Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II of P2,974,134.

00 and $50,000 US Dollars and recommended that respondent Ramas


be tried for violating RA3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA1379
ARTICLE III (The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.)
BILL OF RIGHTS POSITION OF THE RESPONDENTS:
 RAMAS: He is the owner of the mansion in Quezon City and such property
Section 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
was not out of proportion to his salary. He denied knowledge of the Cebu
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the property and other items seized in Dimaano’s possession.
equal protection of law.  DIMAANO: She admitted that she worked as a clerk-typist in the office of
Ramas and claimed ownership of all the items seized in her house.

1. REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN THE TRIAL:


G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003  Was delayed for over a year due to petitioner’s several motions for
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines postponements (inability to present further evidence).
Respondents: Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Ramas and Elizabeth  Respondents filed a motion to dismiss citing Republic v. Migrino which
Dimaano held that the PCGG not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute
Ponente: Carpio, J. military officers by reason of mere position held without a showing that
they are “subordinates” of former President Marcos.
Key take-aways: Bill of Rights was not operative during the interregnum. The  The Sandiganbayan dismissed the complaint due to lack of merit and ordered
directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law for there the return of the confiscated items to respondent Dimaano,
were no constitution that limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders.
Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under
a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:
interregnum. 1. PCGG’s jurisdiction
a. W/N respondents erred in holding that the actions taken by
Case Summary: petitioner should be dismissed for they are not in accordance with
Petitioner seeks to annul the decision of Sandiganbayan First Division previous rulings in Cruz Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and Republic v.
(Justices Regino Hermosisima, Francis Garchitorena and Cipriano del Rosario) which Migrino
ordered the return of the confiscated items to Elizabeth Dimaano and dismissed the 2. W/N respondent court erred in holding that the items and monies in
former’s motion for reconsideration. Dimaano’s house were illegally seized.
a. W/N the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of
Facts: Rights during the interregnum ( Feb 25-March 24, 1986)
Right after the successful EDSA Revolution, President Cory Aquino issued b. W/N the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
EO 1 which created the Presidential Commission on Good Government which is and Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained effective
tasked to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their cronies. The PCGG during the interregnum.
was vested with the powers to a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in
order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order and (b) to promulgate HELD:
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this order. 1.THE PCGG HAS NO JURISDICTION.
Pursuant to the said creation, an AFP Board was created tasked to investigate reports The PCGG through the AFP Board can only investigate the unexplained
of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active wealth of either (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the
service or retired which then investigated the unexplained wealth of respondent Marcos regime by being a latter’s immediate family, relative, subordinate or close
Ramas. The findings of the said investigation showed that respondent Ramas owned associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers,
lands in Quezon City (700,00 php) and Cebu (3,327 sqm) while several equipments influence x and (2) AFP personnel who are involved in graft and corruption practices
communication facilities and huge amount of money (P2,870,000.00 and $50,000) assigned to them by the President. Major Ramas’ case does not fall within the two
were confiscated in respondent Dimaano’s, allegedly the mistress of respondent categories. He cannot be classified as a subordinate absent a prima facie showing that
Ramas, possession. The report concluded that respondents have an unexplained wealth Ramas is a close associate of the President. Moreover, petitioner only enumerated the
properties which were allegedly out of proportion to his salary and did not claim that
such were the result of his close association with Mr. Marcos. It should be the 2. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION v.
Ombudsman who shall take cognizance of the case. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO. INC
No. L-31195. June 5, 1973.
2. LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE Petitioner: Nicanot Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon,
The raid was conducted pursuant to a search warrant captioned Illegal Asencio Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjami Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. The Constabulary team that raided Respondents: Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc, Court of Industrial Relations
Dimaano’s house took items which are included and not included in the list. (one baby Ponente: Makasiar J.
armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber
.45; communications equipment, cash consisting of P2,870,000 and US$50,000, Key take-away: The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty,
jewelry, and land titles.). The petitioner argued that the PCGG has the power to collect equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the
such items for the Bill of Rights was not operational during the interregnum. While passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of
such contention was correct, the people’s rights were still protected by the Covenant those who have no patience with general principles. The freedoms of expression and
and the Declaration due to the principle of Pacta sunt servanda. of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities reserved
 COVENANT Art 17 (1): “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice Holmes, to protect the
unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” ideas that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated,
 DECLARATION Art 17 (2) “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his not only to protect the minority who want to talk, but also to benefit the majority who
property.” refuse to listen.
Hence the confiscation of items not included in the search warrant is illegal. Human rights > Property rights. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the right
CO. INC of free expression and assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to
PUNO, SEPARATE OPINION the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions.
 Natural rights are all those rights of acting as an individual for his own
comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.” FACTS:
On the other hand, civil rights are those that “appertain to man in right of his PBMEO decided to organize a mass demonstration at Malacanang to protest
being a member of society. the alleged abuses of the Pasig police to be participated by workers in the first shift (6-
 Because of the wide-scaled violation of human rights during the dictatorship, 2pm) and that those of regular and employees in the second shift (8am to 5pm). The
the 1987 Constitution contains of Bill of Rights which more jealously union emphasized that the impending demonstration was not aimed at the management
safeguards the people’s “fundamental liberties in the essence of a of the company but to ensure mutual aid and protection aimed at Pasig police officers.
constitutional democracy.” While they notified the company prior to the said demonstration, the latter emphasized
 The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in that while it recognizes that demonstration is an inalienable right, such should not
the natural right to life, liberty and property. Our well-settled jurisprudence prejudice the normal operation of the company and requested that workers from the
that the right against unreasonable search and seizure protects the people’s first shift be excused from attending. The company also reiterated that those who will
rights to security of person and property, to the sanctity of the home, and to violate will be guilty of Article XXIV of the CBA which pertains to the “NO
privacy is a recognition of this proposition. The life to which each person has LOCKOUT NO STRIKE POLICY” and will be dismissed from work. Despite such
a right is not a life lived in fear that his person and property may be warning, the employees proceeded with their demonstration hence the filing of the
unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. case by the respondent company. The respondent court then issued the assailed order
 A natural right to liberty indubitably includes the freedom to determine when which held that by violating the CBA, members of the PBMEO is guilty of bargaining
and how an individual will share the private part of his being and the extent in bad faith and ordered the dismissal of the leaders herein petitioners.
of his sharing.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N respondent court erred in holding that the members of the PBMEO
guilty of bargaining in bad faith and in ordering the dismissal of the
petitioners

HELD: Yes. Respondent court erred in dismissing the petitioners.


In arriving at such conclusion, the Court reiterated that human rights are always more
supreme than property rights. The right of the workers to demonstrate against police
abuse is a matter that should be given importance by the company itself. In seeking 3. TUPAS v. CA
sanctuary behind their freedom of expression as well as their right of assembly and of G.R. No. 89571. February 6, 1991.
petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees were fighting Petitioner: Francisco Tupas, Ignacio Lim Tupas
for their very survival. The defense of the respondent that it would suffer loses is a Respondents: Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines
plea for the preservation of their property rights. Also, its argument that not all its Ponente: Makasiar J.
employees need to attend the demonstration defeats the purpose of having a union.
The Court also held the company guilty for violating Sec 3 of RA 875 (Industrial Key take-away: Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally
Peace Act) which guarantees to the employees the right to engage in concert guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such rights, be it the
activities for mutual aid or protection. Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court.
As to the prescription of the action, the enforcement of basic human freedom sheltered
by no less than the organic law is a most compelling reason to deny the application of FACTS:
Court of Industrial Relations rule which clearly impinged on human rights. The case at bar is filed by the petitioners after the respondent court denied the petition
for certiorari under Rule 45 due to failure to show that the respondent court has
DISSENT, J. BARREDO committed irreversible error. The records who that the petitioners received a copy of
The case does not call for a resolution of any constitutional issue. Petitioners in this the decision of the RTC on April 3, 1989 and that the motion for reconsideration was
case do not claim that they were denied of due process. They also do not posit that the filed on April 17, 1989 (14 days later). The May 3 order denying the said motion was
decision of the industrial court is null and void based on said issues. Also, received on May 9, 1989. It means that the petition for review should have been filed
jurisprudence dictates that unless a constitutional point is specifically raised, the courts on May 10, 1989 (deadline of the 15 day reglementary period) but it was only filed on
will not consider it. May 23.

