LEGAL RESEARCH WRITING REVIEWER  Properties,  Inc.

  to  prepare  in  building 

  and operating the casino in the location 
Part I - Introduction  over  the  Christmas  season.  As  a 
  response,  the  Sangguniang 
A. Definition of Legal Research  Panglungsod  of  Cagayan  de  Oro 
● the process of identifying and  enacted  ​Ordinance  No.  3353  on 
retrieving information  December  1992.  City  Ordinance  No. 
necessary to support legal  3353  prohibits  the  issuance  of  business 
decision-making (Lexis-Nexis,  permits  and  cancels  existing  business 
n.d.)  permits  to  any  establishment  that allows 
● The process of identifying  the  operations  of  a  casino  on  its 
law-related information  premises.  The  ordinance  will  take  effect 
needed to support legal  10  days  after  its  publication.  The 
decision-making (Barkan,  Cagayan  De  Oro  City  Council  also 
Bintliff & Whisner, 2015)  implemented  a  sterner  ordinance, 
B. Importance of Legal Research  Ordinance  No.  3375-93  that  prohibits 
● Provides support in legal  casino  operations,  and  a  penalty  in 
decision-making on complex  violation  thereof.  Pryce  Properties  filed 
legal issues  an  appeal  against  the  city  ordinances 
● Applied to specific tasks and  of  Cagayan  de Oro’s city council. Pryce 
requires complete answers  Properties  (respondent)  contended  that 
● Paid expertise (Lexis-Nexis,  both  city  ordinances  were in violation of 
n.d.)  P.D.  1896.  On  March  13,  1993,  the  Court 
C. Sources of Legal Research  of  Appeals  ruled  Ordinance  Nos.  3353 
1. Primary Sources  and  3375-93  as  invalid  and  prohibited 
a. Statutes, Constitution  the execution of the said ordinance nos. 
2. Secondary Sources  Magtajas  and  CDO  City  Council 
  (petitioners)  argued  that  under  the 
D. Sources of Law  Local  Government Code, they have the 
1. Primary Sources  police  authority  to  stop  the  operations 
● Constitution, case law,  of a casino for the general welfare. 
statutes. Regulations and  ISSUE  OF  THE  CASE:  ​Are  CIty  Ordinance 
annotations (Lexis Nexis)  Nos.  3353  and  3375-93  invalid  and 
2. Secondary Sources  should not be executed? 
● Law reviews, treatises,  RULING  OF  THE  CASE:    No,  City 
practice guide, news  Ordinance  Nos.  3353  and  3375-93  are 
(LexisNexis)  both  invalid.  The  Local  Government 
3. Finding Tools  Code  vests  the  LGUs  to  have  police 
  power and authorization to promote the 
MAGTAJAS vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES  General  Welfare  in  their  communities. 
G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994  They  have  the  authority  to  prevent 
  illegal  operations on gambling, but does 
FACTS  OF  THE  CASE:  ​In  1992,  PAGCOR  not  have  the  authority  to  act  on 
(Philippine  Amusement  and  Gaming  gambling  activities  legally  supported  by 
Corporation)  decided  to  extend  its  a  higher  statute,  such  as  PAGCOR.  The 
operations, including setting up a casino  tests  of  a  valid  ordinance  are  well 
in  Cagayan  De  Oro  City.  It  leased  a  established.  A  long  line  of  decisions  has 
portion  of  a  building  owned  by  Pryce  held that to be valid, an ordinance must 
conform  to  the  following  substantive  package  to  be  tested  for  illegal  drugs 
requirements:  content.  On  the  same  day,  NBI 
1)  It  must  not  contravene  the  The  confirmed  that  the  contents  of  the 
Constitution or any statute.  sample  taken  from  Marti’s  package 
2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.  were  illegal  drugs.  The  NBI  went  to  the 
3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.  office  of  Manila  Packing  and  Export 
4)  It  must  not  prohibit  but  may  regulate  Forwarders  to  interview  Job  Reyes,  the 
trade.  private  individual  who  reported  the 
5)  It must be general and consistent with  packages.  In  the  presence  of  the  NBI, 
public policy.  the  remaining  boxes  were  opened  and 
6) It must not be unreasonable.  dried  marijuana  leaves  were  found 
RATIONALE:  ​The  first  requirement  for  the  inside.  NBI  tried  to  contact  Marti,  but  to 
validity  of  a  city ordinance is that it must  no  avail.  In  a  follow-up  operation,  Marti 
not  contravene  a  statute,  such  as  the  was  traced  and  charged  by  the  NBI  for 
operation  of  a  casino  by  PAGCOR,  as  the  violation  of  the  RA  6425  or  the 
supported  by  P.D.  1869.  The  City  Dangerous  Drugs  Act.  Marti  appealed 
Councils  of  LGUs  operate  on  the  that  the  evidence  against  him  was 
delegated  legislative  powers  given  to  obtained  by  violating  his  rights  against 
them  by  the  Congress.  LGUs  cannot  be  his  constitutional  right  to  be  protected 
superior  to  the  Congress,  including  in  from  unreasonable  search  and  seizure 
writing  the  legal  statutes.  In  spite of their  and privacy of communication.  
praiseworthy  motives,  the  City  ISSUE  OF  THE  CASE:  ​Can  the  act  of  the 
Ordinance  Nos.  3353  and  3375-93  are  private  individual  allegedly  violating 
void,  since  it’s  contrary  to  P.D.  1869 and  Marti’s  constitutional  rights  be  invoked 
the public policy.  against the state? 
  RULING  OF  THE  CASE:  ​No.  The  act  of  an 
PEOPLE vs. MARTI  individual  that  have  violated  another 
G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991  individual’s  constitutional  rights  may  not 
  be held against the State.  
FACTS  OF  THE  CASE: ​On August 14, 1897,  RATIONALE:  ​The  Supreme  Court  ruled 
Andre  Marti  and  Shirley  Reyes  wanted  that  with  the  absence  of  government 
to  send  4  packages  to  their  friend  in  interference,  the  violation  of  the 
Zurich,  Switzerland  via  the  services  of  constitutional  right  against 
Manila  Packing  and  Export  Forwarders.  unreasonable  search  and  seizure  refers 
When  the  first  forwarder  wanted  to  to  the  immunity  of  a  person  from 
open  and  examine  the  packages,  government  interference.  The 
Andre  Marti  refused,  ensuring  the  protection  is  only  directed  against 
forwarder  that  the  contents  of  their  government  action.  In  the  case  of 
packages  were  mere  books  and  cigars.  People  vs.  Marti,  the  evidence  was 
As  part  of  their  standard  operating  obtained  by  a  private  individual,  acting 
procedures,  Manila  Packing  and  Export  in  a  private  capacity,  without  any 
Forwarders had to inspect and open the  interference  from  the  state.  Although 
packages,  before  shipping  them  off.  Marti  argued  that  the  NBI  conducted 
Upon  the  inspection  of  Marti’s  illegal  search  and  warrant,  the  Court 
packages,  a weird scent came from the  pointed  out  that  it  was  the  individual 
packages,  and  dried  leaves  were  also  who  conducted  the  search,  as  part  of 
inside.  Job  Reyes  wrote  a  letter  to  the  their  SOP  in  shipping  packages.  The 
NBI  together  with  samples  of  the  search  was  only  done  in  front  of  NBI 
authorities,  and  the  private  individual’s  Resolution, no longer challenging her
action  to  inspect  the  packages  in  front  dismissal from Citibank, but requested that
of  the  NBI  did  not  need  any  warrant  to  Citibank will be ordered to pay Paragas the
search, since they were only viewing the  Provident Fund retirement plan. This was
evidence  in  plain  sight.  The  Court  also 
cited in Citibank’s Working Together
pointed  out  that  the  Constitution  only 
Manual, which also provides that an
aims  to  lay  out  government  principles 
and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  not  employee discharged for reasons other than
to sort private individual relations.  misconduct will be paid the share from the
*Note: When a private individual  Fund. NLRC found that Paragas’ dismissal
violates another person’s right to  was not from misconduct, and granted
privacy, the evidence obtained  Paragas’ Motion. The Court of Appeals
therefrom is admissible; however the  dismissed the petition for lack of merit and
violator could be held civilly liable under  challenged the NLRC Resolution.
Article 32 of the Civil Code. 
ISSUE: ​Did the NLRC have the authority to
 
