MAGSAYSAYLINES,

INC.
,ET.AL.VCAG.
R.No.111184,
August12,
1996

Facts:Petit
ioners,consisti
ngofi nvest
ors/shippi
ng
compani esfiel
donApr i
l 10,1989apet it
ionforrefundof
theCTAf orreversalofcertainVATr ul
ingsandf orthe
ref
undofP15, 120,000repr esenti
ngerroneouslypaid10%
VATont hesal et hrupublicbi ddi
ngof5v esselsbythe
Nati
onal Dev el
opmentCor p.t osaidgr
oupofi nvestor
s.On
Apri
l 27,1992, t
heCTAor der edtheCIRtor ef
undt he
amountt opet i
tioners.

Ther esoluti
onoft heCTAdat edDecember9, 1992,
delayingitsmot i
onforreconsiderationwasr eceivedby
respondentCI RonJanuar y6,1993.Uponr eceiptthereof
,
CIR,thr utheoff
iceoftheSOL- GEN, fil
edont hesamedat e
witht heCAamot ionforreconsiderati
onof30day sor
untilFebruary6,1993,withi
nwhi cht ofil
eapet i
ti
onf or
revi
ew.Howev er,onFebruary5,1993, t
heOSGf i
ledon
behalfofr espondentCIRasecondmot ionforextensionof
30day s,orunti
lMarch8, 1993,withinwhicht ofi
lesaid
petit
ion.
OnFebr uary11, 1993,t
heOSGr ecei
v edt heresolution
datedFebr uary3,1993ofr espondentappel l
at ecour t
grant
ingr espondentCIR’Sfirstmot i
onf orext ension“ wit
h
awar ni
ngt hatsof ur
therextensionshal l beent ert
ained.”
Manifestationandmot ion,onMar ch8, 1993, orwi t
hinthe
peri
odr equestedinthesecondmot ionf orextension, t
he
peti
ti
onf orr ev
iewwasf i
l
edt hruregisteredmai l.

I
nar esol
utionofMay3, 1993,r
espondentCAdi smi
ssed
thepeti
ti
onf orbei
ngfil
edoutoftime.Later,
however,
the
CAreconsideredit
sruli
nganddirect
edher ei
npeti
ti
onert
o
fi
lei
tscommentont herei
nstat
edpetit
ion.Hence,
peti
ti
onersfil
edtheinst
antpeti
ti
on.

I
ssue:Whet
herornott
hemot
ionf
orextensi
ont
ofi
l
ea
pet
it
ionf
orrev
iewofCAmybepermi
tted.

Hel
d:Thepeti
ti
oni
sdevoi
dofmer i
t.Thepeti
ti
onfor
r
evi
ewpendingbef
orer
espondentappel
lat
ecourtwasf
il
e
dinaccor dancewi thcircularno.1-91,datedJanuar y27,
1991.Whi l
eci rcularno.1- 91issil
entast owhet hera
mot i
onf orext ensi onoft imetofil
eapet it
ionf orreview
withtheCAmaybeper mi tt
ed,nevert
heless,thecour t
alr
eadyr uledi nLi borov s.CA,thatsuchmot i
oni sallowed
andshoul dbegr anted.Par ent
hetical
ly
,itshoul dbe
ment i
onedt hatAdm.Ci r cul
arno.1-95whi cht ookef fect
onFebr uary15, 1995al lowsmot i
onforext ensionoft ime
tofil
epet it
ionsf orr evi
ew.

Ther esor
ttot hef il
ingoft hefir
stmot ionf orextension
datedJanuar y6, 1993waspr oper,andsai dmot ionv al
idl
y
andtimelyfil
ed, pur suanttothet henpr evail
ingrulesof
procedure.Thef irstmot ionhav i
ngbeengr antedon
February3,1993orwel lwithintheperiodofext ensi on
askedf or
,wasnol essv ali
dandef fecti
v e.Therefore,
peti
ti
onerhasunt ilFebruar y6,1993t of i
lethesubj ect
peti
ti
onf orreview.

