You are on page 1of 37

LOPEZ v.

ROXAS
GR L 25716 7/28/66
Ponente: CJ Conception
- Creation of PET unconstitutional RA 1793 VP race
Facts:
1/5/66: Election Protest 2 (#Of votes) by Roxas
2/22/66: Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction = RA 1793 unconstitutional
o Nullifies constitutional authority of Congress
o Constitutional tenure
o Inconsistent with power of Congress
o Illegal for Justices
o PET inferior
o Congress cant appoint
Issue: Const? YES
Held: YES PET is the sole judge of electoral protests of P & VP
Court not created but CONFERRED by SC
Additional duties only NOT new officer/appointed
NOT inferior = same court, just diff functions
NOT inconsistent, just diff nature (mere declaration of Congress, NOT same with PET)
If found not to deserve position, tenure not there in first place

ANGARA v. EC
GR L-45081 7/15/36
Ponente: J Laurel
- Angara member-elect of NA
- Respondents: Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castilllo, Dionisio Mayor; Petitioner: Jose Angara
Facts:
Dec 3: Final (NA)
Ynsua: MOP (EC)
Dec 9: Final (EC)
Angara MOP (NA)
Issue:
Const. has EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION upon EC reg.contests to NA
Const. EXCLUDES jurisdiction to Leg.dep. of NA
Held:
EC determines ALL contests
Not separate to government

DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC


GR 205720 1/21/15
Ponente: Justice Leonen
- Respondent: Atty Marajucom; Petitioner: DOB = Most rev. Vicente Navarra
- Oversized tarps 6x10ft (Conscience Vote ANTI RH Team buhay PRO RH team patay; IBASURA RH LAW)
Facts:
2/22/13: Notice to remove within 3 days RES.NO.9615 (2x3 max)
2/27/13: COMELEC letter of immediate removal or else
P wants freedom of speech so petitioned Certiorari & prohibition for preliminary injunction & TRO
Issue: Certiorari proper?
Held: NOT a proper remedy because its only for Grave Abuse of Discretion or If NO Plain, Speedy, Adequate
Recovery (Dapat COMELEC nalang muna bago high court)

FIRESTONE CERAMICS v. CA
GR 127245 6/28/2000
Ponente: J Purisima
Facts:
SC Circulation 2-89 Feb 7 1989
o Const. in question
o Crim.case = death penalty
o Unusual
o Affects ambassadors, consuls
o Affects CSC, COE, COA
o Penalty = disbarment, dismissal, 1yr suspension
o Modifiable contrine/principle
o At least 3 merit attention
o All by majority important
3/3/2000: 3rd div/ voted 4-1 DENY; COURT 9-5 ACCEPT
Par9 Res En Banc 11/18/93
Held:
En Banc Honored
MR unresolved

FABIAN v. DESIERTO
GR 129742 9-16-98
Ponente: J Regalado
- Respondent: Nestor Agustin (D.Eng); Petitioner: Teresita Fabian (Pres&stockholder of PROMAT)
Facts:
A threatened F when she wanted to break up so she filed Administrative case, A guilty with 1 yr
penalty (OMB)
A asks for reconsideration; OMB inhibits self because Fs counsel was his BFF
Deputy OMB nalang! exonerated
F appealed to SC (Sec 27 RA 6770)
Issue: appealable to SC? NOit adds unnecessary burden to SC, cant expand its jurisdiction without approval
either.
Held: Cant! Sec 30 of VI of const says that doing so violates constitution

SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE v. MANALO


GR 180906 10/7/08
Ponente: CJ Puno
- Manalo bros captivity - Writ of amparo
Facts:
Manalos abducted by CAFGU as suspected NPA, tortured, threatened 18mos
Escaped 8/13/07
10 days after Petition for prohibition, injunction, TRO = pending so WRIT OF AMPARO 10/27/07
12/26/07: CA granted WOA; ordered Sec of National Defense & Chief of Staff AFP to furnish
investigation reports to Manalos, confirm present places of military, and medical reports and records
SND, Chief, APPEALED tot SC for reversal
Issue: statements enough?? YES!!!
Held:
Cont. violation of security
WOA most potent remedy
Concealed and protected due to threat

CARPIO-MORALES v. CA
GR 217126-27 11/10/15
Ponente: J Perlas Bernabe
- Binay case Makati Parking Building
Facts:
Complaint for plunder & violation of RA 3019 Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
1st Panel:
o Grave misconduct
o Serious Dishonesty
o Conduct prejudicial to best interest of service
o RA 3019 Sec 3 (corrupt practices)
o Malversation of public funds
o Falsification of documents
2nd panel: sep.orders for each
o OMB: prev.suspension order 6 mos GUILT STRONG!
Docs negated publication of bids
Release of funds (receipts and vouchers)
o Grave M, S.Dishonesty, Conduct Prej
Warrant removal (RRACCS)
Positions allow access of records witnesses
o OMB to DILG: Immediately!!!
o Copy sent to mayor
o Binay: Certiorari to CA to nullify PS and have TRO/WPI
Before election Part1&P2
3&5 during term condonation doctrine
lack of evidence
o CA granted TRO
o OMB: huh? May PS na ah
o Binay: Contempt: YOU GUYS DISOBEY THE CA tsktsk
o Res 3/20/15 CA: GR SP 139453 & 139504, OMB go comment
o OMB: CA UNAUTHORIZED to grant TRO (no prima facie evidence; OMB act sec 14 1989)
o Illegal & improper for CAs directive
o Binay: Sec 1 VIII Const: CA CAN!! Because grave abuse. And OMB is impeachable so cant
deprive CA
o CA grants WPI no concrete evidence reg. July 3,4,24, 2013 payments
o OMB: CD irrelevant since investigation purpose only
Issues&Held:
Petition is OMBs remedy? YES
CA has jurisdiction over certiorari? YES any stage yes
CA ^ ^ TRO&WPI + OMBs ps? YES ancillary to exercise of certiorari of CA
CA gravely abused by TRO, WPI + PS = NO

COURT OF APPEALS:

Section 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts;
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7902.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS: RA 9282 expanded jurisdiction of the CTA, elevated its rank to level of collegiate
court with special jurisdiction and enlarged its membership to a presiding justice and five associate justices.
SANDIGANBAYAN: Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to
function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law

RA 8249 AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Section 1. The first paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition, Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and Compensation. - A


special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a
court ofjustice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice
and fourteen associate justices who shall be appointed by the President."

Section 2. Section 2 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SECTION 2. Official Station; Place of Holding Sessions. - The Sandiganbayan shall have its principal
office in the Metro Manila area and shall hold sessions thereat for the trial and determination of
cases filed with it: Provided, however, That cases originating from the principal geographical regions
of the country, that is, from Luzon, Visayas or Mindanao, shall be heard in their respective regions of
origin except only when the greater convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other
compelling considerations require the contrary, in which instance a case originating from one
geographical region may be heard in another geographical region: Provided, further, That for this
purpose the presiding justice shall authorize any divisions of the court to hold sessions at any time
and place outside Metro Manila and, where the interest of justice so requires, outside the territorial
boundaries of the Philippines. The Sandiganbayan may require the services of the personnel and the
use of facilities of the courts or other government offices where any of the divisions is holding
sessions and the personnel of such courts or offices shall be subject to the orders of the
Sandiganbayan."

Section 3. The second paragraph of Section 3 of the same decree is hereby deleted.

Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:

"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang


panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial
department heads;

"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city


treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads;

"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;

"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher;

"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -


controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations;

"(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

"(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the


provisions of the Constitution; and

"(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

"b. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986.

"In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or
higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above,
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan
trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

"The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or
orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction orof their
appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

"The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos.
1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
exclusive of the Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the
Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for
review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the
Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the
People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986.
"In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in govemment-owned or controlled corporations,
they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

"Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously
instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing
of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal
action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had therefore been filed
separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed
with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed
abandoned."

Section 5. Section 7 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:

'SECTION 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. - All decisions and final orders determining
the merits of a case or finally disposing of the action or proceedings of the Sandijanbayan shall
contain complete findings of the facts and the law on which they are based, on all issues properly
raised before it and necessary in deciding the case.

"A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation or notice of the final order on judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be
decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.

"Decisions and final orders ofthe Sandiganbyan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Whenever, in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the
manner prescribed in the Rules of Court.

"Judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and enforced in the manner provided
by law.

"Decisions and final orders of other courts in cases cognizable by said courts under this decree as well
as those rendered by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable to, or be
reviewable by, the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of the Court.

"In case, however, the imposed penalty by the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial court in the proper
exercise of their respective jurisdictions, is death, review by the Supreme Court shall be automatic,
whether or not accused files an appeal."

Section 6. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the initial implementation of this Act shall be
charged against the current fiscal year appropriations of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, such sums as may be
needed for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 7. Transitory Provision. - This Act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not
begun as of the approval hereof

Section 8. Separability of Provisions. - If for any reason any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or
invalid, such parts or portions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 9. Repealing Clause. - All acts, decrees, general orders and circulars, or parts thereof inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 10. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two
(2) newspapers of general circulation.

DUNCANO v. SANDIGABAYAN
GR 191894 July 15, 2015
Ponente: Justice Peralta

Facts:
Danilo Duncado, regional director of Revenue Region No.7 of BIR, failed to disclose in his SALN
Statement of Assets, liabilities, and net worth for 2002 Documail Provides Corporation, 1993 Nissan
Patrol motor in sons name.
Filed MOD w/ Prayer to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
Salary Grade 26 so Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction RA 8249
Issues: Sandigan bayan has jurisdiction?? NOPE
Held: Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to those in executive branch w Salary grade 27 or higher (Duncano isnt),
and he doesnt fall into the list of officials enumerated in Sec 4 regardless of salary grades

Regional Trial Courts Courts of General Jurisdiction: An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds
Therefor, and for other purposes, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (1981)

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or
for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction
over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts;

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds
Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);

(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);

(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by
law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*)

Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in
all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively
taken cognizance of by the latter.

Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and

(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties
or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be
appealable by petition for review to the

Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court
has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.

Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the
Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases,
urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or
such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice.

Section 24. Special Rules of Procedure. Whenever a Regional Trial Court takes cognizance of juvenile and
domestic relation cases and/or agrarian cases, the special rules of procedure applicable under present laws to
such cases shall continue to be applied, unless subsequently amended by law or by rules of court promulgated
by the Supreme Court.

Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts In
Cities:

An Act Expanding The Jurisdiction Of The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, And Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For The Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg 129, Otherwise Known As The Judiciary
Reorganization Act Of 1980, Republic Act No. 7691 (1994)

[1] The new jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil and original cases, and in cadastral and land registration cases, under
Sections 19, 32, 33 and 34 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 was effective on April 15, 1994,
fifteen (15) days after the publication in the Malaya and in the Times Journal on March 30, 1994, pursuant to
Section 8 of R.A. No. 7691.

[2] The exclusion of the term "damages of "whatever kind" in determining the jurisdictional amount under
Section 19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.a. No. 7691, applies to cases where the
damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the
claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

[3] The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts
under Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, has been increased to cover offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the fine. As a
consequence, the Regional Trial Courts have no more original jurisdiction over offenses committed by public
officers and employees in relation to their office, where the offense is punishable by more than four (4) years
and two (2) months up to six (6) years.

[4] The provisions of Section 32 (2) of B.P. 129 as amended by R. A. No. 7691, apply only to offenses
punishable by imprisonment or fine, or both, in which cases the amount of the fine is disregarded in
determining the jurisdiction of the court. However, in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine,
the amount thereof shall determine the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the original provisions of
Section 32 (2) of B.P. Blg. 129 which fixed original exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over offenses punishable with a fine of not more than
four thoudand pesos. If the amount of the fine exceeds four thousand pesos, the Regional Trial Court shall
have jurisdiction, including offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office,
where the amount of the fine does not exceed six thousand pesos.

However, this rule does not apply to offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence which
are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, irrespective of the amount of the imposable fine.cralaw Manila, June 14, 1994.

ECHAGARAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE


GR 132601 Jan. 19, 1999
Ponente: Justice Puno

Facts:
Leo Echagaray raped a 10year old daughter of commonlaw spouse and is s.t. lethal injection RA 8177
Ech. Filed MOR and supplemental MOR raising constitutionality of RA 7659 and death penalty but got
denied anyway.
Filed petition for prohibition saying its cruel, degrading, unusual; violative of due process; violates PH
ob.under international covenants; undue delegation of leg.power (equal protection)
OSG said lethal is actually most modern, humane, and economical
CHR filed Motion of Leave of Court to Intervene and Appear as Amicus Curiae w/ attached Petition to
Intervene
Issues: Court loses jurisdiction? NO!!
Held: Court only loses the jurisdiction to amend, modify, or alter

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. CA


GR 114323 July 23, 1998
Ponente: Justice Martinez

Facts:
Pacific Cement Co. failed to deliver 4000 metric tons of oil well cement to Bombay and Calcutta. They
offered to replace with Class G but didnt meet specs.
Arbitrator Shri N.N. Malhorta favored ONG with Arbitral award.
Petitioner had several demands but respondent still refused to pay
ONG complained to RTC of Surigao for foreign judgment, but Pacific claims that its being bereft of any
statement of facts and law
RTC dismissed: lack of valid cause of action
Petitioner appealed to CA: affirms dismissal
RTCs ruling: arbitrator has no jurisdiction and cant validly adopt award
Petitioner: Certiorari
Issues: Can judgment of foreign court be enforced? YES!!!
Held:
SC: we also do what the Indian court did and it was okay as long as complete facts and conclusions
If in foreign country a valid judgment may be rendered in adopting arbitrator findings, same goes for
us.
Foreign judgment is valid and binding until contrary is shown. Presume regularity of due notice
If valid, proceedings to RTC is unnecessary.

DE CASTRO v. JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL


GR 191002, etc. March 17, 2010
Ponente: Justice Bersamina
- Constitutionality of PGMA appointing CJ Corona (against Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Nachura) 7 days
after 2010 elections when accdg to Sec 4 (1) and Section 9, Art VIII of Constitution states that vacancies should
be filled within 90 days from occurrence; contradicting Sec. 15 of Art. VII that prohibits President to appoint
within 2 months before next elections until end of term.

Facts:
Jan. 18, 2010 JBC enbanc agreed to start filling up CJ position
PHILCONSA asked for list of nominees
OSG said Pres may appoint next CJ since Const. did not apply to SC
Issues: Can Pres appoint the successor of Puno upon retirement (corona)? YES
Held:
Sec 15 did not specifically say Members of SC

MARBURY v. MADISON
5 US 137 Feb 24, 1803
Ponente: Justice Marshall

Facts:
Pres.John Adams named 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for DC under Organic Act
(an attempt of Federalists to control federal judiciary)
Commissions signed and sealed by Sec.Marshall but undelivered before expiration of term
TJ took over but refused to honor commissions = invalid because not delivered during Adams term
William Marbury was supposed to get so he applied to SC for Writ of Mandamus (to compel
delivery/performance of mandatory duties) judiciary act of 1789
Issues:
Does he have right to commission?
Remedy?
SC can review acts of Congress to know if unconst.or void?
Congress expand scope of SCs original jurisdiction beyond ArtIII of const?
SC have orig.jurisdiction to issue mandamus?
Held:
Yes effective when signed
Yes he has right to remedy when receiving injury
Yes SC can, since its their responsibility to say the law, apply it, decide on conflicts.
No OJ only if affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls; appellate jurisdiction in others
No must show exercise of appellate jurisdiction = corrects proceedings and doesnt create the case

FRANCISCO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


GR 160261 November 10, 2003
Ponente: Justice Carpio - Morales

Facts:
Nov. 28, 2001 12th Congress of HR approved rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings
July 22, 2002 Resolution to conduct investigation in aid of legislation through disbursements and
expenditures by CJ of SC of JDF
Jun 2, 2003 Estrada filed impeachment complaint to CJ hilario Davide Jr and 7 AJs for violating
Constitution, public trust and other high crimes (reg. JDF)
August 5, 2003 endorsed by HR
October 13, 2003 sufficient inform
October 22, 2003 insufficient of substance
2nd impeachment + Resolution of Endorsement
Issues: petitions premature no basis no justifiable issue?
Held:
Court has no jurisdiction. Court can determine what is impeachable

TANADA v. CUENCO
GR L-10520 Feb 28, 1957
Ponente: Justice Concepcion

Facts:
1955 Sen.elections Warns, Sumulong, Paredes, Rodrigo, Sabido, Recto, Alonto, and Rosales won but
Macapagal contested Senate Electoral Case No 4 to SET
Feb 22 1956 Tanada was chosen; then senate chose Cuenco and Delgado
Tanada and Mac said its not fair because Senate consists of 23 from Nacionalista, 1 from Citizens
Issues:
Political question?
Election of Cuenco and Delgado valid?
Held:
No not against senate.

FILM DEV COUNCIL v. COLON HERITAGE REALTY CORPORATION


GR 203754-204418 June 16, 2015
Ponente: Justice Velasco Jr.
Facts:
amusement taxes Sec 140 of Local Government Code 1991
FDCP passed by Congress RA 9167
Sec 13 A or B graded films get amusement tax reward
Producer gets incentive equal to tax imposed and collected (tax goes to cities and municipalities in
Metro manila etc)
Sec 14 All tax shall be deducted and withheld by proprietors operators or lessees of theaters or
cinemas and remitted within 30 days from termination of exhibition to council, rewarding producers
15 days from receipt failure to do so must pay 5% per month
Demand letters from Cebu city were not acknowledged so they filed a petition for declaratory relief
w/ WPI
Sec 13 and 14 of RA 9167 = invalid and unconstitutional accdg to cebu
RTC agrees violative of sec 5 Art X
Issues: unconstitutional??
Held:
Sec 140 and 151 of LGC can levy tax as long as not more than 30% of gross receipts from admission
fees
LGUs have power to levy
RTC shouldnt have declared unconstitutional because only sec 13 and 14 were unconst.NOT the
whole law itself.
Doctrine of Operative Facts declated unconst. act is valid and must be complied with
^apply this for the benefit of FDCP, since they complied with RA 9167
Proprietors gotta remit the money received to FDCP up to 30days from date of finality
After that, remit the ff to LGU

OCAMPO v. ENRIQUEZ
GR 225973 Nov 8, 2016
Ponente: Justice Peralta
- Marcos burial in Libingan ng Bayani
Facts:
8/7/16: Sec of Nat. Defense Delfin Lorenzana memorandum to Chief of Staff of AFP Gen. Ricardo
Visaya about Marcos internment because Duterte said so
8/9/16: AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez issued directives to Phil Army Commanding Gen
Other parties: Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus marcos burial violates laws and he is not entitled
in LNB, his fam already waived it (Saturnino Ocampo, Rene Saguisag, Edcel Lagman, Loretta Pargas-
Rosales, Heherson Alvarez, Zaira Baniaga, Algamar Latiph, Leila de Lima)
Issues:
1. Grave abuse of discretion of Sec Def and AFP rear for issuing to comply to duterte?
2. Issuance and implementation of ^ violates constitution and domestic and intl laws?
3. Historical facts/laws to recover ill-gotten wealth and court pronouncements nullified Marcos
entitlement?
4. Marcos fam waived burial after agreeing with govt in conditions and procedures where his remais
will be brought back and interred in ph?
Held:
1. Political question NOT a Justifiable controversy
2. NO. Since its presidents decision
3. NO. Still qualified since accdg to AFP reg G-161-375: former presidents may be
4. NO. President can amend revoke or rescind political arguments entered into by predecessors and
policies he considers. Has power to reserve for public use any land in public domain. Since there
was no law excluding the LNMB, he can.

GMA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN


GR 220598 July 21, 2016
Ponente: Justice Bersamin
- Gloria accused of plunder Sec2 RA7080 on PCSC budget because she signed and put ok, about their request
for demurrer (request for dismissal of law suit due to no legal claim/insufficient evidence
Facts:
GMA, Aguas, and Uriarte accused w plunder 1st div SB
1/08-6/10 365,997,915 CIF confidential intelligence fund
Diversion of funds, Raiding the public treasury by withdrawing and receiving, unjust enrichment by
using position
They bailed and SB granted 1/6/13 because evidence not strong
11/5/13 denied bail of GMA and Aguas because strong evidence
Aleta Tolentino main witness
They filed demurrers because Prosecution didnt establish plunder
April 6, 2015 SB granted demurrers to Morato, Requero, Taruc, and Villar and dismissed but not for
GMA, Aguas, and Valencia because enough evidence
GMAs okay and sign = unqualified approval of Uriartes
GMA didnt commit overt act, but her signing allowed uriarte to raid so its assumed that shes the
mastermind HAHA yan kasi sign ng sign
Issues:
Certiorari to assail denial? NO
State: showed conspiracy (2+ people agree to felony)? NO implied only
All elements of plunder? Evidence? Raiding proved by prosecution?
Held:
Cant be deprived of jurisdiction to correct grave abuse certiorari improper because other remedies
available
Denying demurrer cant be renewed by certiorari
Conspiracy: crime only if law considers it and prescribes penalty
Implied only because not enough evidence
GMA not part just because she approved because her approval isnt illegal and she didnt make her
part of any raid
SB: Conspiracy due to sig and cert; SC: not enough
No proof of ill gotten wealth GMA and Aguas (plunder requires: malversation of public funds,
connivance, receiving money, conveying of assets, accepting interest, monopolies, at least 50M)
Failed to prove predicate act of raiding public treasury
Convert use as if own; Misappropriate take for self benefit; misuse; malversation permit other to
take public fund
SB ignored failure of info to charge conspiracy for plunder and ignored lack of evidence

KILOSBAYAN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


GR 177721 July 3, 2007
Ponente: Justice Azcuna

Facts:
May 16 2007 Greg Ong as AJ of SC since Callejo retired April 28
Petitioners said its unconst,arbitrary, and whimsical and w grave abuse of discretion fo ES to do that
since Ongs Chinese
Sec 7 (1) Article VIII of 1987 Const. No person shall be appointed member of SC of any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines from birth
They issue certiorari
Ong forcing that he is because his mother was a Filipino citizen by the time he was born. Asked BIR
and DOJ for certification
Issues: Filipino citizen? HELL NO
Held:
Naturalized only. DOJ or BIR cant amend final decision

Independence: IN RE: ALLEGATIONS OF MR. AMADO P. MACASAET


AM 07-09-13-SCN August 8, 2008
Ponente: Justice Reyes
- case about the rumors that Macasaet Published in his Business circuit in Malaya newpaper sept 18,19,20,21
2007 jose marquez saw
Facts:
He published a story about Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago with bribery by receiving 10Mpesos in
boxes by Cecilia Delis her secretary to favor accused Henry Go.
She denied and ordered Macasaet to explain why no sanctions should be imposed through Resolution
under Section 3D rule 71 1997 rules of procedure
Issues: Indirect contempt? YES!!!
Held: guilty of indirect contempt of court
Just mere hearsays and unbelievable
Macasaet guilty of contempt because story was false and eh could have prevented publication of his
false story through diligence in verification of veracity
There is no proof that its true, merely personal assumptions.

INTEGRITY: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO


AM RTJ-99-1460 March 31, 2006
Ponente: Justice Chico Nazario

Facts:
Unfit to be judge because of psych problems
JBC allowed 2nd opinion because of impressive acad background
1999 audit if sala by OCA - admin complaint against floro preventive suspensions
taking advantage of moral ascendancy to settle Crim case 20395MN to persuade both parties to sign
settlement without presence of prosecutor
Resolution disposed motions of voluntary inhibition and recon of order denying petition for
naturalization of petitioner of that case
Issues:
OA details in card violating Canon 2 Rule 2.02 Code of Judicial conduct? YES
Evil or mental incapacity? MENTAL
Held:
Including OA details in card violates norms of simplicity and modesty
Court agrees that he cannot remain RTC judge
Psychosis and gross deficiency

PEOPLE v. CA
GR 118882 Sept 26, 1996
Ponente: Justice Melo

Facts:
Disqualified for taking cognizance Criminal Case 93-01-38 and 93-01-39
Bias and conflict of interest because he joined investigation
WPI or TOR to annul decision of CA and enjoin judge from conducting further proceedings
Respondents had to submit comments within period but failed so court required them to show cause
why shouldnt they be dealt with for failure. Comments within 10 days
OSG filed compliance stating the required copies dec 26, 1995
Issue: judge espina neutral and impartial as a judge in investigation at Regional state prosecutors office level
against go? NO
Held:
Not neutral because he joined the investigation against the respondent then favors her after.
Therefore doubting his impartiality

IN RE: ALLEGATION MADE UNDER OATH AT THE BLUE RIBBON SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING
AM SB 14-21-J Sept 23, 2014
Per Curiam

Facts:
Greg ong was alleged friend of napoles because of a pic of them in Eraps party that circulated
He claims that its nothing and that hes just a friend of Erap, and that he has never associated nor
partied with napoles. He only advised her legal strategies regarding Kevlar helmet cases.
Sula said that Napoles asked them not to turn back at her and just wait for TRO
Benhur Luy claims that he saw Ong and Napoles in office when Ong wanted to deposit money to get
13% interest from AFPSLAI.
Issues: Guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty, and impropriety, violating new code of judicial conduct? YES
Held:
Testimonies claim that they have been transacting
Must be careful to avoid any negative suspicions affecting objectivity
Found not truthful even before complaint, so guilty of Dishonesty Violating Canon 3.

OCAMPO v. JUDGE ARCAYA CHUA


AM OCA IPI 07 2630 April 23, 2010
Per Curiam
- RTC Makati judge has several cases
1. Ocampo Case
Facts:
Harassment, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Ignorance, Gross Misconduct, Manifest Partiality,
Conduct Prejudicial to best interest of service
Francisco Ocampo: letter to OCA about Special Proceeding pending (custody of daughters Francesca
and Fatima)
F took daughters out of country without court permission
Wife has visitation rights in Meycauayan
F filed MD for lack of jurisdiction
Not residents of Makati but of Bulacan
MD denied
F filed MR and questioned denial
Denied MR and issued TPO and order requiring Fr to (1. Turn over custody and stay away from wifes
Makati residence, 2. Refrain from committing acts that would harass them, 3. 50kmonthly)
F: Motion to Inhibit + Urgent Ex Parte Motion to rectify order
o Denial despite evidence of not Makati residents
o Setting of hearing day after summons served
o TPO even if period to file hasnt lapsed
o Ordering support without basis
o Implemented TPO in OA way (sherrif sugod sa baguio 6am)
Judge: complaint filed to compel her to inhibit herself
Judge: denial = lack of merit
Judge: Hearing cant be earlier because full calendar nor later because dec 13 na last
Judge: RA9262 TPO should be issued on date of filing. Wifes prayer incorporated in her petition so no
need for court to wait for F.
Support for wife only. 150k originally but 50k is more reasonable cant complain na
Issues: Guilty?
Held:
NOT GUILTY.
No admin liability in absence of motive, bad faith, fraud, malice
Cant be faulted for sudden because TPO requires quick action
She issued TPO because born out of insemination. Sheriff responsible for MANNER of doing it
Charges dismissed

2. Chang Tan & RCBC


Facts:
Gross Ignorance, Gross Misconduct
Court admin Chris Lock told Office of CJ reports on rampant selling of TPO and PPO (permanent) in
RTC Makati 144
a) Chang Tan (custody)
a. 5/7/07: TPO granting Alber Chang Tan custody of Rafi Pulliam
b. not fully implemented argument between CT and OIC
c. Tan: Break open order to retrieve child to court
d. Judge granted!
e. OCA believes that speedy issuances showed unusual interest and tailorfitted to demands
f. Judge: 5/7 order justified under Sec 8 & 15 of RA 9262 (anti violence against women) &
Circular 03-04-04-SC
g. Judge: Art 176 Fam code, illegitimate child under parental authority of mother unless court
finds other compelling reasons. But there was a letter of child about abuses from mom,
statement of yaya, Psych Ev report of Dr Rodriguez
h. Judge: Order not speedily issued, shes just fast
i. Judge: There was no heated argument because she wouldve heard it
b) RCBC (WPA)
a. 5/9/07 org date for Writ of Preliminary Attachment but resched to 4/23/07
b. Issued WPI agad
c. May 9 because unavailable, mandatory wordings of SC Circular 1998 because judge of paired
court shall cognizance all cases as acting judge
d. Allegations were all supported by documentary evidence
Issues: Guilty?
Held:
YES!!! Expected to know correct implementation. It CANT favor man.
No substantial evidence about bribery

3. Judicial Audit Case (marriage certificates)


Facts:
Gross misconduct
Judicial audit May 15-17, 2007
Padlocked, 24hour surveillance, no records can be taken out
Salvador Indicio Jr caught disposing plastic bag of marriage certificates ordered by Judge.
Charged for Ordering disposal and unpaid marriage fees of 1809 marriages (542,700), and for failing
to reflect marriages in monthly report of cases
Judge: in plastic because Noel Umpig was gonna help transfer from Gusali ng Katarungan to Makati
City Hall but then got delayed and the garbage accumulated already. Natapon niya ng mali.
Judge: Receipts are in the plastic! MeTC and RTC Clerk of Courts adopted wrong procedure in
verifying payment because not all payments are made in same date
Discrepancies 1/04-3/07: Umpig tampered kasi galit for not granting cash allowance
Victoria Jamora: failed to correct monthl report because not instructed by judge and didnt know # of
marriages
Issues: Guilty?
Held:
YES!! Substantial evidence that didnt report # unequal to fees paid
Out of 1975 only 166 paid
Bags nowhere to be found and days before audit yung pagtapon
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE + FORFEITURE of all benefits
Jamora unlikely to be unaware, she condoned wrongdoing so shes guilty of GM and is DISMISSED
with FORFEITURE

4. Sylvia Santos v. Judge Arcaya Chua (nagpabayad 100k then binayaran daw 10M)
Facts:
Serious misconduct, dishonesty
Santos asked for help friend Emerita Muoz
Judge: will use connections for speedy res just give me 100K
Paid 100k but unresolved after months
Problem kasi may nagoffer 10M sakin
Balik mo na pera ko!! Tapos di macontact after
Judge: I never asked for 100K. ikaw lumapit for Mario Tolosa to help recover 50k , tapos I said no then
bitter rumor spreading bitch ka na
Santos: hay bahala na Ill dismiss this na -> complaint dismissed lack of evidence
Reopening of admin case and directed investigation by Court
J Salvador: admin liable for GM and Dishonesty
Suspended for 6mos then filed MR
Issues: Guilty?
Held:
Conduct violative of New Code of Judicial Conduct (not let relationships influence judgment, conduct
above reproach and perceived that way, behavior and conduct reaffirm peoples faith in judiciary,
avoid impropriety and appearance of it.) 1-4, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1
Santos didnt know wtf tolosa is
6mos suspension, MR denied

Civil Liability: An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act 386 arts. 27 and 32
(1950) and Damages in General [Civil Code]

Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against
the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;


(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness
in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the
latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Criminal Liability: An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [revised penal code], Act No. 3815,
arts. 204-206 (1932)
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual
absolute disqualification.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence. Any judge who, by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for
decision shall be punished by arresto mayor and temporary special disqualification.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory
order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arrest to mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but
if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or
decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.

SANTIAGO III v. ENRIQUEZ JR.


AM CA 090470J Feb 13, 2009
Ponente: Justice Carpio Morales

Facts:
Petition for Reconstruction of Lost/Destroyed Original Certificate of Pantaleona Santiago and Blas
Fajardo by Santiago
RTC QC granted but Republic appealed to CA 13th div with J.Enriquez, Sison, and Velosos
Sisons report was the basis. Veloso concurred. Veloso told Sison to reconsider.
Aug 23 requested to designate 2 AJ to complete composition of 5.
Cruz and Bersamin got in.
Veloso and cruz concurred with Enriquez while Bersamin concurred with sison.
Most concurred with Respondent.
Motion of Disqualification : Enriquez deliberately twisted law and jurisprudence to grant appeal
despite evidence Gross ignorance of law/incompetence
Appellate court denied
Claimed as dirty tactic
Issues: Respondent liable? NO
Held:
not tainted with fraud malice or dishonesty so no need for admin complaint
remedy: elevate to higher court
show court acts of conduct of judge indicating arbitrariness
filing charges against one is not right. Its a product of 5 not 1.

Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act No. 3019 (1960)

Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a
public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or
which may lead thereto.

Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term

(a) "Government" includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and
government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines
and their branches.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in
the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as
defined in the preceding subparagraph.
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member
of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative within the
fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicates otherwise.

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any
other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or
for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or
will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given,
without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable
time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own
interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection
with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or
by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in
such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
(a) Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval
of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for
or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of
one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his
official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to
the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential
information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under
Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting
business in any form with the Government.

Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with
any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business,
transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation
shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall
include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy
which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses
defined in Section 3 hereof.

Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity,
within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the
Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction,
contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who, prior to the
assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along
the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such
assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the
official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued
pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.

Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the Congress during the term
for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which
will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by
the Congress during the same term.

The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the
enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.

It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval
of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.

Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after
assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of
office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department
Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case
of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding
House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his
income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar
year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their
statements in the following months of January.

Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand
three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of
such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily
shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law
to the contrary.

Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than
ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any
prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be
entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the
thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less
than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both
such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a
public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

Section 10. Competent court. Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original
jurisdiction of the proper Court of First Instance.

Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years.

Section 12. Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery.

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended
from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is
acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension,
unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Section 14. Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation by any
private person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade or occupation, during
his incumbency, except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves conspiracy with any other person or
public official to commit any of the violations penalized in this Act.

Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances
is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected by such declaration.

Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its approval, but for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth, all
property acquired by a public officer since he assumed office shall be taken into consideration.

ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY:
SUPREME COURT, RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT OT RULE 140 OF RULES OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES
AND JUDGES
AM 01-8-10-SC Sept 11, 2001

DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person
who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an
anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and
concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the
Code of Judicial Conduct.cralaw

SEC. 2. Action on the complaint. If the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent,
and he shall be required to comment within ten (10) days from the date of service. Otherwise, the same shall be dismissed.cralaw

SEC. 3. By whom complaint investigated. Upon the filing of the respondents comment, or upon the expiration of the time for filing the
same and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for
evaluation, report, and recommendation or assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to a retired member of the
Supreme Court, if the respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a Judge of a Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of the Regional Trial Court if the
respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.cralaw

SEC. 4. Hearing. the investigating Justice or Judge shall set a day of the hearing and send notice thereof to both parties. At such hearing
the parties may present oral and documentary evidence. If, after due notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall
proceed ex parte. The Investigating Justice or Judge shall terminate the investigation within ninety (90) days from the date of its
commencement or within such extension as the Supreme Court may grant.cralaw

SEC. 5. Report. Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the investigating Justice or Judge shall submit to the
Supreme Court a report containing findings of fact and recommendation. The report shall be accompanied by the record containing the
evidence and the pleadings filed by the parties. The report shall be confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the Court.cralaw

SEC. 6. Action. The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant.cralaw

SEC. 7. Classification of charges. Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.cralaw

SEC. 8. Serious charges. Serious charges include:chanrobles virtual law library 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4.
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 5. Conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; 6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case
pending before the court; 8. Immorality; 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; 10. Partisan political activities; and cralaw 11.
Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.cralaw

SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. Less serious charges include:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or
in transmitting the records of a case; 2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness; 3. Unauthorized practice
of law; 4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; 5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically
authorized by law; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and cralaw 7. Simple Misconduct.cralaw

SEC. 10. Light Charges. Light charges include:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct; 2. Gambling in public; 3.
Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and cralaw 4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly
reports.cralaw

SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be
imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P40,000.00 B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: 1. Suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or 2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00.cralaw C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be
imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or 2. Censure; 3. Reprimand; 4.
Admonition with warning.cralaw

SEC. 12. Confidentiality of proceedings. Proceedings against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall be attached to the record of
the respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator. These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following
their publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001.cralaw
DISCIPLINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BENCH: PHIL CONST ART XI SEC 3 PAR 8; ART VIII S11;

OCA v. JUDGE ELIZA B YU


AM MTJ 12-1813 Nov 22, 2016
Per Curiam
- judge of MTC pasay branch 47 has several charges
1. Noncompliance w AO 19-2011 memorandum w schedules for night court services
She was assigned night every Friday but she didnt want to so she wrote a letter to DOT sec Lim
saying its not supported by any stats or study. She really didnt go so ExecJudge Colasito assigned
additional night court duties to others
Issues: not following = insubordination? YES
Held:
o Shows arrogance and disrupted orderliness affecting others
o Hinting that court was wrong and impractical = unforgivable
o Disrespute, disrespect, and impair public confidence
2. Wont honor appointments of court personnel
Leilani Tejero Lopez branch clerk of court MTC 47, mariejoy Lagman Clerk III RTC 108 Pasay
July 9, 2010 req to app. clerk of Court III
SPBLC recommended Tejero Lopez
April 12, 2011 CJ Corona, J Carpio and AJ CMorales approved
Yu req temporary app of Ms. Bernardo w letter to Tejero Lopez saying she lacks requirement of
personal endorsement from judge
Lagman got appointed as legres but Yu didnt like because appointed while she still has pending
complaint.
May 2 2011 OCA received letter from Yu asking for updates on delay of appointment and protest,
then ended up threatening them to file charges against oca-spblc
Issues: Insubordination? YES
Held:
o TLopez and Lagman appointments are valid and regular and Yu has no good reason to object
o No right to reject appointment, recommend only = gross insubordination
o Disrespectful language void ab initio big joke LOL poor TL = serious misconduct
o Threats = grave abuse of authority

3. Show-Cause Order against fellow judges


Yu keeps threatening w Admin complaints, declared in court during hearing (fabra v global classe)
that they engaged in irregular conduct, berated Mr Ferdinand Santos in front of staff, harassed
personnel who complained for refusing to sign leave and requiring to submit unwarranted docs
Disrespectful to other judges in letter to Vice Exec Judge Caridad Cuerdo of RTC 113, exec judge pedro
corrales 118, maria Rosario ragasa 108, Colasito, Pascua, for violating Canon 1S3, C2S3 of New code of
Jud conduct, and S1Pc of Pres decree 1829 (obs of justice)
Issue: grave abuse? YES
Held:
o She did, clear abuse of court processes = yabang
o Feeling may power pero wala = gross misconduct
4. Refusal to sign app for LOA and other allegations fo oppression
Josefina Labid charged Yu for oppression, gross ignorance, conduct unbecoming because she refused
to let Noel take leave when he has cancer of floor of mouth
The dudes been bleeding and weak and delirious but she insisted that he report to work on april 4
2011 to deliver copies of docs, go to diff offices
June 28 the mommy tried to submit for him but she wont sign because she claims that Noel signed a
petition saying that she is bobo and corrupt
Medical clearance first before I sign
Issue: not signing oppression and gross ignorance? Yes
Held:
o Noel complied with 2002 revised manual by submitting med cert and clinicial abstracts but
she refused even when she had authority to accept. She ignored everything deliberately.
5. Gross ignorance
Allowed ojt to access records when it shouldnt be because OCA Circular 111-2005 not allowing them

6. Inappropriate messages
Letter complaint of Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito MTC 20 for being unbecoming of judge with sexual
shit through fb and email
Sends long messages and made fake facebook to get her pics
UNBECOMING? YES!!!
Yu denied saying she sent first and confidential daw under exclusionary rule when its not
CA justice Abdulwahid checked and found it improper so unbecoming talaga

***RESOLUTION OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY JUDGE YU


AM MTJ 12-1813 March 14, 2017
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
RE: CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST ASSOSICATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
AM 10-7-17 10/12/12
Facts:
4/28/10 dismissed petition of comfort women during Japanese military
Fiduciary theory of jus cogens by Evan Criddle, Evan Fox-Descent
Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis
Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law by Christian Tams
Referred to Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards by CJ Corona
NO MERIT
MR
Issues:
Plagiarize? NO
Twist works? NO
Held:
He didnt claim it as own. He just cited it wrong by using vague words for writing
Did not twist/distort

ATY MELVIN MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL BELEN


AM RTJ 08-2119 June 30, 2008
Ponente: Conchita Carpio Morales

Facts:
Melvin Mane wrote letter to OCA regarding Judge Medel Arnaldo Belen of RTC Calamba 36 said
demaning, humiliating remarks and berated him during hearing of Civil Case Rural Bank of Cabuyao
inc v. Samuel Malabanan et.al.
Stenographic notes show evidence
Judge should be patient attentive and courteous Rule 3.04
Courts for the litigants
Insulted his MLQU-ness
Motion to inhibit from Judge saying that Mane insinuated that udge issued order on basis of
consideration and not merits. She took it s an assault to her integrity.
Judge ordered mane to explain within 15 days why he shouldnt be contempt, then mane withdrew
his complaint
But despite that, oca still did something about it because the disciplinary authority is to be done
regardless of his withdrawal of complaint, in compliance to the code of conduct.
Issues: unbecoming of judge? HELL YES!!
Held:
Must be free from impropriety and beyond reproach
Below standard decorum
Reprimanded for violation of Canon 3 of JCC
Address merits not the person

CAYETANO v. MONSOD
GR 100113 Sept 13, 1991
Ponente: Justice Paras
- elected guy says hes 10years practicing so hes qualified unlike whats objected to him
Facts:
Christian monsod Appointed as chair of commission of elections but opposed by Reynato Cayetano
because he hasnt been in practice of law for 10 years
Qualifications are to be member of PH bar and law for 10 years, 35 yo, not candidate in preceeding,
and natural born citizen. Monsod claims to be practicing for 10 years but based on his employment
record, he has been a businessman and not really a practicing lawyer
Issues: possesses qualifications? Yes but not all
Held: lawyer economist, manager, entrepreneur, negotiator = considered engaged in 10 years

Padilla:
actual performance of application of knowledge NOT possession of knowledge. Active habitual
repeated customary action. WHICH HE FAILED TO FULFILL HABITUALLY!! (habitual to hold ones self as
lawyer in public, having law office for practice, circular announcing, take oath in notary, files
manifestation with SC)
active and continued practice with services available to public
atty client relationship
Gutierrez:
He didnt practice except for the one year he spent in dads office
Required committed participation in decisive choice
Nothing in his record that gives law enough attention or degree of commitment and participation
He has lawyers working for him, not him working as lawyer

ULEP v. LEGAL CLINIC


BM 553 June 17, 1993
Ponente: Justice Regalado
- case about fake legal clinic offering services when they arent even lawyers
Facts:
Ulep wants SC to make Legal Clinic stop making ads that they published (Secret marriage, Guam
Divorce and Annulment)
Its unethical, demeaning of law, destructive of confidence of integrity of bar
Legal Clinic says theyre not engaged in law but render legal support services through paralegals with
computers so dont ban
Issues:
What they're doing, practice of law?
Subject of the ad allowed?
Held:
IBP: legal clinic makes it seem like theyre lawyers
Induction of acts contrary to law violate Canon 1 Rule 1.02 (illegal acts)
Code of Profession Responsibility: only use true honest fair objective info or statement of facts except
the ff: pub in reputable law list; ordinary card with name firm address and branch

ADMISSION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW: PHIL CONST ART VIII S5 PAR.5;

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES OF 1946 TO
1953
IN RE: CUNANAN, 94, PHIL 534 March 18, 1954
Ponente: Justice Diokno
- help those 1094 who failed bar = unconstitutional
Facts: Const? NAH
RA 972 Bar Flunkers Act in 1952 An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up
to and including 1955 for those unprepared due to insufficiency during war
75% GWA none lower than 50
Senate approved Senate Bill 372 law on June 21, 1953
Issues:
Held:
Encroachment: Reg. practice of law, Constitution didnt confer to congress and sc the power reg.
practice of law.
Admitting those who fail through law, the law isnt a legislation and revokes court resolution. Only the
SC can revise the law so doing so violates the Constitution
Class legislation

SEBASTIAN v. CALIS
AC 5118 Sept. 9, 1999
Per Curiam
- lawyer who duped old woman w/ fake travel docs
Facts:
Integrated Bar of The PH decided
Nov 1992 Seb wanted to go to USA and paid 150k to Atty calis to process her docs.
She also resigned from Stenographer work in CHR
Calis gave docs but told her that shell carry another passport with lizzette ferrer as name. She found
this sketchy and asked her to return her money instead but Calis assured her not to worry because
shes been doing this for a while now.
Seb got apprehended in CIA and detained in CPrison, then deported
She asked for her money back but Calis made partial refunds only. 114k wasnt returned even if she
demanded so she filed for her disbarment
Issues: Disbarred? YES
Held:
Deception and other fraudulent acts nasan na sacred trust, good faith, fairness, and candor?
Must follow conditions of bar membership which requires food behavior
Dorotheo Calis OUT OF ROLL OF ATTYS for unethical, unscrupulous, unconscionable conduct

COJUANGCO v. PALMA
AC 2474 Sept. 15, 2004
Per Curiam
- Palma got 22yo Lisa C to marry him taking advantage of her mental problems
Facts:
Eduardo C.: Complaint for disbarment v. Atty. Leo Palma for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in
office, violation of oath, and grossly immoral conduct
P is ECs lawyer then got relationship with Lisa during tutor sessions.
June 22, 1982, Palma married Lisa in HK
Palma asked for ticket to and from AUS stopover to HK from EC
Made himself bachelor in HK so he can marry Lisa
Palma is actually married to Elizabeth Hermisisima with 2 kids Eugene, Elias, and Eduardo
Cant be punished because wasnt reckless, lack of skill or ignorance of law and that she married LC
with sincerity and good faith sincere love my ass LOL
Issues: gross immoral conduct leading to disbarment? YES OMG YES
Held:
No dichotomy of standards so lawyer doesnt have two different personalities, but is one being
whether as atty and ordinary citizen.
Good moral character is indispensable requirement
Hes freaking married 1971 pa!!! and his marriage w lisa was witnessed by atty victor lazatin
SC: Immoral conduct willfull, flagrant, shameless, showing moral indifference to good members of
community
Immoral: abandoned wife and kids, lured innocent woman with emotional immaturity, fake bachelor
HE GOT DISBARRED!!!

CASTANEDA v. AGO
GR L-28546 July 30, 1975
Ponente: Justice Castro
- recover machineries then house got garnished
Facts:
1955 C and Henson: replevin against Pastor Ago in CFI manila to recover machineries
1957 judgment in favor of C & H
1961 SC affirmed decision w writ of execution for P172,923.87 and levy on Agos house and lots in
QC with sale advertised by sherrif
Ago tried WPI thrice to stop sheriff but denied
1963 sold to C&H
final deed of sale to c&h then Ago &wife complained to CFI QC to annul sale because personal
obligation and wifes conjugal and shouldnt be legally reached
1966 certiorari and prohibition praying for WPI sc dismissed
1967 certiorari and prohibition w CA - GRANTED
Issues: Atty Jose Luison misued legal remedies? YES
Held:
he became predator for conflict of litigation instead of prioritizing truth and moral justice
lawyer insisted despite patent futility
client doesnt really know shit so the lawyer should guide him; shouldnt use him for litigation sake

IN THE MATTER OF THE IBP MEMBERSHIP DUES DELINQUENCY OF ATTY MARCIAL EDILLON
AM 1928 August 3, 1978
Ponente: Chief Justice Castro
- take out Edillon from Roll of Attys because he wont pay membership dues
Facts:
1975 IBP: resolution to remove Marcial Edilion because he wont freaking pay
1976 submitted to Court for consideration and approval par2sec24ArtIII of bylaws of IBP
Issues: req to pay and ability to remove constitutional? YES
Held:
practice if right not privilege
he is expected to conform to regulations

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FAULTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT
AM 10-10-4-SC Mar 8, 2011
Ponente: Justice Villarama Jr.
- plagiarism
Facts:
MR: fundamental responsibility of states in protecting citizens human rights
Issues: show cause resolution denies freedom of expression? NO
Held:
It doesnt, right to criticize exercised responsiblty
Court has right to criticize courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial
concern that Judiciaryindependence be protected from interference

BURBE v. MAGULTA
AC 99-634 June 10, 2002
Ponente: Justice Panganiban
- Magulta saying he processed case when he really didnt do shit
Complaint Filed to Commission of bar Discipline of the IBP
Magulta to represent burbe but burbe has to prepare legal papers which he failed to secure so Filing
fee of 25,000
Complaints filed already and burbe will get notice regarding progress pero wala naman
He personally followed it up, he made excuse that Clerk is absent, but he strill did anyway with draft
of magulta complaint then found NO RECORD
Burbe confronted but he continued to lie about delay caused by personnel but then burbe showed
the cert and he finally admitted kasi ginastos na daw niya pera reimburse nalang HAHA
Issue: Misapporpriation of funds? YES
IBP: 1yr suspension
SC: lawyers best efforts dapat to defend client and shouldnt do things to make client less confident,
honesty, and integrity of profession
Kailangan maingat sa pera, even more kasi di kanya = gross violation of prof ethics and betrayal of
public confidence

PACANA v. PASCUAL LOPEZ


AC 8243 July 24, 2009
Per Curiam

- Multitel failed investment schemes so everyones demanding them to return everything


Operations Director Pacana changed name to Precedent.
Legal advice from CFC friend Lopez then later that Lopez asked for return and immediate settlement
of the funds invested by Lopezs clients saying that there is nothing to worry about. Pacana gave 900k,
1M
They continued emailing even in USA but still insists to keep her but have Efren Santos sign as lawyer
because she knows what shes doing.
Lopez said she got 12.5M and will give 2M to her for help BUT DIDNT REALLY HAPPEN TALKSHIT
GAGO
Lopez ignored requests for acctg then iniwasan na niya
DISBARRED ANG GAGO
Issue: Violated 15.03 conflict of interest? YES
Bye bye Maricel Pascual-Lopez!!! Conflict of interest kasi unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct pa
under lawyers oath and CPR

REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR 105938 Sept 20, 1996
Ponente: Justice Kapunan
- ACCRA and Ed Cojuanco Jr. coconut levy funds + shares (since sila nagadvise sa clients nila na takpan para
lumaki % ng shares, ayaw nila malaman ngayon)
Facts:
From case of PCGG v. Cojuangco regarding recovery of illgotten wealth in the corporations
PCGG case 0033 = they conspired with each other in coconut levy funds UCPB, UNICOM etc
PCGG wanted it to look as if ACCRAs client was Cojuangco and dun galling money. So dummy lang si
ACCRA kasi nagpagamit (abuse of official position)
8/20/91 PCGG: Motion to Admit Third Amended complaint excluding Roco
ACCRA: comment + counter-motion that PCGG granted
PCGG excludes ACCRA if: disclose clients identity, submit docs that show relationship, submit deeds of
assignments favoring clients covering shareholdings
SB: denied exclusion of ACCRA: refusal to comply with conditions they didnt because prohibited
from revealing principal (sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to uphold confidentiality of
info)
Issues: Fiduciary duty may be asserted in refusing to disclose identity of clients under facts and circumstances?
YES

Held:
GR: lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client unless
o Big change that revelation will implicate client
o Discloruse would open civil liability to client
o Govt lawyers no case against client but through revelation, name would give only link
testimony to convict a crimed individual
o Relevant to subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance
o Nature of attyclient rel has been disclosed and identity to be confidential
SBs resolution: annulled and set aside; petitioners excluded!!

ROXAS v. ZUZUAREGGUI
GR 152072 Jan 31, 2006
Ponente: Justice Chico - Nazario

Facts:
1977 NHA filed proceedings against Z for land belonging to them in Antipolo
Z got Legal services of Atty Romeo Roxas and Santiago Pastor
4/22/83 Letter Agreement: P11+ per sqm = 30% of just compensation only
Proceedings ensued; 10/29/84: partial decision for just compensation P30/sqm
NHA filed MR to lower amount
Pending resolution of NHA, SPA executed by Z for Attys.
12/10/85: Letter-agreement by Z and Attys that fixed compensation due to Z at P17 and excess will be
Attys
Res 1174 12/16/85 by NHA: Property acquired at P19.50/sqm in NHA bonds based on BSP rate at time
of payment
Compromise Agreement executed and approved by Court 12/20/85
Zs property = P34, 916,122. NHA released 54,500,000. Diff: 19,583,878
30,520,000 amount in NHA bonds turnover to Z by Atty
8/25/87: Letter by Zs new counsel to Attys asking for bonds paid by NHA within 10 days or else
admin, civil, criminal action
Attys said the amount looks big but just passed them
9/29/87: letter to Attys termination
Zs filed civ action for Sum of Money and Damages + turnover of NHA bonds
RTC dismissed complaint
Zs filed Notice of Appeal
CA ordered Attys to return amount P12,596,425, already deducting attys fees worth 4,476,426.275
Attys filed MR
Zs filed MR
NHA and Pedrosa filed MR
MRs denied for lack of merit
Attys filed Certiorari
Issues:
Letter- agreement by parties should stand as law between them?
Contingent fees were reasonable?
Held:
YES. Contract = law between parties = consent. They sent the letter to the attys for their agreements,
and no evidence of being forced into it.
NO. Attys are to receive contingent fees for professional services. Lawyer should only charge
reasonable fees and Court can reduce it is sobra.44% was excessive. Court thinks that 87.17% goes to
Z computing amounts in Letter-Agreement. Excess goes to attys. SC affirms decision with modification
of computation of attys fees.
MODULE 3
A. Executive
a. Who comprise the Executive? Administrative Code of 1987, EO 292 (1987)

SECTION 11. Exercise of Executive Power.The Executive power shall be vested in the President.

SECTION 12. The Vice-President.There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications
and term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President. He may be removed
from office in the same manner as the President.

The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.

b. What is the scope of Executive Power?


i. Marcos v. Manglapus 9/15/89 Justice Cortes wont let him return to PH
Facts:
Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition asking courts to order respondents to issue travel documents
to marcos and fam since Pres wont let them come back
Marcos fam says its guaranteed in the Bill of Rights sec 1 & 6 (equal protection clause and liberty of
abode)
They said that Pres has no pwer to impair liberty of abode or impair right to travel because no law
They said that under intl law, guaranteed that they can by invoking Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and Intl Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Respondents: right of state to nationl security to ban Marcoses from returning for public safety
Issue: Can president prohibit marcoses from returning to PH? YES
Held:
Grant of executive power means ALL executive power in president
Powers vested in President
Pres cannot be limited to spec powers in Const
Pres has to protect people
Power to bar marcoses is recognized by the legislature
Court finds president didnt act arbitrarily. Return of Marcoses will only intensify existing violence

ii. Marcos v. Manglapus 10/27/89 En Banc Marcos died and want body back in PH
Facts:
9/28/89 Marcos died in Honolulu
Cory didnt allow
MR from Marcos Fam 9/15/89 did not act arbitrarily in barring
Issues: warranting MR has enough reason to actually reconsider? NO
Held:
Death doesnt change scenario of which Court decided
Pres has executive power, can do things to protect people

c. Executive Calling Out Power, Power to Declare Martial Law, and Power to Suspend the
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: Lagman v. Medialdea GR 231658 7/4/17
- martial law in marawi
Facts:

Issues:
Held:
d. The Concept of Executive Privilege:
i. US v/ Nixon 418 US 683 July 24, 1974 Ponente: CJ Burger
Facts:
Agents of CREEP broke into Democratic National HQ authorized by Nixon so he got impeached
District Court: subpoena to produce tapes etc relating to scandal
Nixon filed motion to quash subpoena
District Court: Prosecutor made sufficient showing to rebut presumption and denied motion
Order for in camera exam having rejected Presidents contentions (that dispute is non justiciable and
that the judiciary lacked authority to review assertion of executive privilege)
Court granted both, affirmed lower court and remanded it for examination
Issues: Can pres invoke executive privilege over confidential presidential communications to be used in crim
proceeding? NO

Held:
Unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity because there is no claim of need to protect military,
diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets
Since it has wider range of sensitive material, public interest must be protected by District court and
must ensure that material be accorded the high degree of respect and returned in lawful custodian.

ii. Neri v. Senate GR 180643 9/4/08 Ponente: J Leonardo De Castro


Facts:
April 2007: DOTC contract with ZTE for supply fo equipment and services for the NBN project
$329,481,290.00/P16B. Peoples Republic of China to finance. Joe De Venecia issued statement that
officials and brokers used influence to approve NBN project by NEDA.
Neri testified for 11 hours in Senate Blue Ribbon and said that Abalos bribed him with 200M but
Arroyo told him no.
When asked further, he didnt say anything anymore regarding WN Arroyo followed up project,
Directed him to prioritize, Directed him to approve. Then he refused other hearings after.
Ermita sent letter to SBRC saying that communication between GMA and Neri was privileged.
SBRC: Ermita Contempt
Issues: 3 questions by SBRC = exec privilege?
Held:
YES they are.
1. Comm relate to quintessential and and nondelegable power of pres (enter into executive
agreement like the power to agreement w other countries. Authority of president to enter into
executive arguments without concurrence with legislature is recognized
2. Received by close advisor of president so under operational proximity test, petitioner is close
advisor since cabinet member
No adequate showing of need that will justify limitation of privilege and unavailability of information
e. Immunity of the President from Suit:
i. Soliven v. Makasiar GR 82585 Nov 14, 1988 Per Curiam
- nagtago daw si Cory sa kama HAHA pero di daw so libel si gago
Facts:
Luis Beltran of PH star libel for writing that Cory hid under bed during Coup 1987
Issues: can she waive privilege of immunity from suit and initiate criminal proceedings against petitioners? YES
Held:
Her immunity from suit doesnt mean she can file one
No law preventing her
Immunity may be invoked only by holder of office and not by any other person
Beltra cant waive or prevent right to be waived for president

ii. David v. Arroyo


- state of national emergency
Facts:
2/24/06: 20th anniv people power I, Arroyo PP1017 by GO no.5 = state of national emergency
commanded AFP to maintain law and order, prevent/suppress violence, enforce obedience to laws
Conspiracy among military officers, insurgents, members of opposition to oust/assassinate her
2/24/06 David and Llamas got arrested without warrants
2/25/06: Daily Tribune newspaper office searched 1am for materials for publication
law enforcers basis of warrantless arrests, search, and seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017
Issues:
Warrantless arrests of david etal pursuant to PP1017 valid?
Seizure of daily tribune pursuant tp PP1017?
Held: BOTH NO
NO. Unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant/WOArrest Sec 5 Rule 11 of
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
NO. The warrantless search and seizure Rule 126 of RRCP
o Sec 4 - warrant must be present for offense determined by judge
o Sec 8 occupant must be present
o Sec 9 in day time

f. Impeachment of the President:


i. Estrada v. Desierto 3/2/01
- Estrada corrupt man got impeached haha
Facts:
10/00: Allegations of bribe-taking, illegal gambling, corruption before the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee
10/13/00: Impeached by HOR
12/07: Impeachment proceedings in Senate w worse allegations of graft and corruption until 1/16/01
11 senators suppressed damaging evidence against ERAP. Prosecution panel walked out and Pimentel
resigned after voting
1/19/01: AFP withdrew support and joined EDSA crowd
5/14/01: Snap presidential elections + congressional and local election
1/20/01: SC: Estrada out, Arroyo in!!
Erap: Petition for prohibition + WPI so OMB can stop
Asking them na temporary lang yung pagkawala niya and that Arroyo is a temporary pres while hes
gone
Issues: Immunity? NAH
Held:
Court: No longer entitled SORRY!
Public office = public trust, and non sitting pres ka na so you cant claim it.

ii. Estrada v. Desierto 4/3/01


- resolution for previous case
Facts:
MR and Omnibus Motion
ERAP: Di pa ko validly resigned tapos pinasok niyo na si Arroyo! Courts used newspaper accounts
(Angara Diary in PDInquirer) to decipher my intent to resign. This violates rule against admission of
hearsay evidence!
Angara asked Pimentel to advise ERAP to do dignified exit/resignation, which erap didnt say no to but
only said he wont leave the country. Silence taken as admission
ERAP: Misinterpretation ng court yung Sec 11 Article VII of Const: Congress can only decide issue of
inability when there is a variance of opinion between Cabinet and President
ERAP: Court disregarded Sec 3(7) of Article XI (he shouldve been convicted in impeachment
proceedings (should be convicted first prior to persecution, the walking out is failure to prosecute,
and absolute immunity)
Hopes that members of Honorable court who did EDSA know who they are and inhibit themselves for
neutrality and impartiality of judges
Issues:
1. Validly resigned?
2. Angara Diary inadmissible for being violative: hearsay, best evidence authentication, admissions, res
inter alios acta?
3. Congress can decide petitioners liability?
4. Court violated Sec 3(7) of Article XI?
5. Petitioner immune from suit?
6. Members of SC who attended EDSA should inhibit?
Held:
1. YES validly. Events cant be refuted.
The reference of the court to newspapers doesnt make it inadmissible. (investigations to impeach by
Legislature, demand of Church officials for resign, withdrawal of govt and military officials, edsa
shrine rally). Issuance of press release and abandonment of malacanang resignation voluntary
2. NO. Its VALID!
It is part of pleadings in cases he knows about it and even cited it. He couldve contested but didnt
The Diary doesnt violate rule on res inter alios acta (rights of party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as provided) sec 27 Rule 130 Rules of Court
3. YES Congress can decide inability to govern
Has ultimate authority no matter what
Doctrine of separation of power
Nothing in section 11 Art VI that states that the declaration by Congress must always be a priority
before VP can be president. Congress has no reason nor was in session
4. NO. Nothing in provision that says he should be convicted first.
5. NO. not immune because not sitting pres
6. NO. 12 members of SC dont need to because they attended as spectators and did not prejudge.
B. Legislature
a. Who comprise the Legislature?

SECTION 2. Seat of Legislative Power.The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the Constitutional provision on initiative and referendum.

b. Concept of Legislative Power and the Principle of Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
i. Law-making of the Legislature as Distinguished from Rule-making Authority of the
Executive or Law Execution
1. Araneta v. Gatmaitan GR L-8895&L-9191 4/30/57 Ponente: Justice Felix
- San Miguel Bay
Facts:
SMB most important fishing area. In between camarines norte and sur
Depletion of marine resources prevent operation of trawls!
Res 12/18/1953 by Municipal Mayors League stop trawls because decreasing shrimp and resolving
to petition Pres to regulate fishing by closing for trawl at certain period
Res 3/27/54: Pres to protect them and fish resources by banning trawls. Governor showed effect
through NAMFREL and COMPADRE, recommending cancel license of trawl operator
4/5/54 EO22 prohibiting use of trawls
but amended by EO 66 9/23/54. Allowed on typhoon season
11/2/54: EO80 revived EO22 to effect after 12/31/54
Trawl operators: Injunction + declaratory relief
Sol Gen: EOs invalid!!! Injunction for operators
Issues: EO 22, 60, and 80 valid? For issuance was not in exercise of leg powers unduly delegated to pres? YES
Held:
Conferred not delegated.= no valid objection can be made
Act was complete in itself and leave it to the sec to effect legislative intent
2. Eastern Shipping Line v. POEA

Facts:
Vitaliano Saco CO of MV Eastern Polaris killed in accident in Tokyo 3/15/1895
Wife suied for damages EO797 Memorandum Circular 2 by POEA
She says should be SSS and filed against State Insurance Fund
POEA gave 180K death benefits and 12k burial expense
MC2 Effective 2/1/84 Standard contract adopted in hiring OH seamen overseas
Petitioner: Never entered contract with Saco
Petitioner: He wasnt overseas worker, domestic employee siya. Filed with SSS
Issues:
POEA jurisdiction?
MC2 violative of nondelegation of leg power?
Held
YES. Saco overseas worker so yeah all money claims employee employer relations siya bahala
NO. MC is not violative = constitutional
Valid if:
o Completeness test complete terms and conditions when leaving legislature (delegate can
only enforce)
o Sufficient standard test adequate guidelines to map out boundaries of delegates authority
and prevent from running riot

ii. Undue Delegation of Legislative Power: Belgica v. Ochoa


Pork barrel system
Facts:

Issues:

Held:
MODULE 4

1. CIVIL CODE Arts 2-18 (1950)


Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication.
Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (2)
Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (3)
Art. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when
the law itself authorizes their validity. (4a)
Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (4a)
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be
excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. When the courts declared a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or
executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution. (5a)
Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal
system of the Philippines. (n)
Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws. (6)
Art. 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
body intended right and justice to prevail. (n)
Art. 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced. (n)
Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. (n)
Art. 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of
three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from
sunset to sunrise. If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days
which they respectively have. In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day
included. (7a)
Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn
in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
(8a)
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a)
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
stipulated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession
and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be
the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (10a)
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by
the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the
diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. Prohibitive laws concerning persons,
their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)
Art. 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall
be supplied by the provisions of this Code.

2. Const. Art II S2; Art VI S26-27


SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. 8. Renunciation of war as instrument of national
policy.
Philippines cannot declare war on another country
The country can only declare an existing state of war. Section 2 Adoption of the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the countrys own law.
When international usage to be applied
A treaty has force of a statute Constitution prevails over a treaty
Adherence to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Philippines seek peace and unity with the neighboring countries all over the world regardless of race,
ideology, and political system on the basis of mutual trust, respect and cooperation.

Article VI S26-27
SECTION 26.1 Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.

Purposes of constitutional requirement:


1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation.
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature.
3. To inform the people, through such publications.

What is hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation?


Refers to any legislation that have several subjects on unrelated matters combined together.
The constitutional provision prohibits the passage of two classes of bills:
1. A bill containing riders (Section 25.2)
2. A bill which embodies different subjects.

Exceptions to the requirement:


1. Local ordinances as they do not partake of the nature of laws.
2. Proper codifications and revisions of statutes.

SECTION 26.2 No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage, except
when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment.

Purpose of three readings of bill:


1. To prevent hasty and improvident legislation and the railroading of bills.
2. To compel the careful examination of proposed law.

Purpose of yeas and nays in the journal:


1. To fix upon each member the responsibility for his action in legislation.
2. To furnish conclusive evidence whether the bill has been passed by the requisite majority or not.

Steps in the passage of a bill:


First Reading- scheduling; inclusions of other authors. Referral to appropriate committee- Conducts hearing
and consultation; forwarded to Committee on Rules.
Second Reading- Read with its amendments. Debates- Amendments of any members of Congress; pass or kill
the bill. Printing and distribution-Printed in final form and distributed 3 days before its passage.
Third Reading- Nominal voting; a member may abstain; yeas and nays entered in the journal. Referral to the
other House- The same procedure takes place; signed by the Senate President and Speaker of House of Rep.
Submission to joint bicameral committee- Reconcilation of conflicting provisions from both Houses.
Submission to the President- Either signs it into law or vetoes it with a duration of 30 days.

SECTION 27.1 Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he
approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where
it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it.

Definition of terms: BILL is a draft of a law submitted to the consideration of a legislative body for its adoption. Statute is
the written will of legislature as an organized body expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it into law;
act.

How are statutes identified:


1. Serial numbers (Republic Act No. 386)
2. Special titles (Civil Code of the Philippines)
3. Enactments by the Batasang Pambansa (Batasang Pambansa Blg. 25) 35.
Formal Parts of a law
When will a bill may become a law?
1. When the President approves the bill by signing it.
2. When he vetoes the bill and returns the same with his objections to the House where it originated, and the same is
repassed over his veto by a vote of two-thirds.
3. If the President does not communicate within 30 days.

SECTION 27.2 The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
VETO is the Latin term for I forbid or I deny.
1. To enable the executive department to protect its integrity as an equal branch of the government.
2. To provide a check on hasty, corrupt, or ill-considered legislation.

POCKET VETO is not allowed. the disapproval of a bill by inaction of the President. PARTIAL VETO is allowed. Provided
in Section 27.2 which grants the President to veto particular items provided that other items he approves shall not be
affected.

RESOLUTION has been identified as a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent by an official body or assembled
group.

Use of resolutions:
1. The rules of procedure of a lawmaking body, orders imposing some penalty upon any of its members would be
embodied in the resolution.
2. Under Section 28.2, the power to tarrif rates of the President may be withdrawn by resolution.
3. For expressing condolences or in declaring its opinion on important national questions. 42.

Kinds of resolutions:
1. SIMPLE- if passed by either House for its exclusive use or purpose;
2. CONCURRENT- if passed independently in one House and ratified by the other in the same manner as a bill;
3. JOINT- if approved by both Houses meeting in joint session but voting separately.

3. Ruben Agpalo Statutory Construction 1-25 (2003 ed)


4. Joaquin Bernas, An Introduction to Public International Law 1-22, 55-64 (2002 ed)

MODULE 5

Stare Decisis:
1. FERMIN v. PEOPLE GR 157643 3/28/08
2. Chinese Young Mens Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation
GR 159422 3/28/2008
3. Pepsi-Cola Products, Phil Inc. v Pagdanganan GR 167866 10/12/06
Res Judicata
1. Antonio v. Sayman GR 149624 9/29/10
2. Republic of the Philippines v. Yu GR 157557 3/10/06
Lis Pendens
1. Lim v. Cruz GR 143646 4/4/01
2. Atlantic Erectors Inc v. Herbal Cove Realty Corporation GR 148568 3/20/03
Law of the Case
1. Villa v. Sandiganbayan GR 87186 4/24/92
2. Padillo v. CA GR100776 10/28/93
Prospectivity of Laws
1. People of the Philippines v. Derilo GR 117818 4/18/97
2. Co v. CA GR100776 10/28/93
Landmark Case
1. Santos v. CA GR112019 1/4/95
2. Ochosa v. Alano GR167459 1/26/11
Leading Case and Abandonment of Doctrine
1. Tong v. Velez-Ting GR 166562 3/31/09
2. Carpio-Morales v. CA GR 217126-27 11/10/15
Dura Lex, Sed Lex/Cruel and Unusual punishment
1. Corpuz v. People of the Philippines GR 180016 4/29/14