53721142 Digested Cases

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

1/38

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 2NDSEMESTER 2010-2011 UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

DIGESTED CASES CONSTI II Atty. Joan La!o

U.S. "# GOME$

Fa%t#&In this case, defendant was found guilty by the

trial court with the crime of practicing medicinewithout a license, in violation of Section 8, Act 30of the Philippine Commission which provides !"he#oard of $edical %&aminers may refuse to issueany of the following certificates provided fortherein to an individual convicted by a court ofcompetent 'urisdiction of any offense involvingimmoral or dishonorable conduct( In case of suchrefusal, the reason therefore shall be stated to theapplicant in writing( "he #oard may also revo)eany such certificate for li)e cause, or forunprofessional conduct, after due notice to theperson holding the certificate, and a hearing,sub'ect to an appeal to the #oard of *ealth for thePhilippine Islands, the decision of which shall befinal(+ efendant contends that the court erred indeclaring the aforementioned provision are no inconflict with the provisions of the Philippine #ill of-.0/ and in which he relies on paragraph -,section thereof which states !"hat no law shallbe enacted in said Islands which shall deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property without dueprocess of law, or deny to any person therein thee1ual protection of the laws(+

'()*&efendant2s contention is not meritorious becausethe #oard of $edical %&aminers where given sucha responsibility through the e&ercise of the State2s

police power(T+( #tat( +a# !(n(a) ,o( to(na%t #%+ )a#/ n ()aton to ,(#on#/ an*,o,(ty t+n t# o*(#/ a# ay ,oot(,)% +(a)t+/ ,)% oa)#/ ,)% #a3(ty/an* t+( !(n(a) ,o#,(ty an* ()3a( o3 t#n+atant#( "his power of the state is generallydenominated in its police power( It has been heldthat the state cannot be deprived of its right toe&ercise this power( "he police power and the rightto e&ercise it constitute the very foundation, or atleast one of the cornerstones of the state( or thestate to deprive itself or permit it to be deprived ofthe right to enact laws to promote generalprosperity and welfare of its inhabitants, and

promote public health, public morals, and publicsafety, would be to destroy the very purpose andob'ects of the state( 4o legislature can bargainaway the public health, public safety, or the publicmorals( "he people themselves cannot do it, muchless their servants( 5overnments are organi6edwith a view to preservation of these things( "heycannot deprive themselves of the power to providefor them. (Stone vs. Mississippi)In order to enforcet+( ,o)%( ,o( o3 t+( #tat(/ t ay/ n*(%(tan %on*ton# (%o( n(%(##ay to*(,"( t# %t4(n# o3 ,o,(ty an* o3 a !+t,o"*n! 3o t+( %ontnan%( o3 ,o,(ty/+(n t+( ,o,(ty o t+( (5(%#( o3 t+(

!+t ay t(n* to *(#toy t+( ,)% +(a)t+/t+( ,)% oa)#/ t+( ,)% #a3(ty/ an* t+(

!(n(a) ()3a( an* ,o#,(ty o3 t#n+atant#.(Slaughter House Cases)7pon policepower of the state depends the security of socialorder, the life and health of the citi6ens, thecomfort of an e&istence in a thic)ly populatedcommunity, the en'oyment of private and social

life, and the beneficial use of property( It e&tendsto the protection of the lives, limbs, health,comfort and 1uiet of all persons and the protectionof all property within the state( Persons andproperty are sub'ected to all )inds of restraints andburdens, in order to secure the general comfort,health, and prosperity of the state(

6INAY "# DOMINGO

Fa%t#&"he #urial Assistance Program 9esolution 4o( :0 ;assisting those who only earn less thanP/,000e'omar #inay, inthe e&ercise of the police power granted to him bythe municipal charter, was referred to theCommission on Audit after the municipal secretarycertified the disbursement of four hundredthousand pesos for its implementation wasdisallowed by said commission of suchdisbursements because there cannot be seen anyperceptible connection or relation between theob'ective sought to be attained and the allegedpublic safety, general welfare, etc( of itsinhabitants( *ence, this petition revolving aroundthe pivotal issue on whether or not 9esolution 4o(:0 of the $unicipality of $a)ati is a valid e&erciseof police power under the general welfare clause(