Withrespecttothe2ndmot i
onf orext
ensionfi
ledon
February5,1993,thecourttookcognizanceofthefact
thattheint
ermitt
entandext endedpowerf ai
lur
es
assumingalmostdai l
ythroughout1993r ender
ed
substanti
alworkdelaysinevit
able.Hencethe2ndmot i
on
forextensi
onwasj
usti
fi
edandt hegr
antt
her
eofwas
properundert
heci
rcumstances.

Whi l
egenerall
yspeaking,areviewonappeal i
snota
mat t
erofri
ghtbutofsoundj udi ci
aldi
scret
ion,andmaybe
grantedonlywhent herear
especi alandimpor t
ant
reasonstherefor
e,i
nt hi
sinstance,subst
antialjust
ice
wouldbebet terbyall
owingtheappeal .

Al
fonsoFundi
alanv
sAndr
es
Facts:SpousesHenr yandLi wanagAndresfi
leda
complaintforaccionpublicianawi t
hdamagesagai nstNol
i
Alf
onsoandspousesRey nal doandErl
indaFundial
anon
thegroundt hatJosesoldt helotinquesti
onwithout
publi
cati
onoft heextraj
udi cialset
tl
ement.

ISSUE:Whetherornott
hepubli
cat
ionofdeedof
extr
ajudi
cial
sett
lementi
sneededtopassti
tl
etothehei
rs.

Hel
d:No.Art777provi
desthatt
hepropert
iesofaperson
whodiesint
estat
epassesatoncetohisheir
s.Such
t
ransmissi
onissubj
ecttot
heclaimsofadmi ni
str
ati
on
andt hepr oper tymaybet akenf rom thehei rsf ort he
purposeofpay ingdebt sandexpenses, butt hisdoesnot
preventani mmedi atepassageoft het i
tle,upont hedeat h
ofthei ntest ate, f
rom hi msel ftohishei r
s.Thedeedof
extraj
udi cial settl
ementexecut edbyFi lomenaSant osVda.
deAl fonsoandJoseev idencest heirintent iont opar tit
ion
theinher itedpr oper ty.InAl ejandr i
nov .Cour tofAppeal s,
theCour tuphel dtheef f
ect i
v i
tyofadeedofext rajudi ci
al
settl
ementt hatwasnei thernot ari
zednorpubl ished.I t
deli
neat edwhatpor tionoft heinher it
edpr oper tywoul d
belongt owhom.Thesal etor espondent swasmadeaf ter
theex ecut ionoft hedeedofext rajudicial settlementoft he
estate.Theext rajudicialset tl
ementofest ate, ev ent hough
notpubl ished, beingdeemedapar ti
ti
onoft hei nher ited
proper t
y, Josecoul dv al
idlyt ransferowner shipov ert he
specificpor t
ionoft hepr oper t
yt hatwasassi gnedt ohi m

St
.Mar
ti
nFuner
alHomesvs.Nat
ionalLaborRel
ati
ons
Commi
ssi
onandBienv
eni
doArcayos
G.
R.No.130866
Sept
ember16,
1998
Facts:Respondent( Arcayos)wassummar i
lydismi ssedby
St.Mart i
nFuner alHomesf ormisappropri
ati
ngf unds
worthPhp38, 000whichwassupposedt obet axespai dto
theBureauofI nter
nalRevenue(BIR).Al
legi
ngt hatthe
dismissal wasi l
l
egal,r
espondentfil
edacaseagai nstSt.
MartinFuner alHomesi ntheNationalLaborRel at
ions
Commi ssi
on( NLRC) .

Peti
tioner’
s(St
.Mar t
inFuner
al Homes)cont enti
onisthat
therespondentisnotanemploy eeduetot helackofan
employ er
-empl
oy eecont
ract
.Inadditi
on,respondentis
notl
istedonSt.Mar ti
n’
smont hlypayr
oll
.

Thelaborarbit
errul
edinfavorofpeti
ti
oner
,conf
ir
ming
thati
ndeed,therewasnoempl oyer
-employ
eerel
ati
onshi
p
betweenthetwoandhence, ther
ecouldbenoill
egal
dismissal
insuchasi t
uat
ion.

Therespondentappeal
edt
othesecr et
aryofNLRCwho
setasi
dethedecisi
onandremandedt hecasetothelabor
arbi
ter
.Peti
ti
onerfi
ledamoti
onf orr
econsider
ati
on,but
wasdeniedbytheNLRC.Now, peti
ti
onersappeal
edtot he
SupremeCourt–al l
egi
ngt
hattheNLRCcommi tt
edgr ave
abuseofdi
scr
eti
on.

