G.R. No.

159357 April 28, 2004

Brother Mariano “ Mike” Velarde vs. Social Justice Society

Definitions important to understand the case at hand:

 Declaratory Relief
-A special civil action brought by a person interested under a deed, will, contract or written instrument, or
whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance, before breach or
violation thereof, to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or
statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder- Section 1, Rule 64, Rules of Court
-Requisites for action: (1)there must be justiciable controversy; (2) controversy must be between persons
whose interests are adverse; (3) party seeking declaratory relief must have legal interest in the controversy;
(4) issue involved must be ripe for justiciable determination
 Justiciable Controversy
-One involving an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other
concerning a real and not a mere theoretical question or issue
 Legal Standing or locus standi
-A personal or substantial interest such that the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result
of an act
 Interest
-Material interest
 Dispositive Portion
-Order or judgment of the court in the case irrespective of contrary statements arising therein
 Relief
-Refers to a specific coercive measure prayed for as a result of a violation of the right of a plaintiff or a
petitioner
 Cause of Action
-An act or omission of one party in violation of legal rights or rights of another, causing injury to the latter
-Essential elements: (1) right in favor of petitioner; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; (3) act or omission that is violative of the right of petitioner or
constituting a breach of obligation of defendant to petitioner

Facts:
Main case
- On January 28, 2003, Social Justice Society (SJS) filed a petition for declaratory relief 1 against Velarde and
other significant religious leaders
- All accused filed answers2
- Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration were both dismissed, thus…

Case at hand
- Supreme Court found the following:3
: no justiciable controversy4
: the cause of action5 to which SJS insisted on is merely speculated or anticipated
: the 5 page SJS Petition merely sought an opinion
: SJS does not have solid evidence showing that their interests would be greatly affected 6

1
SJS’s concern was that these religious leaders are endorsing candidates of choice for an elective office, as well as urging and/or
requiring the members of their religious groups to vote for choice candidate
2
Brother Eddie Villanueva submitted an answer within the time specified, Executive Minister Erano Manalo and Brother Mike
Velarde filed Motions to Dismiss, His Eminence Jaime Cardinal Sin filed a comment and Brother Eli Soriano filed an answer
within extended period and similarly prayed for dismissal
3
The Supreme Court decided that SJS’s petition should have been dismissed from the very beginning. The Supreme Court,
however, also considered the issue at hand of paramount public interest because it does not simply concern the definition of the
separation between church and state but it also the very governance of our country
4
SJS failed to assert an existing controversy between them and the religious leaders accused; the petition did not also state any
specific legal rights violated or particular acts the latter were in breach of its rights
5
As in footnote 1
 : Lower courts that denied the Motions for Dismissal and Reconsideration without explanation and without
allowing the parties to file their answers, respectively
: The earlier decisions did not have dispositive portions7

Issues Held and Ratio

Procedural
-whether or not petition for Declaratory Relief raise
Justiciable Controversy
-whether or not it states a cause of action
- whether or not the respondent have any legal standing
to file Petition for Declaratory Relief
-No, there simply was no existing case or controversy8
-No, their accusation were mere anticipations and
speculations
-No, SJS failed to show injury sustained or to be
sustained9

Substantive
-whether or not the RTC decision conform to the form -No10
and substance required by the Constitution, the law and
Rules of Court
-whether or not endorsements of candidacies by -No definitive answer11
religious leaders is unconstitutional

Essential Parts of a Good Decision:

1. Statement of the Case
2. Statement of Facts
3. Issues or Assignment of Errors
4. The Court’s Ruling
5. The Disposition or Dispositive Portion

Proper Proceedings Before the Trial Court:

- Dismissal of cases without allegations. A complaint or petition should contain clear facts on which pleading
relies and clear specification of relief sought
- If complaint is filed and forwarded, defendant is given 15 days to answer. If not answered, relief is granted.
- If the answer sets forth a counter claim or cross claim, it must be answered within 10 days from service to
which consequently a reply may again be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to
- Failure to answer gives the Court ability to direct judgment on such pleading 12 …
- After the last pleading has been served anf filed, the case shall be set for pre-trial 13

6
Presumed interest is impersonal in character, too vague, highly speculative and uncertain (SJS merely points out that they their
members are citizens-taxpayers-registered voters
7
Importance of dispositive portion was explained in Manalang vs de Rickards: “The resolution of the Court on a given issue as
embodied in the dispositive portion of the decision or order s the investitive or controlling factor that determines and settles the
rights of the parties and the questions presented therein, notwithstanding the existence of statements ore declaration in the body
of said order that may be confusing”
8
As in footnote 4
9
The SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, if they were able to, their petition
might have a chance to stand in court
10
The Supreme Court took this opportunity to discuss what standard procedure should have been taken
-it was stated in the decision that the RTC judge be held under evaluation
11
In the decision of the Supreme Court, it stated: “Regrettably it is not legally possible for the Court to take up, on the merits, the
paramount question involving a constitutional principle. It is time-honored rule that the constitutionality of a statute or act will be
passed upon only if and to the extent that it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the
protection of the rights of the parties concerned”
12
Time for filing for motions are provided in Rules of Court
13
Partied are required to attend pre-trial briefs wherein evidences will be presented. Failure to do so results to dismissal of case
with prejudice to the absent party