ISSUE: W/N the petition for review can still be granted?

HELD: The petitioners by failing to file the appeal on time effectively forfeited their
right to appeal hence they cannot claim that they were denied of due process. Rules of
procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and protection
of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. The policy of the courts
is to give effect to both procedural and substantive rights and such is equally granted
by due process. It is important to take note that the counsel of the petitioner is a
seasoned lawyer hence the argument that the latter is inept is unacceptable.
4. EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO v. PALANCA come into his hand and notice sent by mail is not a guarantee that the defendant will
G.R. No. l-11390 March 26, 1918 receive it. Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner and he
Petitioner: El Banco Espanol Filipino may be safely held to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been
Respondents: Vicente Palanca instituted for its condemnation and sale. Also the lapse of time is considered in
Ponente: Street, J. deciding this case. There is also a presumption of regularity in absence of a
convincing evidence that the official failed to perform the required action.
Key take-away: Due process in judicial proceeding can be obtained in the
presence of the following conditions: DISSENT- MALCOLM, J.
1. Court clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it The fundamental idea of due process of law os that no man shall be condemned in
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or his person or property without notice and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.
over th property which is the subject of the proceeding
3. Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

FACTS:
The property of defendant Enrico Limquingco was used by him as a security for his
payment to the bank. Such property was mortgage in 1906 at 292, 558 pesos which
was about 75,000 of the indebtedness (218, 294.10). Upon the completion of
mortgage, the defendant went back to China and died on 1910 without returning to
the Philippines. 7 years later, a motion was filed by Vincent Palanca seeking to
vacate all the proceedings on the basis that judgment rendered thereon were void for
the court has never acquired jurisdiction.

ISSUE/S:

1. W/N these proceedings were conducted in accordance to the due process of


law?
2. W/N the court has acquired jurisdiction to proceed with the mortgage

HELD:
1. Yes, the court has JURISDICTION.
1. Acquired from the power which it possesses over the property
2. Jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and non-essential
3. Relief granted by court must be limited to such as can be enforced against
the property itself.

2. DUE PROCESS
Right to be heard

The failure of the clerk to send the notice by mail did not destroy the
jurisdiction of the court and such irregularity did not infringe the requirement
of due process of law.

In mortgage cases actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind if not
considered necessary. The periodical containing such mode of notification may not
5. ANG TIBAY v. CIR court. Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching
G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940 importance. The motion for new trial is granted.
Petitioner: Ang Tibay represented by Toribo Teodoro and National Workers
Brotherhood 6. SHU v. DEE
Respondents: Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. 182573. April 23, 2014
Ponente: Laurel, J. Petitioner: Ray Shu
Respondents: Enriqueto Magpantay, ramon Miranda, Larry Macillan and Edwin So.
Key take-away Ponente: Brion, J.