Issue:Whet
herornotthepet
iti
oner
’sappeal
/pet
it
ionf
or
certi
orar
iwasproper
lyfi
ledi
ntheSupremeCourt.

Hel
d:No.

Hist
oricall
y,deci
sionsfrom theNLRCwer eappealablet
o
theSecr et
aryofLabor ,
whosedeci si
onsar ethen
appealabletotheOf f
iceofthePr esi
dent.Howev er
, t
he
newrul esdonotany mor eprovi
deprovisionsregardi
ng
appel
lat er
eviewfordecisionsrenderedbyt heNLRC.

Howev erinthi
scase, t
heSupr emeCourttookitupon
themselvestorevi
ewsuchdeci si
onsf
rom theNLRCby
vir
tueoftheirr
oleundert hecheckandbalancesystem
andtheper cei
vedintent
ionoft hel
egi
slat
ivebodywho
enactedthenewr ules.

“I
theldthatt
hereisanunder
lyi
ngpowerofthecour
tsto
scrut
ini
zetheactsofsuchagenci
esonquesti
onsoflaw
andj urisdict
ionevent houghnor ightofr eviewisgi v
enby
statute; t
hatthepur poseofj udicialreviewi stokeept he
admi nistrati
veagencywi thinitsjurisdictionandpr otect
thesubst ant
ialr
ightsoft hepar ti
es; andt hatiti
sthatpart
ofthechecksandbal anceswhi chr estrictst heseparati
on
ofpower sandf orestall
sarbitraryandunj ust
adjudicat i
ons.”

Thepetit
ionersright
full
yfi
ledamot i
onforreconsi
derati
on,
buttheappeal orcert
iorar
ishoul
dhav ebeenfil
edi
niti
all
y
totheCourtofAppeal s–asconsi st
entwiththepr
incipl
e
ofhier
archyofcour t
s.Assuch, t
heSupremeCour t
remandedt hecasetot heCourtofAppeals.

THEDI OCESEOFBACOLOD,REPRESENTEDBYTHE
MOSTREV.BI SHOPVI
CENTEM.NAVARRAandTHE
BI
SHOPHI MSELFINHISPERSONALCAPACITY,
Pet
it
ioner
s,

v
s.

COMMI
SSI
ONONELECTI
ONSANDTHEELECTI
ON
OFFI
CEROFBACOLODCI TY,ATTY.MAVI
LV.
MAJARUCON,
Respondents.

G.
R.No.205728 Januar
y21,
2015

PONENTE:
Leonen

TOPI
C:Ri
ghtt
oexpr
essi
on,
rightt
opol
i
tical
speech,
right
topr
oper
ty

FACTS:

OnFebr
uar
y21,
2013,
pet
it
ioner
spost
edt
wo(
2)
tarpaulinswi thinapr ivatecompoundhousi ngt heSan
Sebast i
anCat hedral ofBacol od.Eacht arpaul inwas
approximat elysixf eet( 6′)byt enf eet( 10′)insi ze.They
wer epost edont hef rontwal l
soft hecat hedr alwi thin
publicv iew.Thef i
rstt arpaulincont ainst hemessage
“IBASURARHLaw”r eferri
ngt ot heRepr oduct i
veHeal t
h
Lawof2012orRepubl icActNo.10354.Thesecond
tarpaulini st hesubj ectoft hepr esentcase.Thi st arpauli
n
containst heheadi ng“ Consci enceVot e”andl i
sts
candidat esasei ther“ (Ant i
-RH)Team Buhay ”wi thacheck
mar k,or“ (Pr o-RH)Team Pat ay ”wi than“ X”mar k.The
electoral candi dateswer ecl assifiedaccor dingt ot heir
voteont headopt i
onofRepubl icActNo.10354, otherwise
knownast heRHLaw.Thosewhov ot edf ort hepassi ngof
thelawwer ecl assifiedbypet iti
oner sascompr ising
“Team Pat ay,”whi let hosewhov otedagai nsti tf orm
“Team Buhay .
”