'()*&9esolution 4o( :0 of the $unicipality of $a)ati is avalid e&ercise of police power under the generalwelfare clause( "he police power is a governmentalfunction, an inherent attribute of sovereignty,which was born with civili6ed government( It isfounded largely on the ma&ims, !Sic utere tuo etahenum non laedas+ use your property so as notto impair others= and !Salus populi est supremale&+ the welfare of the people is the supreme law=(Its fundamental purpose is securing the generalwelfare, comfort and convenience of the people(7o)%( ,o( # t+( ,o( to ,(#%(

(!)aton# to ,oot( t+( +(a)t+/ oa)#/,(a%(/ (*%aton/ !oo* o*( o #a3(ty an*!(n(a) ()3a( o3 t+( ,(o,)(. It is the mostessential, insistent, and illimitable of powers( In asense it is the greatest and most powerfulattribute of the government( It is elastic and mustbe responsive to various social conditions( "hecare for the poor is generally recogni6ed as apublic duty( "he support for the poor has long beenan accepted e&ercise of police power in thepromotion of the common good(

AGUSTIN "# EDU

Fa%t#&"he letter of instruction providing for an early

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- 1 -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

2/38


warning device for motor vehicles is being assailedin the case at bar as being violative of theconstitutional guarantee of due process( Petitionercontends that they are ?infected with arbitrarinessbecause it is harsh, cruel and unconscionable tothe motoring public@? -3 are ?onesided, onerousand patently illegal and immoral because Btheywill ma)e manufacturers and dealers instantmillionaires at the e&pense of car owners who arecompelled to buy a set of the socalled earlywarning device at the rate of P :(00 to PD/(00 perset(? -E are unlawful and unconstitutional andcontrary to the precepts of a compassionate 4ewSociety Bas being compulsory and confiscatory onthe part of the motorists who could very wellprovide a practical alternative road safety device,or a better substitute to the specified set of%FGs(?

'()*&Petitioner2s contention is erroneous because theHetter of Instruction was issued in the e&ercise ofthe police power which is !nothing more or lessthan the powers of government inherent in everysovereignty(+ In the leading case of Calalang v.Williams, >ustice Haurel identified ,o)%( ,o(t+ #tat( at+oty to (na%t )(!#)aton t+atay nt(3(( t+ ,(#ona) )(ty o,o,(ty n o*( to ,oot( t+( !(n(a)()3a(. Persons and property could thus besub'ected to all )inds of restraints and burdens inorder for the general comfort, health andprosperity of the state(2 "his doctrine was laterreiterated again in Primicias v. Fugoso whichreferred police power as 9t+( ,o( to ,(#%(

(!)aton# to ,oot( t+( +(a)t+/ oa)#/,(a%(/ (*%aton/ !oo* o*( o #a3(ty/ an*!(n(a) ()3a( o3 t+( ,(o,)(.: "he conceptwas set forth in negative terms by >ustice $alcolmin a preJCommonwealth decision as 9t+atn+((nt an* ,)(nay ,o( n t+( Stat(+%+ (na)(# t to ,o+t a)) t+n!# +t3)to t+( %o3ot/ #a3(ty an* ()3a( o3#o%(ty.: Its scope, everJe&panding to meet thee&igencies of the times, even to anticipate thefuture where it could be done, provides enoughroom for an efficient and fle&ible response toconditions and circumstances thus assuring thegreatest benefits( In the language of >ustice

Cardo6o 4eeds that were narrow or parochial inthe past may be interwoven in the present with thewellJbeing of the nation( Fhat are critical or urgentchanges with the time(2 "he police power is thus adynamic agency, suitably vague and far fromprecisely defined, rooted in the conception thatmen in organi6ing the state and imposing upon itsgovernment limitations to safeguard constitutionalrights did not intend thereby to enable anindividual citi6en or a group of citi6ens to obstructunreasonably the enactment of such salutarymeasures calculated to communal peace, safety,good order, and welfare(+