FACTS: Key take-away: Sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process exists
The respondents through the Solicitor General filed the present motion for when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for reconsideration.
reconsideration assailing the decision of this court averring among others that Toribio
Teodoro’s claim that there was shortage of leather soles was a mere excuse to lay-off FACTS: Petitioner filed the Rule 45 petition for certiorari which seeks to reverse the
members of the National Labor Union, prevent the forfeiture of the bond despite the decision of the CA dated June 19, 2007 and its resolution dated April 4, 2008 which
breach of contract, that the National Worker’s Brotherhood is illegal and that the annulled the resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding probable cause for
exercise by the laborers of their right to collective bargaining are highly essential and falsification against the respondents. He alleged that the signatures were fraudulently
indispensable. obtained and upon investigation, the NBI submitted questioned documents report
which affirmed that the signature of the petitioner on the assailed documents were not
In solving the case at bar, the court clarified the nature and fucntions of the Court of the same as the standard sample signatures he submitted to the NBI. Respondents on
Industrial Relations which includes the following: the other hand claim that they were denied of due process for they were never asked
to submit the standard sample signatures of petitioner for comparison.
The Court of Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Act No 103)
 It is more administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the Ruling of the City Prosecutor
nation The City prosecutor found no probable cause against the respondents and dismissed
 It has the jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, the complaint for lack of merit. The pieces of evidence presented before the city
decide and settle any question/mater or controversy arising between and or prosecutor, which were not made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does
affecting employers and employees of laborers and regulate the relations not dispute prove that the same person executed the questioned deeds.
between them.
 It is also not bound by technical rules of procedure and is bound to act Ruling of the Secretary of Justice
according to justice and equity and substantive merits of the case without The Secretary reversed the order citing that the City Prosecutor failed to consider the
regard to technicalities or legal forms. It is also not bound to the specific evidentiary findings of the NBI experts.
reqard claimed or demands made by the parties.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Despite this, there are primary rights which must be respected and observed in The CA reversed the finding of the Secretary of Justice and held that respondents were
administrative trials and investigation. These includes right to hearing, right to present denied of their right to due process. It held that the respondents were not furnished a
the case and adduce substantive evidence and that the decision must be rendered on report of the complaint and was not required to file their answer/corresponding
the evidence presented on the hearing or atleast disclosed to the parties affected and evidences.
that the Court if Industrial Relations should render the decision and state the basis of
such,, ARGUMENTS
The petitioners’ arguments
The petitioner claims that there was no denial of due process as shown by the
ISSUE: W/N due process of law was violated and a new trial may be granted. active participation of the respondents and their corresponding act of filing of motion
for reconsideration hence the CA erred in dismissing the case.
HELD: The petitioner stated under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition is
inaccessible to them at the time of trial and they cannot be offered as evidence to the Respondents’ arguments:
They were denied of due process and for they were prevented from 7. GMA v. COMELEC
participating in the NBI and DOJ proceedings. G.R. No. 205357. September 2, 2014.
Petitioner: GMA Network; Alan Peter Cayetano; ABS-CBN; Manila Broadcasting
ISSUE: W/N respondents were denied of due process Company; Newsounds Broadcasting Network; Radio Mindanao Network, Kapisanan
ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas
HELD: Respondents were not denied of due process. Respondents: COMELEC
The Court averred that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Ponente: Peralta, J.
Sufficient compliance is obtained when a party is given the chance to be heard through
the motion for reconsideration. It is undisputed that the respondents filed with the CASE SUMMARY:
Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration hence any defects were cured by said Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Sec 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution 9615
act. Furthermore, the NBI has no judicial or quasi-judicial power to try and hear cases. which limits the broadcast and radio advertisement of candidates and political parties
It is merely informational and investigatory. It cannot determine probable cause and for national election positions to an aggregate total of 120 minutes and 180 minutes
its findings are merely recommendatory. The Court also took cognizance of the fact for violating freedom of the press, impairs the people’s right to suffrage and right to
that the specimen signatures of Metrobank was submitted to the City Prosecutor and information relative to the right to vote.
Secretary of Justice. With regards to the questioned documents report, it is
inconclusive and does not directly point to the involvement of the respondents in the FACTS OF THE CASE
crime charged. FAIR ELECTION ACT (RA 9006).
All bonafide candidates or registered political parties shall be entitled to not more than
The Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. 120 minutes of television advertisement and 180 minutes of radio advertisements for
Probable cause exists when the elements of crime charged is present. It pertains to national positions and 60 minutes TV and 90 minutes radio for local elective positions.
pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to support a well-founded belief that a For the May 14 2007 and May 10 2010, the COMELEC implemented such act on the
crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. The elements of basis of per station while for the May 2013, they changed it to a total aggegate basis.
falsification are as follows: Petitioners also assail the subsequent resolution of the COMELEC which imposes
(1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did criminal liability and a possible suspension/revocation of franchise/permit to any
not take advantage of his official position; company who will sell excess air-time. Furthermore, petitioner GMA also contends
(2) he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the that the Resolution was promulgated without public consultations hence violative of
RPC; the petitioners’ right to due process definition of the terms “political advertisement”
(3) the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document and “election propaganda” suffers from overbreadth, thereby producing a “chilling
Contrary to the allegation that the Secretary of Justice merely gave credence to the effect,” constituting prior restraint.
questioned documents report and petitioner’s self serving allegations, the SOJ
examined and took into consideration all the pieces of evidence submitted to him/her RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
by the parties.  The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available to petitioners for
it is only available against the COMELEC’s exercise of judicial, quasi-
Claim of the city prosecutor judicial and do not lie against their administrative/rule-making power.
The arguments and the manner in which the city prosecutor negated the questioned  Petitioners have no locus standi for the constitutional rights and freedom are
documents report are contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of a not personal to them and belongs to the Filipino electorate in general. Also,
party’s defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, fear of injury is highly speculative and contingent on a future action hence
are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. does not confer locus standi.
 The total aggregate limitation is in keeping of the constitutional objective to
give equal media access during elections and is also made in pursuant of Sec.
4, Article IX-C which vested the COMELEC the power to regulate during
election periods transportation and other utilities as well as mass media.
 The notice of appearance to the COMELEC is only for monitoring and not
for censorship purposes and the public consultation requirement does not
apply to COMELEC pursuant to Sec. 1, Chap. 1, Book VII of Aministrative
Code.
GMA’s CONTENTIONS possible broadcast in all TV/radio stations. By unduly providing for rules beyond what
 Petition for certiorari is the correct remedy for the case at bar involves was contemplated by the law it was supposed to implement, the COMELEC
national interest and sense of urgency. committed GAD.
 It has locus standi for it personally suffered a threatened injury in the form of
risk of criminal liability and such is traceable to the challenged action of the Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution on airtime limits also goes against the
COMELEC. constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression, of speech and of press.
 The Fair Election Act speaks of equal opportunity and equal access not  The guarantee of freedom to speak is useless without the ability to
equalizing the economic station of the rich and the poor. communicate and disseminate what is said.
 The assailed issuances and action imposes an unconstitutional burden on  Political speech is one of the most important expressions protected by the
them to strictly monitor the duration of total airtime. Fundamental Law. The same must remain unfettered unless otherwise
 Pursuant to Sec 82 of Omnibus Election Code, a public consultation must be justified by a compelling state interest.
instituted and in the absence of such, COMELEC is violating their right to  In the case at bar, the airtime limitation imposed by the COMELEC would
due process. translate to a 81.81 seconds per day TV exposure allotment or 27.27 seconds
of airtime per network per day. (120 minutes | 88 days of campaign period).
ISSUES:  The aggregated based airtime limits unduly restricts the ability of candidate
1. W/N petitioners have locus standi? to reach out and communicate with people.
2. W/N the assailed resolutions violate the constitutionally protected rights of the
broadcast companies and of the general voters? There is a need for public consultation
 When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely
HELD: providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
Locus Standi implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden
Yes, the petitioners have locus standi. Petitioner-intervenor Alan Peter Cayetano is a of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly
candidate that is directly affected by the assailed issuances. The same can be said for affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that
the broadcast companies for the direct injury they may suffer relative to their ability new issuance is given the force and effect of law.
to carry out their tasks if disseminating information because of the burdens imposed
on them. Also, standing admits of several exceptions such as overbreadth and third Section 9 (a) does not impose unconstitutional burden due to monitoring
party standing in which the former pertains to the right of challengers to government  It is the COMELEC who shall monitor. Broadcast companies are merely
actions to raise the tights of third parties especially if a statute needlessly restrains even required to submit certain documents to aid the COMELEC in ensuring that
constitutionally guaranteed rights. candidates does not exceed to the allowable limits.
 Also the right to reply is not violative of any constitutional freedom.
2. The assailed resolutions and actions violate constitutionally protected rights.

Aggregate time limits and reasonable basis for change in interpretation


The Court has no power to impose airtime limitations. A review of the COMELEC’s
past resolutions will show that they applied the limitation imposed by the Fair
Elections Act on a per station basis. Also as correctly stated by petitioner-intervenor
Alan Peter Cayetano, the COMELEC failed to adduce basis for coming up with a new
manner of determining allowable time limits. The Court emphasized that the
COMELEC is not free to simply change the rules especially if there has been a
consistent interpretation of a legal provision in a particular manner. In the case at bar,
the COMELEC justified its action by reiterating the they have the right to amplify and
it is their sole prerogative to do so.

COMELEC’s grave abuse of discretion


The Fair Elections Act in which the COMELEC derived its authority from do not
constitute that the maximum allowable airtime should be based on the totality of all
8. Government of Hongkong v. Olalia
G.R. No. 153675. April 19, 2007. HELD:
Petitioner: Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Division represented Jurisprudence (Govt of US v. Purganan) dictates that the constitutional
by Department of Justice provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings and is only obtainable in
Respondents: Hon. Feliberto Olalia and Juan Antonio Munoz criminal proceedings. This is because extradition courts do not render judgments of
Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. conviction or acquittal and such right flows from presumption of innocence in favor
of the accused. It only follows that the constitutional provision in bail will not apply
Key take-away: The modern trend in international law is the primacy placed on the in extradition cases in which the presumption of innocence is not at issue.
worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. | While UDHR is However, the Court cannot ignore the growing importance of the individual
not a treaty, the principles contained therein is recognized as customarily binding person and higher value given to human rights in international sphere. The Philippines
upon the members of the international community. is committed to to uphold fundamental human rights as well as to value the worth and
dignity of every person as evidently seen in Sec. 2, Art. 2 which states that “The State
Case Summary: The case at bar is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
nullify the two orders of respondent judge Olalia which allowed respondent Munoz rights.” Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every
to post bail and denying the motion to vacate said order filed by herein petitioner. person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right
to liberty. And the right to bail is one of those fundamental rights.
FACTS:
Private respondent Munoz was charged on Hongkong by three counts accepting an Reversal of Purganan’s ruling is in order because:
advantage as agent in violation of Sec 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinace  The power of the State to deprive a person of his liberty is not limited to
Cap. 201 of Hongkong and 7 counts of offense of conspiracy to defraud. The DOJ then criminal proceedings (quarantine and deportation are administrative ones).
received a request for the provisional arrest of the private respondent which forwarded
 Bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention regardless
the request to the NBI who in turn filed with the RTC Branch 19 of Manila an
of the nature of proceedings.
application for provisional arrest. On September 23, 1999 the said order was issued by
the respondent court and private respondent was arrested and detained. This was
o US v Go-Sioco: A case of Chinese facing deportation for failure to
secure certificate of registration was granted bail pending his appeal.
followed by the petitioner filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and or writ of habeas corpus  Presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest. The Court of Appeals then rendered its
decision and declared the Order of Arrest void on November 12, 1999. On December Extradition- removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him
18, the Court reversed the finding of the CA. Meanwhile, as early as November 22, at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to
petitioner has filed a petition for extradition of private respondent who then filed a hold him accountable for the committed crimes. (Sec 2 (a) of PD 1069 | The Philippine
petition for bail which was denied by the Judge Bernardo. The respondent filed fpr a Extradition Law). It is administrative in character.
motion for reconsideration and his case was raffled to the respondent Court which then
granted his petition and set the bail at 750,000 in cash with the condition that he will
appear and answer the issued raised in the proceedings and in failure to do so, the bond Pacta Sunt Servanda: While it is the duty of the country to honor its obligations
will be forfeited in favor of the government and that his passport must be surrendered under the Extradition Treaty entered with Hong Kong, it does not follow that it
to the Court. should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty and due process.

