Elections en banc. This is as it should be,
he says, to insure a more careful decision, considering the
importance of the offices involved. The respondents, for their part,
argue that only contests need to be heard and decided en banc
and all other cases can be-in fact, should be-filed with and
decided only by any of the three divisions.
Solicitor General: the pre-proclamation controversy between the
petitioner and the private respondent was not yet a contest at that
time and therefore could be validly heard by a mere division of the
Commission on Elections, consonant with Section 3.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has violated petitioners right to due
process when it ruled by a mere division.
RULING:
Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three divisions. All
contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, which
shall be heard and decided en banc. Unless otherwise provided by
law, all election cases shall be decided within ninety days from the
date of their submission for decision.
Since this case began in 1984, many significant developments
February revolution of "people power" that dislodged the past
regime and ended well nigh twenty years of travail for this captive
nation. The petitioner is gone, felled by a hail of bullets sprayed must be disregarded as bereft of any effect in law. I reach this result
with deadly purpose by assassins whose motive is yet to be on the same single, precisely drawn, ground relied upon by
disclosed. The private respondent has disappeared with the "pomp Melencio-Herrera, J.: that all election contests involving members
of power" he had before enjoyed. Even the Batasang Pambansa of the former Batasan Pambansa must be decided by the
itself has been abolished, "an iniquitous vestige of the previous Commission on Elections en banc under Sections 2 and 3 of Article
regime" discontinued by the Freedom Constitution. It is so easy XII-C of the 1973 Constitution. These Sections do not distinguish
now, as has been suggested not without reason, to send the recrds between "pre-proclamation" and "post-proclamation" contests nor
of this case to the archives and say the case is finished and the between "cases" and "contests."

book is closed.



GALMAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

WHEREFORE, let it be spread in the records of this case that were 144 SCRA 43

it not for the supervening events that have legally rendered it moot

and academic, this petition would have been granted and the FACTS: Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino,
decision of the Commission on Elections dated July 23, 1984, set Jr. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila
aside as violative of the Constitution.
International Airport. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-

blank into the back of his head by an assassin. The military
Separate Opinions
investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man
TEEHANKEE, C.J., concurring:
who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be
I concur and reserve the filing of a separate concurrence.
unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman)

was a communist-hired gunman, and that the military escorts
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring in the result:
gunned him down in turn.

I concur in the result. The questioned Decision of the Second

Division of the COMELEC, dated July 23, 1984, proclaiming private President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to
respondent, Arturo F. Pacificador, as the duly elected Assemblyman investigate due to large masses of people who joined in the ten-day
of the province of Antique, should be set aside for the legal reason period of national mourning yearning for the truth, justice and
that all election contests, without any distinction as to cases or freedom.

contests, involving members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa

fall under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc pursuant to The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in
Sections 2 and 3 of Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution.
rejecting the military version stating that "the evidence shows to the

contrary that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations. Only
FELICIANO, J., concurring in the result:
the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Aquino could have shot him;
I agree with the result reached, that is, although this petition has that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy,
become moot and academic, the decision, dated 23 July 1984, of not a communist plot. Only difference between the two reports is
the Second Division of the Commission on Elections which had that the majority report found all the twenty-six private respondents
proclaimed Arturo F. Pacificador as the duly elected Assemblyman above-named in the title of the case involved in the military
of the Province of Antique must be set aside or, more accurately,
conspiracy; " while the chairman's minority report would exclude petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due
nineteen of them.
process of law.




Then Pres. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was ISSUES:

the killer. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining (1) Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an
respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal accused.

cases before it, the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue

the restraining order prayed for. The Court also granted petitioners (2) Whether or not there was a violation of the double jeopardy
a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments clause.

and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of

his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution.
RULING: Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted

and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted
But ten days later, the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the
reverse, resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued requirements of due process.

ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its

decision. The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months
new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's later when former Pres. was no longer around) affirmed the
memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he
on them).
revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan

prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-
Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the Galman murder case. Malacaang wanted dismissal to the extent
dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel.
urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the Malacaang Conference planned a scenario of trial where the
people are entitled to due process.
former President ordered then that the resolution be revised by

categorizing the participation of each respondent; decided that the
However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting presiding justice, Justice Pamaran, (First Division) would personally
all the accused of the crime charged, declaring them innocent and handle the trial. A conference was held in an inner room of the
totally absolving them of any civil liability. Respondents submitted Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice
that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case Lazaro were with the President. The conferees were told to take the
had become moot and academic. Thereafter, same Court majority back door in going to the room where the meeting was held,
denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall

waiting to see the President. During the conference, and after an
Hence, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for agreement was reached, Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay, mag moro-
reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious moro na lamang kayo;' and that on their way out of the room Pres.
irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how
justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the to reciprocate'.