IC'ONG "#. 'ERNANDE$

Fa%t#&"his Court has before it the delicate tas) ofpassing upon the validity and constitutionality of alegislative enactment, fundamental and farreaching in significance( "he enactment poses1uestions of due process, police power and e1ualprotection of the laws( It also poses an importantissue of fact, that is whether the conditions whichthe disputed law purports to remedy really oractually e&ist( Admittedly springing from a deep,militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the lawpurports to protect citi6en and country from thealien retailer( "hrough it, and within the field ofeconomy it regulates, Congress attempts totranslate national aspirations for economicindependence and national security, rooted in thedrive and urge for national survival and welfare,into a concrete and tangible measures designed tofree the national retailer from the competingdominance of the alien, so that the country andthe nation may be free from a supposed economicdependence and bondage( o the facts andcircumstances 'ustify the enactmentK

'()*&It has been said the ,o)%( ,o( # #o 3a ;(a%+n! n #%o,(/ t+at t +a# (%o( a)o#t,o##)( to )t t# #((,. A# t *("(# t#(5#t(n%( 3o t+( "(y (5#t(n%( o3 t+(Stat( t#()3/ t *o(# not n((* to ( (5,(##(*o *(3n(* n t# #%o,(< t # #a* to ( %o ;(5t(n#"( t+ #()3 ;,ot(%ton an* #""a)/an* a# #%+ t # t+( o#t ,o#t"( an* a%t"(o3 a)) !o"(n(nta) ,o%(##(#/ t+( o#t(##(nta)/ n##t(nt an* ))ta)(. %specially

is it so under a modern democratic framewor)where the demands of society and of nations havemultiplied to almost unimaginable proportions@ t+(3()* an* #%o,( o3 ,o)%( ,o( +a# (%o(a)o#t on*)(##/ =#t a# t+( 3()*# o3 ,)%nt((#t an* ,)% ()3a( +a"( (%o(a)o#t a));(a%n! an* +a"( tan#%(n*(*+an 3o(#!+t. Ot+(#( #tat(*/ a# (%annot 3o(#(( t+( n((*# an* *(an*# o3,)% nt((#t an* ()3a( n t+# %on#tant)y%+an!n! an* ,o!(##"( o)*/ #o (%annot *()t (3o(+an* t+( (5t(nt o#%o,( o3 ,o)%( ,o( y +%+ an* t+o!++%+ t+( Stat( #((># to attan o a%+("(

nt((#t o ()3a(. So t # t+at Con#ttton#*o not *(3n( t+( #%o,( o (5t(nt o3 t+(,o)%( ,o( o3 t+( Stat(< +at t+(y *o # to#(t 3ot+ t+( )taton# t+((o3. T+( o#t,otant o3 t+(#( a( t+( *( ,o%(##%)a#( an* t+( (?a) ,ot(%ton %)a#(.9esuming what we have set forth above we holdthat the disputed law was enacted to remedy areal actual threat and danger to national economyposed by alien dominance and control of the retailbusiness and free citi6ens and country fromdominance and control@ that the enactment clearlyfalls within the scope of the police power of theState, thru which and by which it protects its own

personality and insures its security and future@ thatthe law does not violate the e1ual protection


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

3/38


clause of the Constitution because sufficientgrounds e&ist for the distinction between alien andciti6en in the e&ercise of the occupation regulated,nor the due process of law clause, because the lawis prospective in operation and recogni6es theprivilege of aliens already engaged in theoccupation and reasonably protects their privilege@that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to carryout its ob'ectives appear to us to be plainly evidentL as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriatebut actually necessary L and that in any casesuch matter falls within the prerogative of theHegislature, with whose power and discretion the

>udicial department of the 5overnment may notinterfere@ that the provisions of the law are clearlyembraced in the title, and this suffers from noduplicity and has not misled the legislators or thesegment of the population affected@ and that itcannot be said to be void for supposed conflictwith treaty obligations because no treaty hasactually been entered into on the sub'ect and thepolice power may not be curtailed or surrenderedby any treaty or any other conventionalagreement(