RESPONDENTS’ POSITION:
 Right to bail is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and extends to a
prospective extradite. Section 13, Article 3 of the Constitution provides that
the right to bail shall not be impaired save in cases in which the penalty
provided for is reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE: W/N the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting
private respondent to bail when there is nothing in the Constitution or statutes which
grants a potential extradite a right to bail.
9. RCBC v. BDO Upon the commencement of hearings, the Arbitrational Tribunal decided that
G.R. No. 196171. December 10, 2012. it will confine itself to issues of liability and rendered a partial award which state
Petitioner: RCBC Capital Corporation among others that the Claimant (RCBC) is entitled to damages for the foregoing
Respondents: Banco de Oro breaches and that all other issues will be dealt in a final award. RCBC then paid the
Ponente: Villarama, J. total amount of advance on costs reiterating its plea that respondents be declared in
default and that its counterclaims be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal though
Case Summary: The case at bar is two consolidated cases filed by the respective Chairman Barker in its reply reiterated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to declare
parties pursuant to the arbitration clause in the contract. In the RCBC case, petitioner that respondents have no right to participate. A second award was rendered ordering
seeks to reverse the CA order while in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed EPCIB to reimburse RCBC which prompted the former to file a motion to vacate.
by BDO assails the CA resolution which denied BDO’s application for issuance of
stay-order/TRO. RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS (EPCIB/BDO)
 The award is void ab initio having been rendered by arbitrators who
FACTS: exceeded their power
The petitioner entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with Equitable PCI  The award was procured by undue means or issued with evident partiality
Bank for the sale to RCBC of 226,460,00 shares which constitute 67% of the latter’s for there is no express/implied agreement either in SPA or ICC rules for right
capital stock. Sometime in May, RCBC claimed that there has been a overstatement to reimbursement.
of valuation of accounts amounting to an overpayment and that in return, the seelers  The ruling that respondents’ application for litigation, moral and exemplary
violated their warranty pursuant to Sec. 5 (g) of the SPA. Absence of a settlement, damages are not counterclaims is contrary to Philippine law as it is basic in
RCBC then commenced arbitration proceedings with ICC-ICA in accordance with Sec our jurisdiction that counterclaims for litigation expenses are proper
10 of the SPA which provided that the venue of arbitration proceedings shall be in counterclaims.
Makati, that substantive aspects of the dispute shall be settled using the laws of the
Philippines and that the decision of the arbiter is final and binding to the parties. After a further exchange of pleadings and other motions, the Makati City RTC Branch
In its request for arbitration (Neil Kaplan, Santiago Kapunan and Sir Ian 138 issued the order which confirmed the Second Partial Award.
Baker), RCBC prayed for rescission, as well as payment of
actual damages in the amount of P573,132,110, legal interest on the purchase price THE CA RULING
until actual restitution, moral damages and litigation and attorney’s fees, with  Reversed and set aside the order of RTC Makati Branch 148 which denied
alternative prayer for award of damages in the amount of at least P809,796,082 plus the motion to vacate and confirmed the second partial award. RCBC then
legal interest. filed for a motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied by CA.

The Arbitration Proceedings: THE RULING OF THE RTC


Pursuant to Article 30 (3) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration, the ICC-ICA informed the  The RTC denied BDO’s motion for consideration and motion to inhibit.
parties that they are required to pay $350,000 as advance on costs. RCBC paid its share  Granted the motion to execute against BDO
while respondents refused to pay $175,000 and instead filed an Application for
 Awarded the damages amounting to Php348,736,920.29.
Separate Advancement of Costs. Respondents point out to the fact that the total
 Issued a writ of execution for the implementation of the said court’s order.
amount of RCBC’s claim is substantially higher and that it is inequitable to require
them to share the costs of arbitrating. The said petition was denied by ICC-ICA citing
ISSUE/S:
prematurity pending the execution of Terms of Reference. Respondents did not pay
1. W/N there is legal ground to vacate the Second Partial Amount
the actual fixed cost so the ICC-ICA invited RCBC to shoulder the balance of the
2. W/N BDO is entitled to injunctive relief in connection with the execution
advance cost in which the latter refused to do so. This was followed by a suspension
proceedings.
of hearing which was opposed by RCBC on the ground that the unjustified refusal to
pay the share should tantamount to a lost standing and prayed that the respondents be
THE APPLICABLE LAWS:
declared as in default. Subsequent requests yielded similar results which prompted Sir
1. Sec 40 of RA 92855 which states that a domestic arbitral award when confiemed
Ian Barker to concede by saying that the tribunal has no power to order the respondents
shall be enforced the same way as final and executory decisions of RTC.
to pay the advance on costs and that the only sanction under ICC rules was a
2. Sec. 41 Vacation Award: A party may only question the arbitral award based on the
suspension of work and after the expiry of time limit, all claims and counterclaims are
following grounds:
considered withdrawn.
 Award was procured through corruption, fraud, other undue means
 Evident partiality or corruption 10. ADMU v. CAPULONG
 Guilty of misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced the rights of any party G.R. No. 196171. December 10, 2012.
 Excess of power Petitioner: ADMU
Respondents: Hon. Ignacio Capulong (Judge of Branch 134 RTC Makati)
HELD: Ponente: Romero, J.
1. There is evident partiality.
Evident partiality is defined as inclination to favor one side. The CA gave credit to FACTS:
BDO’s charge of partiality. The Court affirm such findings by adopting the reasonable Respondents were students who were denied of re-enrollment due to their
impression of partiality standard which requires a showing that a reasonable person participation of hazing activities organized by Aquila Legis fraternity which resulted
would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to the other party to the to the death of a neophyte Leonardo Villa and the hospitalization of Bienvenido
arbitration. Such interest or bias, moreover, “must be direct, definite and capable of Marquez. The said initiation rites were conducted on February 8-10. The following
demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative.” In the case at bar, day (Feb 11), Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-
partiality is shown when Chairman Barker furnished the parties with copies of Student Investigating Committee composed of Atty(s) Jacinto Jimenez, Sedfrey
Matthew Secomb’s articles which a reasonable man would conclude that he was Candelaria, Carlos Medina, Alternate: Dean Antonio Abad. Students: Mr.(s) Arthur Yap,
favoring RCBC. By furnishing the parties, he armed RCBC with supporting legal Reynaldo Dizon, Ms. Patricia Ty Administration: Dean Cynthia del Castillo (Chairperson).
arguments. The said committee was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours the
circumstances surrounding the death of Villa and required the respondent students to file a
reply within 24 hours. The students failed to submit their replies and were placed on
2. The Court has no jurisdiction over the issuance of Second Partial Award.
preventive suspension. After taking cognizance of testimonies of several witnesses and
Courts are generally without power to amend or overrule merely because of
reviewing the written statements, the Committee found a prima facie case against
disagreement with matters of law or facts determined by the arbitrators. They will not respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of Law School Catalogue entitled Discipline
review the findings of law and fact contained in an award, and will not undertake to and directed the respondents to file their written answers on or before February 18, 1991
substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrators. A contrary rule would make an otherwise they are deemed to waive their right to present their defenses. The counsel for
arbitration award the commencement, not the end, of litigation. the respondents moved for postponement until they were directed to appear on March 2
1991. They were also informed that the proceedings will be summary in nature, petitioners
ISSUANCE OF INJUCNTIVE WRIT: have no right to cross-examine the affiants-neophytes and that the decision of the Board
(1) Right in esse/existence of right to be protected shall be appealable to Fr. Bernas, the president of the university.
(2) Act against which injunction to be directed is a violation of such right. The Board then found the students guilty of violation of Rule 3 which was
likewise accepted by Fr. Bernas and warranted the imposition of dismissal as penalty. On
March 18, the students filed for a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
prayer for TRO alleging that they were currently enrolled for the second sem and would be
prevented from taking their examinations claiming that their right to due process was
violated.