The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus)
had stage-managed in and from Malacaang Palace "a scripted
and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the
Aquino-Galman murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the
Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who tried and decided the
same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved
to be beyond their capacity to resist. Also predetermined the final
outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six
respondents-accused of all criminal and civil liability. Pres. Marcos
came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator
Aquino was killed not by his military escorts, but by a communist
hired gun. It was, therefore, not a source of wonder that President
Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent
with his announced theory thereof which, at the same time, would
clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty
participation in the assassination. such a procedure would be a
better arrangement because, if the accused are charged in court
and subsequently acquitted, they may claim the benefit of the
doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution
if some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos is no
longer in office.
duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. More so, in the case at
More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of
witnesses. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after
Ninoy's assassination. According to J. Herrera, "nobody was
looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power.
The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran; no
evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a
regular raffle, except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice
Pamaran himself. The custody of the accused and their
confinement in a military camp, instead of in a civilian jail. The
monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacaang and
by Malacaang personnel. The partiality of Sandiganbayan
betrayed by its decision: That President Marcos had wanted all of
the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. In
rendering its decision, the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring
the presidential directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the
accused was clearly obvious. The evidence presented by the
prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded.
The record shows that the then President misused the
overwhelming resources of the government and his authoritarian
powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the
Aquino-Galman murder cases. "This is the evil of one-man rule at
its very worst." Our Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer
who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority
with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice."
mpartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This
criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by
public respondents at the secret Malacaang conference (and
revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel Herrera)
completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab
initio its verdict. The courts would have no reason to exist if they
were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and
bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth,
and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake.
There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was
a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No
double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal
effect, no judgment at all. By it no rights are divested. It neither
binds nor bars anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are
void.
Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. In
this case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt
dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the
Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken
cognizance of by the Court which had required the respondents', when he was about an arms length from Eulogio, appellant Robert
including the Sandiganbayan's, comments. Although no restraining Castillo came out from nowhere and suddenly and w/o warning
order was issued anew, respondent Sandiganbayan should not stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest. As Tony pleaded for
have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the help, appellant stabbed him once more, hitting him on the left hand.
accused pending the final action of this Court. All of the acts of the Eulogio placed a chair between the two to stop Castillo from further
respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part attacking Tony.

amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the

petitioner.
Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. Eulogio came to know

later that Tony had died. His body was found outside the fence of
With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must Iglesia ni Cristo, EDSA. Medico-legal officer testified that the
now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. proximate cause of Tonys death was the stab wound on his chest.

Respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged Appellant Robert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was attacked
against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor by 2 malefactors as testified by one Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle
with all due process.
driver, who saw men ganging up on Tony by the compound of

Iglesia ni Cristo.

The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the

people, under our system of government, is to fill the public posts. Judge Castillo did not appreciate Castillos defense of alibi and held
Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength, the
constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve only the accused having surprised and attacked w/ a deadly weapon. And
public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office, although treachery was present, it also held that this was absorbed
guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor. by abuse of superior strength.

(arrellano)



Appellant contends that the TC showed its prejudice against him by
PEOPLE v. CASTILLO [289 SCRA 213 (1998)]
asking questions that were well w/in the prosecution to explore and

ask.

DOCTRINE: It is a judges prerogative & duty to ask clarificatory

question to ferret out the truth. The propriety of a judges queries is ISSUE:

determined not necessarily by their quantity but by their quality & in Whether or not Judge Castillos decision was biased and tainted
any event, by the test of whether the defendant was prejudiced by with prejudice towards the accused.

such questioning.



HELD: Appellant Castillo is guilty of murder for the death of Antonio
FACTS:
Dometita. The allegation of bias and prejudice isnt well-taken. It is
Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, flr manager of Cola a judges prerogative & duty to ask clarificatory question to ferret
Pubhouse along EDSA, was sitting outside the pub while talking w/ out the truth. The propriety of a judges queries is determined not
his co-worker. Soon, their customer Tony Dometita came out of the necessarily by their quantity but by their quality & in any event, by
pub and informed him that hell be on his way home. However,
the test of whether the defendant was prejudiced by such repeated verbal and written demands made on her to replace the
questioning.
dishonored checks with cash, she failed and refused to do so.