resolve issues and claims not pleaded
 
CITIBANK vs. NLRC  before the Labor Arbiter? Was the Court of
G.R. No. 159302, February 6, 2008  Appeals wrong in affirming the NLRC
  resolution?
FACTS OF THE CASE: ​Rosita Paragas RULING OF THE CASE: ​Paragas claimed
had worked for Citibank for 18 years, for other just and equitable relief on her
between August 1979 to September 1997. position paper to the NLRC, but only stated
In early 1993, Citibank declared some of its the “Provident A & C” that corresponds to
employees and officers to be redundant, P1,086,335.43as the actual damages that
and one of those affected was Paragas. As she allegedly suffered from her dismissal
requested by the labor union of the from employment. She did not exactly clarify
company, Paragas was transferred to the the “Provident A & C” and that it had a
Records Management Unit of Quality bearing on retirement benefits. Since she
Assurance Division as a bank statement did not directly refer to the Provident Fund
retriever (a filing clerk), instead of being in her position paper, it does not serve as a
terminated as part of the retrenchment. She basis for any administrative body to grant
was terminated later on by Citibank on the her the benefits. Paragas argued that she
grounds of severe misconduct. She filed a did not mention the retirement fund to the
complaint against Citibank to the NLRC labor arbiter because it will be inconsistent
(National Labor Relations Committee) on with her prayer for reinstatement, but
the grounds of her illegal dismissal from Paragas could’ve easily claimed this benefit
Citibank. The labor arbiter dismissed her for alternative relief. The Supreme Court
complaint against her illegal dismissal on also finds her dismissal from Citibank on the
the grounds of work inefficiency. The NLRC grounds of misconduct and work inefficiency
affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter, as valid. She is not entitled to a share of
with the modification that Paragas was Citibank’s retirement fund, since she was
entitled to a separation pay for her length of dismissed on the grounds of misconduct, a
service with Citibank.Paragas filed a motion policy she herself presented in her appeal.
for partial reconsideration on the NLRC