T'E UNITED STATES "# LUIS TORI6IO

Fa%t#&Appellant in the case at bar was charged for theviolation of sections 30 M 33 of Act 4o( --ED, anAct regulating the registration, branding, andslaughter of large cattle( %vidence sustained in thetrial court found that appellant slaughtered orcaused to be slaughtered for human consumption,the carabao described in the information, without

a permit from the municipal treasurer of themunicipality where it was slaughtered( Appellantcontends that he applied for a permit to slaughterthe animal but was not given one because thecarabao was not found to be !unfit for agriculturalwor)+ which resulted to appellant to slaughter saidcarabao in a place other than the municipalslaughterhouse( Appellant then assails the validityof a provision under Act 4o( --ED which states thatonly carabaos unfit for agricultural wor) can beslaughtered(

'()*&"he e&tent and limits of what is )nown as the

police power have been a fruitful sub'ect ofdiscussion in the appellate courts of nearly everyState in the 7nion( It is universally conceded toinclude everything essential to the public safely,health, and morals, and to 'ustify the destructionor abatement, by summary proceedings, ofwhatever may be regarded as a public nuisance(7nder this power it has been held that the Statemay order the destruction of a house falling todecay or otherwise endangering the lives ofpassersby@ the demolition of such as are in thepath of a conflagration@ the slaughter of diseasedcattle@ the destruction of decayed or unwholesomefood@ the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities@

the regulation of railways and other means ofpublic conveyance, and of interments in burial

grounds@ the restriction of ob'ectionable trades tocertain localities@ the compulsary vaccination ofchildren@ the confinement of the insane or thoseafficted with contagious deceases@ the restraint ofvagrants, beggars, and habitual drun)ards@ thesuppression of obscene publications and houses ofill fame@ and the prohibition of gambling housesand places where into&icating li1uors are sold(6(yon* t+#/ +o("(/ t+( Stat( aynt(3(( +(("( t+( ,)% nt((#t#*(an* t/ an* n t+# ,at%)a a )a!(*#%(ton # n(%(##a)y "(#t(* n t+()(!#)at( to *(t(n(/ not on)y +at t+(nt((#t# o3 t+( ,)% (?(/ t +at(a#(# a( n(%(##ay 3o t+( ,ot(%ton o3#%+ nt((#t# . @#arbier vs. Connolly, --3 7( S(,/D@ Nidd vs. Pearson, -/8 7( S(, -(= "o 'ustify theState in thus interposing its authority in behalf ofthe public, it must appear, first, that the interestsof the public generally, as distinguished from thoseof a particular class, re1uire such interference@and, second, that the means are reasonablynecessary for the accomplishment of the purpose,and not unduly oppressive upon individuals( "helegislature may not, under the guise of protectingthe public interests, arbitrarily interfere withprivate business, or impose unusual andunnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations(In other words, its determination as to what is aproper e&ercise of its police powers is not final orconclusive, but is sub'ect to the supervision of thecourt(rom what has been said, we thin) t # %)(a t+att+( (na%t(nt o3 t+( ,o"#on# o3 t+(#tatt( n*( %on#*(aton a# (?(* y

t+( nt((#t# o3 t+( ,)% !(n(a))y/ a#*#tn!#+(* 3o t+o#( o3 a ,at%)a%)a## o *a3t ,,o#(# a# a(a#ona)y n(%(##ay )taton on ,"at(on(#+,/ to ,ot(%t t+( %onty 3ot+( )o## o3 t+( #("%(# o3 #%+ ana)# yt+( #)a!+t( y ,o"*(nt on(#/t(,t(* (t+( y !((* o3 o(ntay !an/o y a *(#( to (n=oy t+( )5y o3 ana)3oo*/ ("(n +(n y #o *on! t+( ,o*%t"(,o( o3 t+( %onty ay ( (a#a)y

an* *an!(o#)y a33(%t(*.Chief >ustice 9edfield, in "horpe vs. 9utland M#urlington 9( 9( Co( /D Ot(, -E0=, said p( -E.= thatby this ?general police power of the State, personsand property are sub'ected to all )inds of restraintsand burdens, in order to secure the generalcomfort, health, and prosperity of the State@ of theperfect right in the legislature to do which no1uestion ever was, or, upon ac)nowledge andgeneral principles, ever can be made, so far asnatural persons are concerned(?

C'URC'ILL "#. RAFFERTY

Fa%t#&"he case arises from the fact that defendant,

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- B -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

4/38


Collector of Internal 9evenue, would li)e to destroyor remove any sign, signboard, or billboard, theproperty of the plaintiffs, for the sole reason thatsuch sign, signboard, or billboard is, or may beoffensive to the sight( "he plaintiffs allegeotherwise( Fas there valid e&ercise of police powerin this caseK

'()*&es( "here can be no doubt that the e&ercise of thepolice power of the Philippine 5overnment belongsto the Hegislature and that this power is limitedonly by the Acts of Congress and thosefundamentals principles which lie at the foundationof all republican forms of government( An Act ofthe Hegislature which is obviously and undoubtedlyforeign to any of the purposes of the police powerand interferes with the ordinary en'oyment ofproperty would, without doubt, be held to beinvalid( #ut +(( t+( A%t # (a#ona)y t+na ,o,( %on#*(aton o3 an* %a( 3o t+(,)% +(a)t+/ #a3(ty/ o %o3ot/ t #+o)*not ( *#t(* y t+( %ot#.?"he power vested in the legislature by theconstitution to ma)e, ordain, and establish allmanner of wholesome and reasonable laws,statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties orwithout, not repugnant to the constitution, as theyshall 'udge to be for the good and welfare of thecommonwealth, and of the sub'ects of the same(??"he police power of the State, so far, has notreceived a full and complete definition( It may besaid, however, to ( t+( !+t o3 t+( Stat(/ o#tat( 3n%tonay/ to ,(#%( (!)aton#3o t+( !oo* o*(/ ,(a%(/ +(a)t+/ ,ot(%ton/

%o3ot/ %on"(n(n%( an* oa)# o3 t+(%onty/ +%+ *o not ... "o)at( any o3t+( ,o"#on# o3 t+( o!an% )a.?It Bthe police power has for its ob'ect theimprovement of social and economic conditionedaffecting the community at large and collectivelywith a view to bring about ?he greatest good of thegreatest number(?Courts have consistently andwisely declined to set any fi&ed limitations uponsub'ects calling for the e&ercise of this power( It iselastic and is e&ercised from time to time asvarying social conditions demand correction(??It may be said in a general way that the policepower e&tends to all the great public needs( It

ay ( ,t 3ot+ n a* o3 +at # #an%ton(*y #a!(/ o +()* y t+( ,("a)n! oa)tyo #ton! an* ,(,on*(ant o,non to (!(at)y an* (*at()y n(%(##ay to t+(,)% ()3a(.?It is much easier to perceive and reali6e thee&istence and sources of this police power than tomar) its boundaries, or to prescribe limits to itse&ercise(?

MMDA V#. 6()-A V))a!(

Fa%t#&$etropolitan $anila evelopment Authority

$$A=, petitioner herein, is a 5overnmentAgencytas)ed with the delivery of basic services

in $etro $anila( #elJAir OillageAssociation#AOA=,respondent herein, received a letter ofre1uest from the petitioner to open 4eptune Streetof #elJAir Oillage for the use of the public( "he saidopening of 4eptune Street will be for the safe andconvenient movement of persons and to regulatethe flow of traffic in $a)ati City( "his waspursuant to $$A law or 9epublic Act 4o( D./E(Qn the same day, the respondent wasappraisedthat the perimeter wall separating thesubdivisionand Nalayaan Avenue would bedemolished(

"he respondent, to stop the opening of the saidstreet and demolition of the wall, filed apreliminary in'unction and a temporary restrainingorder( 9espondent claimed that the$$A hadno authority to do so and the lower court decidedin favor of the 9espondent( Petitioner appealedthe decision of the lower courts and claimed that ithas the authority to open 4eptune Street topublic traffic because it is an agent of the Statethat canpractice police power in the delivery ofbasic services in $etro $anila(

I##(&Fhether or not the $$A has themandate to open 4eptune Street to public trafficpursuant toits regulatory and police powers(