The prosecution was unable to prove the aggravating circumstance She admitted that she issued the fifteen (15) checks. She claimed,
of evident premeditation. However, SC held that the killing was not however, that they were given to Marivic Nakpil, alleged sister of
qualified by abuse of superior strength, contrary to TCs ruling. The the complainant, as guarantee deposit, that is, for every gift check
prosecution did not demonstrate that there was a marked difference and purchase order given to the accused, she issued personal
in the stature and build of the victim and the appellant w/c would checks to guarantee its payment. The checks are not to be
have precluded an appropriate defense from the victim.
encashed nor deposited with any bank. She was found guilty by the

RTC and CA for BP 22

However, the killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

committed when 2 conditions concur: (1) means, methods and Petitioner admits having issued the checks subject of this case,
forms of execution employed left the person attacked no save for one, but insists that she issued them merely to guarantee
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such payment of her obligation to a certain Marivic Nakpil; they were not
means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and supposed to have been deposited in a bank.

consciously adopted by the accused w/o danger to his person. Petitioner also denies having transacted with private complainant
These requisites were evidently present when the accused Chu Yang T. Atienza, and asserts that the latter did not have
appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the personality to prosecute this case.

victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action Petitioner argues that one of the checks, PCIB check no. 017769,
rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence was issued in blank.

of defense wounds does not negate treachery because the first petitioner asserts that she was not properly notified of the dishonor
stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest and hence, rendered of her checks. She maintains that the prosecution failed to show
Tony defenseless.
that she received the notices of dishonor purportedly sent to her.

She points out that no return card nor acknowledgment receipt for
Appeal denied, assailed decision affirmed. Award of indemnity to the first demand letter was presented in evidence. While there was
the heirs of Castillo in the amount of PhP50K.
a return card attached to the second demand letter, this was not

marked nor offered in evidence, and hence must be ignored.


Petitioner also assails the jurisdiction of the Quezon City RTC over
CARAS V CA
the case, maintaining that there is no evidence showing that the
GR No. 19900, October 2, 2001
checks were issued and delivered in Quezon City


RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

Facts:
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General argues that B.P. 22
JANE S. CARAS has appealed from the judgment of conviction in does not make any distinction regarding the purpose for which the
fifteen (15) related cases of Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. checks were issued. Thus, it is of no moment even if it were true
When the checks were presented for deposit or encashment, they that, as claimed by accused, the checks she issued were meant
were all dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Despite only to guarantee payment of her obligation.

Criminal liability attaches whether the checks were issued in Petitioner denies having received any notice that the checks she
payment of an obligation or to guarantee payment of that issued had been dishonored by the drawee bank. After carefully
obligation. There is violation of B.P. 22 when a worthless check is going over the records of this case, we find that indeed no clear
issued and is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank.
evidence is shown on whether petitioner was informed that her
The OSG also points out that accused did not deny having issued checks had been dishonored

the subject checks
The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an
Issue: whether the prosecution evidence suffices to convict the accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution.
accused, herein petitioner Jane Caras.
Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of
Ruling: YES. Caras was acquitted.
dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to

demand - and the basic postulates of fairness require - that the
What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by her to afford
the purpose for which the check was issued, nor the terms and her the opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.

conditions of its issuance.
However, it should be stressed that this decision in no way
to determine the reasons for which checks are issued, or the terms prejudices the civil obligations, if any, that she might have incurred
and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the by reason of her transactions with private complainant. For we
public reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as note that petitioner does not deny having issued the subject
currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking checks. And while no criminal liability could be imposed in this case
communities.
for lack of sufficient proof of the offense charged, a fair distinction
Thus, petitioners contention that she issued the checks subject of should be made as to civil aspects of the transaction between the
this case merely to guarantee payment of her obligation is hardly a parties.

defense. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum

prohibitum and is punishable under B.P. 22, provided the other

elements of the offense are properly proved.
ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
In particular, we note that the law provides for a prima facie rule of and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting
evidence. Knowledge of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution

bank is presumed from the act of making, drawing, and issuing a G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989

check payment of which is refused by the drawee bank for

insufficiency of funds when presented within 90 days from the date Facts: This is a resolution on the motion for
of issue. However, this presumption may be rebutted by the reconsideration filed by respondent Raul Gonzalez which raised 10
accused-petitioner. Such presumption does not hold when the legal points for reconsideration. The per curiam, resolution of the
maker or drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment of SC, the Court ruled that "respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of
the check within five banking days after receiving notice that such contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an
check had been dishonored. Thus, it is essential for the maker or officer of the court and member of the bar."

drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check, so she could pay

the value thereof or make arrangements for its payment within the Issue: Whether or not the Court erred in convicting Gonales of
period prescribed by law.
direct contempt while the charge was indirect contempt


The "clear and present danger" doctrine invoked by respondent's
Held: The Court did not use the phrase "in facie curiae" as a counsel is not a magic incantation which dissolves all problems and
technical equivalent of "direct contempt," though we are aware that dispenses with analysis and judgment in the testing of the
courts in the United States have sometimes used that phrase in legitimacy of claims to free speech, and which compels a court to
speaking of "direct contempts' as "contempts in the face of the exonerate a defendant the moment the doctrine is invoked, absent
courts." Rather, the court sought to convey that it regarded the proof of impending apocalypse. The clear and present danger"
contumacious acts or statements (which were made both in a doctrine has been an accepted method for marking out the
pleading filed before the Court and in statements given to the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and of assembly in certain
media) and the misconduct of respondent Gonzalez as serious acts contexts. It is not, however, the only test which has been
flaunted in the face of the Court and constituting a frontal assault recognized and applied by courts

upon the integrity of the Court and, through the Court, the entire

judicial system. What the Court would stress is that it required Under either the "clear and present danger" test or the "balancing-
respondent, in its Resolution dated 2 May 1988, to explain "why he of-interest test," we believe that the statements here made by
should not be punished for contempt of court and/or subjected to respondent Gonzalez are of such a nature and were made in such
administrative sanctions" and in respect of which, respondent was a manner and under such circumstances, as to transcend the
heard and given the most ample opportunity to present all permissible limits of free speech. This conclusion was implicit in the
defenses, arguments and evidence that he wanted to present for per curiam Resolution of October 7, 1988. It is important to point
the consideration of this Court. The Court did not summarily impose out that the "substantive evil" which the Supreme Court has a right
punishment upon the respondent which it could have done under and a duty to prevent does not, in the instant case, relate to threats
Section 1 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court had it chosen to of physical disorder or overt violence or similar disruptions of public
consider respondent's acts as constituting "direct contempt."
order. 5 What is here at stake is the authority of the Supreme Court

to confront and prevent a "substantive evil" consisting not only of
Issue: Whether or not it was error for the Court to aply the visible the obstruction of a free and fair hearing of a particular case but
tendency rule rather than the clear and present danger rule in also the avoidance of the broader evil of the degradation of the
disciplinary and contempt charges
judicial system of a country and the destruction of the standards of

professional conduct required from members of the bar and officers
Held:
of the courts. The "substantive evil" here involved, in other words, is

not as palpable as a threat of public disorder or rioting but is
The Court did not purport to announce a new doctrine of "visible certainly no less deleterious and more far reaching in its
tendency," it was, more modestly, simply paraphrasing Section 3 (d) implications for society.

of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court which penalizes a variety

of contumacious conduct including: "any improper conduct tending, Issue: Whether or not the court erred in imposing indefinite
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the suspension from the practice of law to the respondent which
administration of justice."
constitutes cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment




Held:


As a result of an audit, auditors Laura S. and Carmencita Eden T.
No. The indefiniteness of the respondent's suspension, far from Enriquez of the COA found some major deficiencies and violation of
being "cruel" or "degrading" or "inhuman," has the effect of placing, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019),
as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a violations of COA Circular Nos. 78-84 and 85-55A, DECS Order
lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving No. 100 and Section 88 of Presidential Decree No. 1445.

respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his Consequently, affidavits of complaint were filed before the Office of
contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, the Ombudsman-Mindanao against several persons, including
exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating his Prudencio Mabanglo on May 7, 1991, and against Felicidad Rogue.

willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of

conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and officer PETITIONERS CONTENTION: Roque and Mabanglo instituted the
of the courts.
instant petition for mandamus premised on the allegation that

"[a]fter the initial Orders finding the cases proper for preliminary
MR Denied.
investigation were issued on June[,] 1991 and the subsequent

submission of their counter-affidavits, until the present[,] or, more
FELICIDAD M, ROQUE and PRUDENCIO N. MABANGLO vs. than six (6) years, no resolution has been issued by the Public
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO Respondent [and no] case [has] been filed with the appropriate
DESIERTO; and HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR.,
court against the herein Roque and Mabanglo "

G.R. No. 129978 May 12, 1999
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS: Office of the Ombudsman,
Panganiban, J.:
Hon. Aniano Desierto and Hon. Margarito Gervacio, Jr. argue that

Roque and Mabanglo cannot, by this special action for mandamus,
DOCTRINE: Consistent with the rights of all persons to due compel the ombudsman to dismiss the criminal charges filed
process of law and to speedy trial, the Constitution commands the against them, since such dismissal involves a discretionary, not a
Office of the Ombudsman to act promptly on complaints filed ministerial, duty. The Petition for Mandamus became moot and
against public officials. Thus, the failure of said office to resolve a academic when the Complaints were resolved by the Office of the
complaint that has been pending for six years is clearly violative of Ombudsman for Mindanao and the Informations were filed.

this mandate and the public officials' rights. In such event, the

aggrieved party is entitled to the dismissal of the complaint.