ISSUE/S:
(1) W/N a school has the right to expel students based on its disciplinary rules
and moral standards
(2) W/N the penalty imposed is proper under the given circumstances

HELD:
Yes, the school has the right to expel the students for violating Rule 3 and the
penalty imposed was proper given the circumstances, hence the respondent judge
acted in grave abuse when he ruled that the students were denied of due process.
As dictated by Guzman v. NU, the minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition
of disciplinary actions are the following:
(1) They must be informed in writhing of the nature and cause of accusation
against them
(2) Right to answer the charges with the assistance of a counsel
(3) Informed of the evidence against them 11. GO v. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN LETRAN
(4) Right to adduce evidence on their own behalf G.R. No. 169391. October 10, 2012
(5) Evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee. Petitioner: Eugene and Angelita Go
Respondents: Colegio de San Juan de Letran
In the case at bar, the respondents were given opportunity to be heard and were in fact Ponente: Brion, J.
granted an extension to file their statements. They were also given ample opportunity
to adduce evidence on their behalf and answer the charges leveled against them. They CASE SUMMARY:
are also assisted with a counsel. Disciplinary cases involving students also need not The case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision and
necessarily include the right to cross-examination. resolution of Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the RTC of Caloocan
and denied petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioners claim that
ACADEMIC FREEDOM respondents should be held liable for moral, exemplary and actual damages for
 Sweezy v. New Hampshire defines academic freedom as the freedom to unlawfully dismissing petitioner Kim Go. The respondents on the other hand claim
choose who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who that they lawfully suspended Go for violating the school’s rule on fraternity
may be admitted to study. membership.
 “Academic freedom”, the term as it evolved to describe the emerging rights
related to intellectual liberty, has traditionally been associated with freedom FACTS OF THE CASE:
of thought, speech, expression and the press; in other words, with the right of Acting on a received report that certain fraternities were recruiting new
individuals in university communities, such as professors, researchers and members, school authorities commenced an investigation which included medical
administrators, to investigate, pursue, discuss and, in the immortal words of examination on the students whose names were included in the list submitted to the
Socrates, “to follow the argument wherever it may lead,” authorities. Upon examination, 4 students namely: Raphael Fulgencio, Nicolas
 Guaranteed by Sec 8 (2) of the 1973 Constitution which stated that “All Lacson, Carlos Parilla and Isaac Gumba who ten admitted that they were neophytes of
institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.” the Tau Gamma Fraternity and identified Go as one of the senior members of the
fraternity. Kim Go denied the said allegations and the school requested that his parents
attend the conference aimed to address the issue of the former’s fraternity membership
in which neither parent attended. It was proven later on that Kim was indeed a member
of the fraternity. Upon meeting with the president of Letran, the 4th year students were
allowed to graduate while those that were not in their fourth year were allowed to
finish the year but were barred from enrolling again. The decision to suspend Kim was
conveyed to Mrs Go while his father did not attend the said conference.
The respondents then again conferred with the parents to discuss the
extension classes the students would take to make up for classes missed during their
suspension and such would enable the students to meet all academic requirements and
graduate from the school. Mr. and Mrs Go refused to sign a pro-forma agreement and
insisted that their son was not a fraternity member and that due process had not been
observed.

THE RULING OF THE RTC


The RTC held that the respondents failed to observe the requirements of due
process and that the evidence were insufficient to rule that Kim Go was part of the
fraternity. It also declared that Letran has no authority to dismiss students who are part
of fraternities. Moreover, it ordered the respondents to pay damages to the petitioners.

THE RULING OF THE CA


The CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. It held that since the
petitioner was granted ample opportunity to be heard, he was not denied of due
process.
12. LAO GI v. CA
ISSUE: G.R. No. 81798. December 29, 1989
(1) W/N the CA erred in setting aside the decision of the RTC Petitioner: Lao Gi (Filomeno Chia Sr.), Ong Ue, Filomeno Jr. Manuel, Rosita Vicenta
and Dominga Chia
COURT: Respondents: Court of Appeals, Commission on Immigration and Deportation
No. The CA did not err in setting aside the RTC decision. Ponente: Gancayco, J.
(1) The RTC erred in interpreting DECS Order No. 20 s. 1991 as being limited
to public schools. A cursory perusal of the rest of the order shows the intent Key take-aways: While deportation proceedings are not criminal in nature, rights to
to apply the prohibition against fraternity membership in all elementary and due process must not be denied hence the intervention of a private prosecutor should
highschools, regardless of their school of enrollment. not be allowed in deportation cases.
(2) Private schools still have the authority to promulgate and enforce a similar
prohibition pursuant to their right to establish disciplinary rules and this right FACTS OF THE CASE:
was regonized in Sec. 78, 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The Secretary of Justice rendered Opinion No 191 which declared Filomeno
(3) ON THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS Chia Jr to be a Filipino citizen for his father, Filomeno Chia, Sr was indeed a
a. Guzman and not Ang Tibay is the authority on the procedural rights Filipino being the son of Inoncencio Chia and Maria Layug of Guagua, Pampanga.
of students in disciplinary cases This opinion was reversed by the Minister of Justice and rendered that the citizenship
i. Students must be informed in writing of the nature and of Chia Sr. was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. Petitioners then filed for a
cause of any accusation against them motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Minister of Justice and a case
ii. Right to answer with the assistance of counsel for deportation was filed against petitioners on respondent Commission. On Sept 4,
iii. Informed of the evidence against them 1981, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
iv. Right to adduce their own evidence on the part of the CID to reopen a matter already settled in the opinion. The motion
v. Evidence mut be considered by the investigating was denied by the CID and the respondents proceeded to this court which also
committee/board. dismissed their petition for lack of merit.
b. Records show that petitioners were given ample opportunity to be
hear and to adduce their own evidence. ISSUE/S:
(1) W/N petitioners entered and remained in the Philippines under false
pretenses and are subject to immediate deportation (N)