Respondent sconcededthatt het arpauli

nwas
nei
thersponsor ednorpaidf orbyanycandi date.
Pet
iti
onersalsoconcededt hatthetarpaulincont ai
ns
namesof candidatesforthe2013el ections, butnotof
pol
iti
cianswhohel pedinthepassageoft heRHLawbut
werenotcandidat esforthatelect
ion.
I
SSUES:

Whetherornotthesi
zeli
mit
ationanditsr
easonabl
eness
oft
het ar
pauli
nisapoli
ti
calquest
ion,
hencenotwit
hinthe
ambitoftheSupremeCourt
’spowerofrevi
ew.
Whetherornotthepeti
ti
onersviol
atedthepr
inci
pleof
exhausti
onofadminist
rati
veremediesasthecasewas
notbroughtf
ir
stbeforetheCOMELECEnBancoranyi fi
ts
div
isi
ons.
Whet
herornotCOMELECmayr
egul
ateexpr
essi
onsmade
bypr
ivat
eci
ti
zens.
Whetherornott
heassai l
ednoti
ceandlett
erf
orthe
r
emov aloft
hetarpaul
inviol
atedpet
it
ioner
s’f
undament
al
r
ighttofr
eedom ofexpressi
on.
Whethert
heorderforr
emoval
ofthetar
paul
i
nisacont
ent
-
basedorcont
ent-
neutr
alr
egul
ati
on.
Whetherornott
her
ewasv
iol
ati
onofpet
it
ioner
s’r
ightt
o
pr
operty.
Whetherornotthet
arpaul
inandi
tsmessagear
e
consi
deredrel
i
giousspeech.
HELD:

FI
RSTI
SSUE:
No.

TheCour truledthatthepresentcasedoesnot
cal
lfort
heexer ci
seofpr udenceormodest y.Thereisno
pol
iti
cal
question.Itcanbeact eduponbyt hiscourt
thr
oughtheexpandedj ur
isdi
ctiongrant
edtot hi
scourt
thr
oughArti
cleVIII
, Secti
on1oft heConstit
ution.
.

Theconceptofapol it
icalquesti
onnever
precl
udesj udi
cialrev
iewwhent heactofaconst i
tuti
onal
organinfri
ngesuponaf undament alindi
vi
dualorcoll
ecti
ve
ri
ght.Evenassumi ngarguendot hattheCOMELECdi d
havethedi scr
etiontochooset hemannerofr egulati
onof
thetarpaul
ininquestion,itcannotdosobyabr idgingthe
fundament alr
ighttoexpression.
 Alsot heCour tsaidthati
nourj uri
sdict
ion,the
determinationofwhet heranissueinv ol
vesatrulypoli
ti
cal
andnon- justi
ciablequest i
onli
esintheanswert othe
questionofwhet hert hereareconstituti
onal
lyimposed
l
imitsonpower sorf unctionsconferreduponpol i
ti
cal
bodies.Iftherear e,thenourcour t
sar eduty-boundto
examinewhet hert hebr anchorinstrumentali
tyofthe
governmentpr oper l
yact edwithi
nsuchl imit
s.

Apolit
icalquest
ionwillnotbeconsidered
j
usti
ciablei
fther earenoconstit
ut i
onal
lyimposedli
mits
onpower sorfunctionsconferr
eduponpol it
ical
bodies.
Hence,theexistenceofconstit
utional
lyimposedli
mits
j
usti
fi
essubject i
ngt heof
fici
alactionsofthebodytothe
scr
uti
nyandr ev i
ewoft hi
scourt.

I
nthiscase,t
heBil
lofRight
sgivest heut most
defer
encet otheri
ghttof
reespeech.Anyi nstancethat
thi
srightmaybeabr i
dgeddemandsj udi
cialscruti
ny.It
doesnotfallsquar
elyi
ntoanydoubtthatapol i
ti
cal
questi
onbr i
ngs.
SECONDI
SSUE:
No.

TheCourthel
dthatt
heargumentonexhaust
ion
ofadmi
nist
rat
iver
emediesi
snotproperi
nthi
scase.