ISSUE: Whether or not there was undue and unjustifiable delay in
BRIEF FACTS:
resolving [the] complaints against Roque and Mabanglo
Felicidad M. Roque was a Schools Division Superintendent of the (respondents therein) which violated their constitutional right to [a]
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), assigned in speedy disposition of cases.

Koronadal, South Cotabato, until her compulsory retirement on,

May 17, 1991.
HELD:

Prudencio N. Mabanglo was likewise a Schools Division As a general rule, the performance of an official act or duty, which
Superintendent of the DECS, assigned in Tagum, Davao Province, necessarily involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, cannot
until his compulsory retirement on May 8, 1997.
be compelled by mandamus. This Court, however, has held that the
rule does not apply "in cases where there is gross abuse of
discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority."
resolution of the criminal complaints against petitioners was not
Ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary
act. But where there is "gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice
or palpable excess of authority" equivalent to denial of a settled
right to which petitioner is entitled, and there is "no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy, the writ shall issue."
The exceptions cited apply to this case. It is undisputed that there
has already been a long and unwarranted delay in the resolution of
the graft charges against the two petitioners. The Complaint against
Mabanglo was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao
way back on May 7, 1991, and that against Roque on May 16,
1991. Signficantly, no action was taken until after the lapse of
almost six years.
substantial; (e) the decision must be rendered on the evidence
Constitutional Rights
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
Clearly, the delay of almost six years disregarded the ombudsman's
duty, as mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770,
to act promptly on complaints before him. More important, it
violated the Roque and Mabanglos' rights to due process and to a
speedy disposition of the cases filed against them. Although
respondents attempted to justify the six months needed by
Ombudsman Desierto to review the recommendation of Deputy
Ombudsman Gervasio, no explanation was given why it took
almost six years for the latter to resolve the Complaints
LAUREL, J.:
Similarly, in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, the court states:
Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the
conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial
compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the
resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part of the procedural
due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law.
Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process clause, but
under the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of cases
as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973
and the 1987 Constitutions), the inordinate delay is violative of the
petitioner's constitutional rights
NLU moved for a new trial as they were able to come up with new
The Court declared that long and unexplained delay in the
corrected by the eventual filing of the Informations. (Villanueva)
ANG TIBAY,vs.CIR
G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940
DOCTRINE:
The Court enumerated the requisites of administrative due process,
as follows: (a) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof; (b) the
tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (c) the decision
must have something to support itself; (d) the evidence must be
disclosed to the parties; (f) the tribunal or any of its judges must act
on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and the law
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and (g) the board or body
should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding will know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the decision.
FACTS:
TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a leather company
which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of
leather, Toribio caused the lay off of members of National Labor
Union Inc. NLU averred that Toribios act is not valid as it is not
within the CBA. That there are two labor unions in Ang Tibay; NLU
and National Workers Brotherhood. That NWB is dominated by
Toribio hence he favors it over NLU.
evidence/documents that they were not able to obtain before as
they were inaccessible and they were not able to present it before the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents
in the CIR.
that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be

expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
Court of Industrial Relations. 9. That the attached documents and
The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their
for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc.
admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
the judgment rendered herein.




The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, ISSUE: Should a New Trial be granted to the National Labor Union
prays for the vacation of the judgement rendered by the majority of in line with the concept of due process?

this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial

Relations for a new trial, and avers:1. the shortage of leather soles RULING:

in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the Yes. The SC ruled that there should be a new trial in favor of NLU.
members of the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false and The SC ruled that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or
unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due
Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather.2. That the supposed process.

lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a The Court has re-examined the entire record of the proceedings
scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite had before the Court of Industrial Relations in this case, and found
the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.3. That no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here
Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated September 29, was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript
1938, (re supposed delay of leather soles from the States) was but taken contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of a
a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond record of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing
despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.4. counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It
That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a is evident that these statements and expressions of views of
company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the counsel have no evidentiary value.