HELD:
 While the Commission has the authority to require an alien to register, such
a requirement must be predicated on a positive finding that the person who
is required to do so is an alien. In this case, there should have been a prior
determination that the petitioners were aliens before the Commission ask
them to register as such.
 The power to deport is an act of the State and a police measure against
undesirable aliens whose presence to the country is injurious to public good.
While a deportation proceeding is not criminal in nature, the constitution
right of a person to due process should not be denied.
 Applying such to the case at bar, the charge against the alien must specify
the acts or omissions complained and it must be stated in clear and ordinary
language. The Court also sees no reason as to why a private prosecutor
should be allowed to participate in a deportation case.
13. MACEDA v. ERB 14. CORONA v. UHPAP
G.R. No. 96266. July 18, 1991. G.R. No. 111953. December 12, 1997.
Petitioner: Ernesto Maceda Petitioner/s: Renato Corona (A.S. Legal Affairs), Jesus Garcia (DOTC Sec), Rogelio
Respondents: Energy Regulation Board, Caltex, Shell and Petron Dayan (GM of PPA)
Ponente: Medialdea, J. Respondents: United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, Manila Pilots
Association
FACTS: Ponente: Romero, J.
Petitioner in this case seeks the nullification of the ERB Orders on the grounds that
the hearings conducted in relation to the provisional increase did not llow him cross- Key take-away: In order to fall within the aegis of Sec. 1 Article 3, two conditions
examination hence a denial of due process. The Persian Gulf conflict prompted the must concur
private respondent oil companies to file for applications on oil price increase and the (1) There is a deprivation
ERB granted a provisional increase of 1.42 per liter. Herein petitioner also filed for a (2) Deprivation is done without proper observance of due process
petition for prohibition to nullify such increase but such petition was dismissed by the a. Procedural- method/manner by which the law was enforced
Court, reiterating that ERB has the authority to grant provisional increase even without b. Substantive- law itself is fair, reasonable and just.
prior hearing.
Acting on the said complaint, the ERB outlined the procedure to be observed in the FACTS:
reception of evidence and provided that it will defer cross examination. Petitioner The PPA was created pursuant to PD No 505 and its charter was made pursuant to PD
faults this and maintains that by adopting such relaxed procedure, the ERB deprived 857 granting it the power to control, regulate and supervise pilots and pilotage
him of due process and right to cross examine the witnesses. profession. Several measures were implemented including the limit on appointments
to harbor pilot positions for a term of one year from date of effectivity and subject to
ISSUE: W/N there has been a deprivation of due process renewal or cancellation by the Authority. Respondents questioned the said issuance
before the secretary of DOTC but was informed that the jurisdiction to
HELD: There was no deprivation of due process. review/recall/annul PPA’s administrative issuances lies exclusively with its Board of
The Court held that the testimony both with respect to the examination of particular Directors. This ruling was appealed to the Office of the President which likewise
witness and general course of trial is within the discretion of the Court. Furthermore, dismissed the appeal and petition on the basis that the assailed issuance merely
relaxed procedures are especially true in administrative bodies in which it is more of implements Sec. 6 of PD 857 mandating the PPA to control/regulate/supervise pilots
a quasi-legislative rather than quasi-judicial function. As such, admin. Bodies are not and pilotage in any port district. Moreover, Sec. Corona opined that the exercise of
bound by technical rules of evidence. one’s profession falls within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful
deprivation of, or interference with property rights without due process. In the case
DISSENT, PARAS, J. at bar, the assailed issuance did not constitute to a wrongful deprivation but was only
The ERB has no power to tax by subsidizing the ravenous oil companies. aimed to improve pilotage services. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction before RTC Manila Branch 6.
DISSENT, PADILLA, J.
Any kind of increase of prices of oil prices should be allowed only after the ERB fully RULING OF THE RTC:
determined through bona fide and full dress hearings that it is absolutely necessary.  Respondents have acted in grave abuse of discretion
 All assailed issuances are declared null and void
 Respondents are permanently enjoined from implementing assailed PPA
issuances
 Pilotage is a profession and therefore a property right and emtails that any
withdrawal/alteration must be made strictly in accordance with the due
process of law. Such was not observed by the PPA when it did not conducted
public hearings.

ISSUE: W/N Philippine Ports Authority violated respondents’ right to exercise their
profession and their right to due process of law when it limited the term of appointment
of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation
HELD: willful breach of trust. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
YES. THE ASSAILED ISSUANCE UNDULY RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF dismissal and recanted his sworn statement.
HARBOR PILOTS TO ENJOY THEIR PROFESSION BEFORE THEIR
RETIREMENT. THE RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC
In reiterating that due process was not observed in the absence of a public The LA Benigno Villarente rendered a decision which declared the dismissal
hearing, the respondents are invoking procedural due process. In line with this, of the petitioner illegal and ordered the respondents to reinstate petitioner and ay him
jurisprudence dictates that so long as the party was given the opportunity to defend his backwages and benefits from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement.
interests in due course, there is no violation of due process for the opportunity to be The said decision was appealed to the NLRC which then reversed the decision and
heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, it is satisfied when a person is dismissed the case for lack of merit.
granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action/ruling complained of.
Regarding the substantive merits of the case, notice and hearing, as the ISSUE: W/N the dismissal was legally justified.
fundamental requirements of procedural due process are essential only when an
administrative body exercises quasi-judicial functions. Moreover, there is no HELD: No. The dismissal was illegal.
contention that pilotage is a profession in which an individual has to earn his license The Labor Code mandates that the requirements for valid dismissal of an employee
which would then allow them to engage in pilotage till they retire at age 70. must be two-fold procedural and substantive. Not only must there be ample basis/valid
By implementing the assailed issuance, harbor pilots would not be able to enjoy their cause but also the requirements of due process NOTICE AND HEARING must also
professions before the compulsory retirement. In a real sense, it is deprivation of be observed at all times. In line with this, the Court affirms the finding of the labor
property without due process of law. arbiter that the petitioner was terminated without the benefit of due process of law. It
is evident in the case that the petitioner was denied the right to the assistance of a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ counsel during the investigation. While administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are
not bound by technical rules of procedure, the right to counsel is a very basic
requirement that must be observed.
15. SALAW v. NLRC
G.R. No. 90786. September 27, 1991. CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS (taken from Ang Tibay)
Petitioner/s: Espero Salaw 1. Right to a hearing | present evidence
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission, Associated Bank and Jose 2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
Tengco and Rollie Tuazon 3. Sufficient basis for decision
Ponente: Sarmiento, J. 4. Admission of substantial evidence
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or contained on record and
Case Summary: disclosed to the parties affected
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision rendered in NLRC 6. NLRC must act on its own independent consideration of the merits of the case,.
Case No. 4-1272-85 dated July 26, 1989, affirming the dismissal of the petitioner by 7. The Court should render the decision in such a manner that parties to the proceeding
the respondent bank, and reversing thereby the Decision2 of Labor Arbiter Benigno know the various issues involved and the reason for the decisions rendered.
C. Villarente, Jr. of March 29,1988 which declared the petitioner's dismissal as illegal
and ordered his reinstatement with backwages and benefits.

FACTS:
Petitioner is employed with the responder as credit-investigator-appraiser and
his duties included inspecting, investigating, and identifying the company’s foreclosed
assets and verifying the encumbrances of titles of properties mortgaged to the
respondents. On November 27, 1984, a sworn statement which states that the petitioner
corroborated with a certain Reynaldo Madrigal and sold 20 sewing machines and
electric generators for 60,000 php was extracted from the petitioner without the
assistance of a counsel. April the following year, the petitioner was terminated from
his employment due to alleged serous misconduct/willful disobedience and fraud or
16. PEOPLE v. NAZARIO 17. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 90786. September 27, 1991. G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001.
Petitioner/s: People of the Philippines Petitioner/s: Joseph Estrada
Respondents: Eusebio Nazario Respondents: Sandiganbayan
Ponente: Sarmiento, J. Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

FACTS: FACTS:
The respondent was charged with various violations of municipal ordinances in Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and Penalizing the
Pagbilao, Quezon Province. Initially, the respondent admitted to the said violations Crime of Plunder, wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law is so
but would later argue that such ordinances were unconstitutional or do not apply to his defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid
case. The respondent was an owner and operator of a fishpond and was found guilty from the constitutionally infirm. His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the
of refusing to pay the municipal taxes amounting to 362.62 required of him as a said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable
fishpond operator. From the evidence adduced by him, the taxes sought to be collected doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of mens rea in
have already lapsed and that there is no law empowering municiplaities to pass crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying that it violates the
ordinances taxing fishpond operators and that there is still no fishpond yet being fundamental rights of the accused.
operated by him since it was still under construction during the period covered by the The focal point of the case is the alleged “vagueness” of the law in the terms it uses.
taxes sought to be collected. The trial court held the respondent guilty and was Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the
sentenced to pay a fine of 50 php hence the filing of this appeal. petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.

ISSUES: Issue:
W/N the assailed ordinances are null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity
W/N the assailed ordinance is unconstitutional for being an ex post facto law of the law using the facial challenge.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS Ruling:


(1) The ordinance only speaks of manager/owner and that him being a mere On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute
lessee is not covered by said ordinance vagueness. The petitioner’s contention that it would not give a fair warning and
a. VAGUE: lacks comprehensible standards that men of common sufficient notice of what the law seeks to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void-
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its for-vagueness doctrine is manifestly misplaced under the petitioner’s reliance since
application. ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can
i. Violates due process for failing to accord persons fair only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face,
notice of conduct to avoid wherein clarification by a saving clause or construction cannot be invoked. Said
ii. Gives unbridled discretion to law enforcers doctrine may not invoked in this case since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity.
b. LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE: The Court searches for Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to
alternatives available to the government outside of statutotry limits be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
or for less drastic means. On the other hand, overbreadth doctrine decrees that governmental purpose
HELD: may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade
The assailed ordinances are not vague and ambiguous. As an operator of a fish pond, the area of protected freedoms. Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge
the appellant falls within the term manager. There is also no merit to the contention is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of
that Ordinance 12 and 15 are applied retroactively for they are in the nature of curative possible chilling effect upon protected speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal
measures intended to facilitate the collection Ordinane 4 has prescribed (May 14, law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. A facial challenge to
1955). legislative acts is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully since the
challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists. Doctrines mentioned are
analytical tools developed for facial challenge of a statute in free speech cases. With
respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it
might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its
application might be unconstitutional. On its face invalidation of statues results in No. Sec. 4 (Rule of Evidence) states that: For purposes of establishing the
striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done
before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or
purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more imagined than real. acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a
The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to have been resolve in the pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
Congress’ decision to include it among the heinous crime punishable by reclusion conspiracy.
perpetua to death. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other crimes, the accused
dismissed for lacking merit. always has in his favor the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Bill of Rights,
and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that
Issues: culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
The “reasonable doubt” standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of
1. WON Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause which protects the accused
against conviction except upon proof of reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
No. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would constitute the crime with which he is charged.
inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its Not everything alleged in the information needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
penalties, its validity will be sustained. The amended information itself closely tracks What is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime
the language of law, indicating w/ reasonable certainty the various elements of the charged—the element of the offense.
offense w/c the petitioner is alleged to have committed. Relative to petitioner’s contentions on the purported defect of Sec. 4 is his
We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse submission that “pattern” is a “very important element of the crime of plunder;” and
petitioner in his defense. that Sec. 4 is “two-pronged, (as) it contains a rule of evidence and a substantive
Petitioner however bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition element of the crime, “ such that without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder
of the terms “combination” and “series” in the key phrase “a combination or series of –
overt or criminal acts. These omissions, according to the petitioner, render the Plunder We do not subscribe to petitioner’s stand. Primarily, all the essential elements
Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the of plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in Sec. 2, in relation to sec.
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence 1 par. (d). Sec. 4 purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the
violative of his fundamental right to due process. prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4
A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only
used herein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them. operated in furtherance of a remedy.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible What is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to
standards that men of common intelligence most necessarily guess at its meaning and engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the
differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in accused beyond reasonable doubt.
two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the
parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of
the Government muscle.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is
overbroad because of possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The possible
harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed
by the possibility that the protected speech of other may be deterred and perceived
grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.
But in criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.

2. WON the Plunder Law requires less evidence for providing the predicate
crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due process
18. FEEDER v. CA 19. CB v. CA
G.R. No. 94262. May 31, 1991. G.R. No. 76118. March 30, 1993.
Petitioner/s: Feeder International Line PTE Petitioner/s: Central Bank of the Philippines and Ramon Tiaoqui
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Customs Respondents: Court of Appeals, Triumph Savings Bank
Ponente: Regalado, J. Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

FACTS: FACTS:
The M/T ULU WAI was a foreign vessel owned by the petitioner which anchored in The case at bar is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA which affirmed
Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. Upon investigation, it was the twin orders of the Quezon City RTC which denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss
shown that the vessel did not possess the required ship and shipping documents except and directed petitioner Tiaoqui to restore the management of TSB to its elected board
for a clearance from port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for Zambaon. of directors and officers.
Consequently, the cargo was held and a warrant of seizure and detention was issued The examination reports submitted by the petition show that the financial condition
in which the petitioner filed the motion to dismiss and to quash the said warrant. After of the TSB is one of insolvency which prompted the Monetary Board to order its
considering the premises, the district collector ruled that the vessel was guilty of closure and placing it under receivership with petitioner Tiaoqui as receiver. TSB then
violating Sec. 2530 (a) of Tariff and Customs Code and must be forfeited in favor of filed a complaint with Quezon City RTC challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 29,
the Philippines. Acting on such decision, the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner RA 269 (The Central Bank Act) in so far as it authorizes the Central Bank to take over
of Customs, Court of Tax Appeals and Court of Appeals all of which affirmed the a banking institution even if it’s not charged of any violation of law/regulation. The
decision of the district collector. Not willing to give up, the petitioners filed the instant RTC then granted such complaint and likewise dismissed petitioners’ motion to
petition and contends that they were deprived of property without due process of law dismiss and ordered petitioner to return the management of the company to the board.
in that its right to be presumed innocent was not recognized and the decision was not The Court of Appeals also upheld the said decision hence the instant petition.
supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION
ISSUE: W/N petitioners were deprived of their property without due process (1) The respondent court erred in affirming that the summary closure was
arbitrary and in bad faith and constitutes a denial of due process.
HELD: The contention is without merit
A forfeiture proceeding under tariff and customs law is not penal but is merely RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS
administrative and civil in character. In line with this, the proof required is only (1) Prior notice and hearing must be afforded and in the absence of such, the
substantial evidence which pertains to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might resolution is void for want of due process.
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Also, the right to assistance of a counsel is
not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or a statute. ISSUE:
WN the absence of prior notice and hearing may be considered acts of arbitrariness
and bad faith?

HELD:
Sec 29 of RA 265 which vested the Central Bank with exclusive authority to assess,
evaluate the condition of any bank does not contemplate any prior notice and hearing
before a bank may be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership.
Despite the absence of such, Sec. 29 does not altogether divest a bank/non-bank
financial institution the right to be heard because within 10 days from the date of
receiver takes charge of the assets of the bank, resort to judicial review may be
obtained.
20. PEREZ v. MADRONA 21. AMERICAN INTERFASHION GROUP v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. No. 184478. March 21, 2012. G.R. No. 184478. March 21, 2012.
Petitioner/s: Jaime Perez, Chief of Marikina Demolition Office Petitioner/s: American Inter-Fashion Corporation
Respondents: Fortunato Madrona and Yolanda Pante Respondents: Office of the President, Textile Export Board and Glorious Sun Fashion
Ponente: Villarama, J. Garments.
Ponente: Gutierrez, J.
FACTS:
The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set FACTS:
aside prior decisions of the CA which affirmed the findings of the RTC Marikina The GTEB declared respondent Glorious Sun guilty of misdeclaration of imported raw
Branch 192 which granted the prayer of injunction of the respondents against the materials and held that its export quotas given to De Soleil Apparel and American Inter
petitioner. Fashion Corporation should be cancelled. It was also alleged that majority of the
Petitioners are registered owners of a residential property located in Lot 22, investors of the two corporations were either stockholder of GS or a member/crony of
Greenheaights Subdivision which was covered by Transfer Certificate and Registry of Marcos on the other. The Office of the President then set aside the decision of the
Deeds and is enclosed with a concrete fence and steel gate. A letter was then sent to GTEB and remanded the case for genuine hearing where due process would be
respondents informing them of various violations of regulations and was given 7 days accorded to both parties.
to remove the concrete fence and steel gate. Instead of complying, the respondents
replied that the letter is libelous in nature as it is condemning them and their property GLORIOUS’ CONTENTIONS:
without due process, has no basis and authority due to absence of a court order and (1) GTEB decision was not supported by evidence.
contained a false accusation since the fence did not extend to the side walk. (2) The GTEB decision cancelling their export quotas is a result of duress, threats and
The petitioners then filed a complaint for injunction before the Marikina RTC. Several intimidation.
legal proceedings ensued and the RTC then granted the injunction and enjoined the
petitioners to perform any act that may demolish the perimeter fence. PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS
The RTC held that respondents, being lawful owners of the subject (1) Office of the President erred in taking cognizance of Glorious Sun’s appeal
property, are entitled to the peaceful and open possession of every inch of their since it amounted to an administrative review
property and petitioner’s threat to demolish the concrete fence around their (2) And that it had long ago abandoned its right to appeal
property is tantamount to a violation of their rights as property owners who are (3) It erred in finding that there was a violation of the rights to due process
entitled to protection under the Constitution and laws. The petitioner appealed to
the CA which then likewise affirmed the assailed decision. ISSUE: W/N the Malacanang decision suffers from grave abuse of discretion.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT HELD: No.


(1) The CA erred in affirming the ruling of the lower court that the respondents Res judicata
are entitled to permanent injunction. For res judicata to apply, it must be a decision of final judgment, the court
a. Mere notice cannot be construed as an invasion of right. must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, judgment over the merits
and identity between two cases as to the parties, subject matter and cause of action. A
ISSUE: W/N the requisites for an issuance of a writ of injunction present? judgment on merits is defined as matter of substance in law and amounts to a
declaration of the law upon the ultimate fact or respective rights and duties of the
HELD: Yes. The contention of the petitioner is unmeritorious. parties. Hence, the dismissal of GR 67180 is not a judgment on merits since it did not
For an injunctive relief to be issued validly, two conditions (1) right resolve anything.
protected, (2) acts against which injunction is to be directed is a violation of said
right. In this case, both are present (right over concrete fence which cannot be Denial of due process
removed without due process and the act that may infringe on this right is summary The petitioner fault the report of the Office of the President for its finding that
demolition). Should he found that the respondents’ violated the regulations, he should Glorious Sun was denied of due process. However in its own petition, the petitioner
have gone directly to the Court. admitted that they failed to disclose to GS a vital piece of evidence in arriving at its
Also, the fence is not nuisance per se. It is not injurious to the health and conclusion. This fact is enough to prove that GS was denied of due process. The private
comfort of the community for the sidewalk still exists. It may be simply as nuisance respondents’ export quota is a property right which should not be removed arbitrarily
per accidens. and without due process.
22. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE CAMACHO binding on the rest. xxx" Thus, classification if rational in character is allowable.
G.R. No. 163583. August 20, 2008. In Lutz v. Araneta: "it is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select
Petitioner/s: British American Tobacco the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities which
Respondents: Jose Camacho as Secretary of Finance and Guillermo Parayno Jr as result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption
Commissioner of BIR. infringe no constitutional limitation" SC previously held: "Equality and uniformity
Ponente: Gutierrez, J. in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall
be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and
FACTS: natural classifications for purposes of taxation"
The petitioner assails the validity of certain sections of the NLRC for allegedly being
violative of the equal protection and uniformity clause of the Constitution. Section 145 Under the rational basis test, a legislative classification, to survive an equal
of the NLRC provides for four tiers of tax rates based on net retail price per pack of protection challenge, must be shown to rationally further a legitimate state
cigarettes. (If above 10, the tax shall be 13.44 per pack | If does not exceed but is higher interest. The classifications must be reasonable and rest upon some ground of
than 6 pesos, 8.96 per pack | If 5 pesos but not exceed 6, 5.60 pesos | below 5, 1.12 difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation
pesos). Consequently, it mandated that new brands shall be classified according to
their current net retail price. Various resolutions were issued after this which A legislative classification that is reasonable does not offend the constitutional
implemented the tax classification and the BIR recommended that the applicable tax guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. The classification is considered valid and
rate of 1344 per pack for Lucky Strike’s average net retail price (10 php per pack). reasonable provided that: (1) it rests on substantial distinctions; (2) it is germane to
The petitioner then filed for a petititon for injunction with prayer for issuance of TRO the purpose of the law; (3) it applies, all things being equal, to both present and
and writ of preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin NLRC from implementing the future conditions; and (4) it applies equally to all those belonging to the same
assailed regulations. The RTC upheld the constitutionality of the assailed class.
laws/regulations and lifted the preliminary injunction it issued beforehand. While the
appeal was pending, RA 933 took effect which increased petitioners’ excise tax to 25 Moreover, petitioner failed to clearly demonstrate the exact extent of such impact as
pesos per pack. As a result of this, petitioner filed for a motion to admit attached the price is not the only factor that affects competition.
supplement to the petition assailing the constitutionality of RA 9344

ESTOPPEL: prevents a person from going back on their own acts/representations to


the prejudice of the others who relied on them.
(1) Actors must have knowledge but communicates something in a misleading
way
(2) The other in fact relies upon that communication
(3) The other would be harmed materially if the actor is permitted to assert any
claim inconsistent with his earlier conduct
(4) The actor knew/expected that the other would act upon the information given.
Petitioner was not guilty of estoppel. They did not commit any false
misrepresentation/misleading act.

ISSUES: W/N the unequal tax treatment brought upon by RA 9344’S


classification freeze provision is unconstitutional for violating equal protection
and uniformity provisions

HELD: No. In Sison Jr. v. Ancheta, the court held that "xxx It suffices then that the
laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or
that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being
different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. If the law
be looked upon in tems of burden on charges, those that fall within a class should be
treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally

Вам также может понравиться