Despit
etheallegednon-exhausti
onof
admi ni
str
ativ
eremedies, i
tiscl
earthatthecont rover
syis
alr
eadyr i
peforadjudi
cation.Ri
penessist he“ pr
erequi
sit
e
thatsomet hi
nghadbyt henbeenaccompl ishedor
performedbyeitherbranchorinthiscase, organof
governmentbef or
eacour tmaycomei ntot hepict
ure.
”

Peti
ti
oners’exerci
seoftheirrighttospeech,
giv
ent hemessageandt heirmedium, hadunder standable
rel
evanceespeci al
lyduri
ngt heel
ections.COMELEC’ s
l
etterthr
eateningthefil
ingoftheelectionoffenseagai nst
peti
ti
onersisal r
eadyanact i
onableinfri
ngementoft hi
s
ri
ght.Theimpendi ngthreatofcri
minal li
ti
gati
oni senough
tocurtai
lpeti
ti
oner s’
speech.

Inthecont
extoft
hiscase,
exhaust
ionoft
heir
admi
nist
rat
iver
emediesasCOMELECsuggestedinthei
r
pleadi
ngspr
olongst
hev
iol
ati
onoft
hei
rfr
eedom of
speech.

THI
RDI
SSUE:
No.

Respondent sci tetheConst i

tution,laws,and
j
urisprudencet osuppor ttheirposi t
iont hattheyhadt he
powert or egulatethet arpaulin.Howev er,t
heCour thel d
thatalloft heseprovisionsper t
aintocandi datesand
poli
ticalpar ti
es.Peti
tioner sarenotcandi dates.Neitherdo
theybel ongt oanypol iti
cal party.COMELECdoesnothav e
theaut horitytoregul
at et heenj oymentoft hepreferred
ri
ghtt of r
eedom ofexpr essionexer cisedbyanon-
candidat einthiscase.

FOURTHI
SSUE:
Yes.

TheCourtheldthatev
eryci
ti
zen’
sexpressi
on
wi
thpolit
ical
consequencesenjoy
sahighdegreeof
pr
otect
ion.
 Moreov er
,ther espondent’sargumentthatthe
tar
pauli
niselect
ionpr opaganda, beingpeti
ti
oners’
wayof
endor
singcandidateswhov ot
edagai nstt
heRHLawand
rej
ect
ingthosewhov otedf ori
t,holdsnowat er
.

TheCour theldthatwhi l
ethetar
pauli
nmay
i
nfl
uencethesuccessorf ail
ureofthenamedcandidates
andpoli
ti
calparti
es,thi
sdoesnotnecessar i
lymeani ti
s
el
ecti
onpropaganda.Thet arpaul
inwasnotpaidforor
post
ed“inreturnforconsiderati
on”byanycandidat
e,
pol
it
ical
party,orpart
y -
li
stgroup.

Byi
nter
pret
ingthel
aw,iti
sclearthatper
sonal
opi
nionsar
enotincl
uded,whi
lesponsoredmessagesare
cov
ered.

Thecont
entoft
het
arpaul
i
nisapol
i
tical
speech

Polit
ical speechrefer
st ospeech“bot
hint endedand
recei
v edasacont ri
buti
ont opubli
cdel
iber at
ionabout
somei ssue,”“f
osteri
nginformedandcivicmi nded
deli
ber ation.
”Ont heotherhand,commer cialspeechhas
beendefi
nedasspeecht hatdoes“nomor ethanpropose
acommer ci
alt
ransact
ion.”Theexpressi
onresulti
ngfrom
thecont
entoft
het ar
paulinis,
howev er
,defi
nit
elypol
it
ical
speech.

FI
FTHI
SSUE:
Cont
ent
-basedr
egul
ati
on.

Content-
basedrestrai
ntorcensorshipref
ersto
rest
ri
cti
ons“ basedont hesubjectmatt
eroft heutt
erance
orspeech.”Incontrast
,content-
neut
ralregul
ationi
ncludes
contr
olsmer elyontheinci
dentsofthespeechsuchas
ti
me, pl
ace,ormanneroft hespeech.

TheCourtheldthatt
heregulati
oni
nvolvedatbar
i
scontent-
based.Thetarpaul
incontenti
snoteasil
y
di
vor
cedf r
om thesizeofitsmedium.

Content-
basedregulat
ionbearsaheavy
presumpti
onofinval
idi
ty,andthiscour
thasusedthecl
ear
andpresentdangerrul
easmeasur e.
 Undert hi
srule,“
theevi
lconsequencessoughtt o
beprevent edmustbesubst anti
ve,‘
extr
emel yseri
ousand
thedegreeofi mmi nenceextr
emelyhigh.’
”“Onlywhent he
chal
lengedacthasov ercometheclearandpr esentdanger
rul
ewi l
litpassconst i
tuti
onalmuster
,withthegov er
nment
havi
ngt hebur denofov er
comingthepresumed
unconstituti
onali
ty.
”

Ev enwiththecl earandpr esentdangert est,

respondent sfai
ledtojust i
fyther egulation.Therei sno
compel l
ingandsubst ant i
alst at
ei nterestendanger edby
thepostingoft hetarpaulinast oj usti
fycur tai
lmentoft he
ri
ghtoff reedom ofexpr ession.Ther ei snor easonf orthe
statetomi nimizetherightofnon- candi datepeti
tionersto
postthet arpaul
inintheirprivatepr oper ty.Thesizeoft he
tarpaul
indoesnotaf f
ectany oneel se’
sconst i
tut
ional
ri
ghts.

SI
XTHI
SSUE:
Yes.

TheCour
theldthatev enthoughthetar
pauli
nis
readi
lyseenbythepubli
c,thetarpauli
nremainsthepri
vat
e
propert
yofpeti
ti
oners.Theirr
ighttousetheirpr
opert
yis
l
i
kewi
sepr
otect
edbyt
heConst
it
uti
on.

Anyr
egulation,t
herefor
e,whichoper at
esasan
effecti
veconfi
scationofpr i
vatepropert
yorconst i
tutesan
arbit
raryorunreasonableinfri
ngementofpr opert
yrightsi
s
void,becauseitisrepugnanttotheconstituti
onal
guarantiesofduepr ocessandequal protect
ionofthe
l
aws.

TheCour ti
nAdiongcasehel dt hatarestri
cti
on
thatregulateswheredecalsandstickersshouldbepost ed
i
s“ sobroadt hati
tencompassesev entheciti
zen’spri
vate
property.
”Consequentl
y,itvi
olat
esAr ti
cleII
I,Secti
on1of
theConst it
uti
onwhichprov i
desthatnoper sonshallbe
depri
v edofhi spr
opert
ywi t
houtduepr ocessofl aw.

SEVENTHI
SSUE:
No.

TheCour
theldt
hatthechur
chdoctri
nesreli
ed
uponbypeti
ti
oner
sarenotbi
ndinguponthi
scourt.The
posit
ionoft
heCathol
i
crel
igi
oninthePhi
li
ppinesas
regar
dstheRHLawdoesnotsuffi
cetoquali
fytheposti
ng
byoneofitsmember sofat arpauli
nasr el
igi
ousspeech
solel
yonsuchbasis.Theenumer ati
onofcandidateson
thefaceofthetar
pauli
nprecludesanydoubtast oit
s
natureasspeechwit
hpoli
tical consequencesandnot
rel
igi
ousspeech.

Doct
ri
neofbenev
olentneut
ral
i
ty

Wit
hr eli
gionl ookeduponwi t
hbenev ol
enceand
nothost il
i
ty,benevolentneut r
al i
tyallowsaccommodat ion
ofreligi
onundercer taincircumst ances.Accommodat i
ons
aregov ernmentpol iciesthatt aker eli
gionspecifi
call
yinto
accountnott opr omot ethegov ernment ’
sfavoredform of
rel
igion,buttoallowi ndividualsandgr oupst oexerci
se
theirrel
igi
onwi thouthi ndrance.Thei rpurposeoreffect
thereforeistoremov eabur denon, orfacil
it
atethe
exerciseof,aper son’sori nstituti
on’sr el
igi
on.

AsJust i
ceBrennanexpl ained,t
he“ government
mayt akereli
gionint
oaccount...t oexempt ,when
possi
ble,fr
om gener al
lyappli
cablegov ernmental
regul
ationindi
v i
dual
swhoser eli
giousbelief
sand
pract
iceswoul dotherwisetherebybei nf
ringed,orto
createwithoutstat
einv
olvementanatmospher
einwhi
ch
voluntar
yr el
i
giousexer
cisemayflour
ish.
”

Lemont
est