existence and functions of which are illegal. 5. That in the exercise

by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining, majority rule In describing the CIR

and elective representation are highly essential and indispensable. The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions
6. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had been are specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act
(the) principal source of dissensions and continuous civil war in No. 103). It is more an administrative than a part of the integrated
Spain cannot and should not be made applicable in interpreting and judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere
applying the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which
American origin where the industrial peace has always been the is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked
rule. 7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties
practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will
and unjustly favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood. 8. That appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative
and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions when directly attached." This principle emanates from the more
in the determination of disputes between employers and employees fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere.
but its functions are far more comprehensive and expensive.. There Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power.

is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicial functions,

which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of

governmental powers.
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or

conclusion but the evidence must be "substantial means such
Administrative Due Process
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to
In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. support a conclusion." The statute provides that "the rules of
No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, Court has the evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be
occasion to point out g that the Court of Industrial Relations may be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to
said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so
does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
due process in trials and investigations of an administrative administrative order. But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in
character. There are primary rights which must be respected even administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without
in proceedings of this character:
a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere

uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes evidence

the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case

and submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief

Hughes,"the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at
the rudimentary requirements of fair play.
the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the

parties affected. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their
case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which right to know and meet the case against them. It should not,
he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is
"the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods
the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and
conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for
is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration."
the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given

case, but their report and decision are only advisory. The Court of

Industrial Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute
(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board
decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public
namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official Delantar, whom she treated as her own father. Simplicio was a
such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations fifty-six year old homosexual whose ostensible source of income
may deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at his
exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers.
house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin trade as a

pimp.

(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore,

must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and PATRICIO DUMLAO, ROMEO B. IGOT, and ALFREDO
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a SALAPANTAN, JR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of G.R. No. L-52245 January 22, 1980

work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all

controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty DOCTRINE:

is solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification.
examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with the What it proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and
right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no unreasonable. That constitutional guarantee is not violated by a
such statutory authority.
reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, where

the classification is germane to the purpose of the law and applies

to all those belonging to the same class.

(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial

questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to FACTS:

the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or
reasons for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is Restraining Order filed by petitioners, in their own behalf and all
inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
others allegedly similarly situated, seeking to enjoin respondent

COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of Batas
In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to Pambansa Big. 51, 52, and 53 for being unconstitutional.

observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the

Ang Tibay and the National Worker's Brotherhood the record is The Petition alleges that petitioner, Patricio Dumlao, is a former
barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who has filed his certificate of
to predicate, in a national way, a conclusion of law. (zulueta)
candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming elections

of January 30, 1980. Petitioner, Romeo B. Igot, is a taxpayer, a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs., ROMEO G. JALOSJOS
qualified voter and a member of the Bar who, as such, has taken
G.R. Nos. 132875-76. November 16, 200
his oath to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.

Petitioner, Alfredo Salapantan, Jr., is also a taxpayer, a qualified
FACTS:
voter, and a resident of San Miguel, Iloilo.

Maria Rosilyn Delantar was a slim, eleven-year old lass with long,

straight black hair and almond-shaped black eyes. She grew up in Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of
a two-storey apartment in Pasay City under the care of Simplicio section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and
contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real
Constitution. Said Section 4 provides:
differentiations, one class can be treated and regulated differently

from another class. For purposes of public service, employees 65
Sec. 4. Special Disqualification in addition to violation of section 10 years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger
of Art. XI I-C of the Constitution and disqualification mentioned in employees. Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory
existing laws, which are hereby declared as disqualification for any retirement, while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily
of the elective officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. Any retired retirable.
elective provincial city or municipal official who has received
payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the
law, and who shall have been 6,5 years of age at the
commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be
elected shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office
from which he has retired (Emphasis supplied)



Petitioner Dumlao alleges that the aforecited provision is directed
insidiously against him, and that the classification provided therein
is based on "purely arbitrary grounds and, therefore, class
legislation."



ISSUE:

Whether or not section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.



RULING:

No. Section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared
valid. Petitioner Dumlao's contention that section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is
discriminatory against him personally is belied by the fact that
several petitions for the disqualification of other candidates for local
positions based on the challenged provision have already been
filed with the COMELEC (as listed in p. 15, respondent's
Comment). This tellingly overthrows Dumlao's contention of
intentional or purposeful discrimination.



The assertion that Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is contrary to the safer
guard of equal protection is neither well taken. The constitutional
guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational