Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

4. International School Alliance of Educators vs.



Respondent is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of

foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. Petitioner claims that the point-of-
hire classification employed by the school is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of
higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

Issue: Whether the local-hires are being discriminated from the foreign-hires of the school.


Yes. It is a clear violation of the equal protection clause sanctioned by our constitution.
Our constitution and laws reflect the policy against inequality and discrimination. International
law also proscribes discrimination. Moreover, our Labor Code, particularly in terms of wager,
frowns upon discrimination. If an employer accords employer the same position and rank, the
presumption is that there employees perform equal work. There is no evidence in this case that
foreign-hires perform more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. Both groups have
similar functions and responsibilities, which they perform under similar working conditions. It
follows that there is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and
local-hires. Hence, it is a violation of equal protection which is a constitutional guarantee.
12. Stonehill vs Diokno


A total of 42 search warrants were issued, on different dates, against herein petitioners.
The latter alleged that said search warrants are unconstitutional because they do not describe
with particularity the documents, books, and things to be seizes.

Issue: Whether the issued search warrants in the case at bar are unconstitutional.


Anent those found and seized in the offices of the corporations involved in this case,
herein petitioners may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the admission of
said papers in court belongs exclusively to the corporations. Having a personality separate and
distinct from that of its shareholders, it is only the right of the corporations that have been
impaired thereby.

Further, no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the judge in
the manner set forth in the laws; that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be
seized. None of these requirements, in the case at bar, has been complied with. Hence, the search
warrants as regards those found and seized in the residence of herein petitioners are
15. US vs Addison


Defendant is charged and convicted in the lower court of violation of the provisions of
Sec 106 of General Orders No. 58 which requires that both malice and absence of probable cause
must exist concurrently in order to justify a conviction.

Issue: Whether defendant’s conviction is proper.


No. Malice cannot be inferred from the fact that no opium was found in the house of the
complainant by the sheriff. The acquittal of the defendant was based on the testimony of the
witnesses presented by the defense counsel, which was held as sufficient proof by the court to
show absence of malice on the part of the defendant of malice on the part of the defendant.
Hence, acquittal.
16. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. vs Espanol


Agent Lavin, NBI agent, applied for a search warrant against Solid Laguna Corporation
for allegedly violating P.D. 1987 and R.A. 8293. Agent Lavin stated before Judge Espanol that
an unnamed person provided them information as to the presence of pirated CDs in the premises
of Solid Laguna. The latter subsequently presented a certification that they are actually
authorized to manufacture and sell CDs by the URB which cause the quashal of the search
warrant issued for violation of PD 1987. Judge Espanol later quashed the other warrant because
the items seized were commingled hence they cannot be examined.


Whether the search warrant is unconstitutional.


Yes. The issuance of the search warrant in question did not meet the requirements of
probable cause. Agent Lavin and his witnesses, as gathered from their depositions, had no
personal knowledge that the discs they saw, purchased and received were in fact pirated, or
infringing on petitioners copyrights. They had relied for the most part on what alleged unnamed
sources told them and/or on certifications or lists made by person who were never presented as
17. Kheytin vs Villareal


On April 30, 1919, a search warrant was issued by Hon. Southworth through the
application of Ramon Gayanilo, corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, for the search and
seizure of a certain amount of opium in the house of Uy Kheytin under the writing desk in the
store. Sixty small cans of opium where then obtained by respondent while armed with said
search warrant. Lieutenant Torralba and his subordinates resumed the search the following day,
May 1, due to Uy Kheytin’s denial as to who the owner of the bodega to be searched is. Guards
were then placed in the premise to make sure that nothing would be therefrom. The next
morning, other articles were found and seized in the same bodega.

A criminal complaint was then filed charging the petitioners of violation of the Opium
Law. They were held to be liable for said violation. Furthermore, Hon. Villareal held that the
searches and seizures complained of were legally made, and consequently denied the defendant’s
petition. Hence, this case.


1.) Whether the search warrant of April 30 is illegal;

2.) Whether the searches and seizures on May 1st is illegal;
3.) Whether the seizure of the defendant’s books and letters is a violation of the
provisions of Jones Law.


1.) No. it would be an absurdity to hold upon technical grounds, that a search warrant is
illegal which is issued to search for and seize a property the very possession of which
is forbidden by law and constitutes a crime. Furthermore, although the judge, in the
issuance of the search warrant in question, did not comply with the requirements of
Sec. 98 of General Order No. 58, the petitioners are not entitled to the return of the
properties found in the place described in the application for search warrant.
2.) No. it was a continuation of the search begun on the previous day and, therefore, did
not require another search warrant.
3.) Yes. Such other articles have no inherent relation with opium and the possession of
which is not forbidden by law, was illegal and in violation of the petitioner’s
constitutional rights.