'()*&"he Court held that the $$A does not have thecapacity to e&ercise police power( Police powerisprimarily lodged in the 4ational Hegislature(*owever, police power may be delegated togovernment units( Petitioner herein is adevelopment authority and not a political

governmentunit( "herefore, the $$A cannote&ercise police power because it cannot bedelegated to them(It is not a legislative unit of the government(9epublic Act 4o( D./E does not empower the$$Ato enact ordinances, approve resolutionsand appropriate funds for the general welfare oftheinhabitants of $anila( "here is no syllable inthe said act that grants $$A police power(It isan agency created for the purpose of laying downpolicies and coordinating with variousnationalgovernment agencies, people2s organi6ations, nonJgovernmental organi6ations and theprivatesector for the efficient and e&peditious delivery of

basic services in the vast metropolitanarea(

CITY OF MANILA VS. C'INESE COMMUNITY

Fa%t#&"he City of $anila, plaintiff herein, prayed for thee&propriation of a portion privatecemetery forthe conversion into an e&tension of 9i6al Avenue(Plaintiff claims that it is necessarythat suchpublic improvement be made in the said portion ofthe private cemetery and that thesaid lands arewithin their 'urisdiction(efendants herein answered that the saide&propriation was not necessary because other

routeswere available( "hey further claimed thatthe e&propriation of the cemetery would create

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

5/38


irreparable loss and in'ury to them and to all thosepersons owing and interested in thegravesandmonuments that would have to be destroyed(

"he lower court ruled that the said publicimprovement was not necessary on the particularJstripof land in 1uestion( Plaintiff herein assailedthat they have the right to e&ercise the power ofeminent domain and that the courts have no rightto in1uire and determine the necessity of thee&propriation( "hus, the same filed an appeal(

I##(&Fhether or not the courts may in1uireinto, and hear proof of the necessity of thee&propriation('()*&

"he courts have the power of restricting thee&ercise of eminent domain to the actualreasonablenecessities of the case and for thepurposes designated by the law( "he moment themunicipalcorporation or entity attempts toe&ercise the authority conferred, it must complywith theconditions accompanying the authority(

"he necessity for conferring the authority upon amunicipal corporation to e&ercise the right ofeminent domain is admittedly within the power ofthelegislature( #ut whether or not the municipalcorporation or entity is e&ercising the right in aparticular case under the conditions imposed bythe general authority, is a 1uestionthat thecourts have the right to in1uire to(

RE7U6LIC VS. CASTELVI

Fa%t#&In -.ED, the republic, through the Armed orces of

the Philippines AP=, entered into a leaseagreement with Castelvi on a yearJtoJyear basis(Fhen Castelvi gave notice to terminate the leasein -.:, the AP refused( She then instituted ane'ectment proceeding against the AP( In -..,however, the republic commenced thee&propriation proceedings for the land in 1uestion(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot the compensation shouldbe determined as of -.ED or -..(

'()*&"he Supreme Court ruled that the !ta)ing+ shouldnot be rec)oned as of -.ED, and that 'ust

compensation should not be determined on thebasis of the value of the property as of that year(

"he re1uisites for ta)ing are -= the e&propriatormust enter a private property, /= the entry mustbe for more than a momentary period, 3= it mustbe under warrant or color of authorities, E= theproperty must be devoted for public use orotherwise informally appropriated or in'uriouslyaffected, and = the utili6ation of the property forpublic use must be such a way as to oust theowner and deprive him of beneficial en'oyment ofthe property( 7nder Sec( E 9ule :D of the 9ules ofCourt, !'ust compensation+ is to be determined asof the date of the filing of the complaint( "he

Supreme Court has ruled that when the ta)ing ofthe property sought to be e&propriated coincides

with the commencement of the e&propriationproceedings, or ta)es place subse1uent to thefiling of the complaint for eminent domain, the 'ustcompensation should be determined as of the dateof the filing of the complaint( In the instant case, itis undisputed that the 9epublic was placed inpossession of the Castelvi property, by authority ofcourt, on August -0, -..( "he !ta)ing+ of theCastelvi property for the purposes of determiningthe 'ust compensation to be paid must, therefore,be rec)oned as of >une /:, -.. when thecomplaint for eminent domain was filed(

"here is no basis to the contention of the 9epublicthat a lease on a yearJtoJyear basis can give rise topermanent right to occupy since by e&pressprovision a lease made for a determinate time, aswas the lease of Castelvi land in the instant case,ceases upon the day fi&ed, without need of ademand Art( -::., 4ew Civil Code=( "he SupremeCourt, however, did not apply Art( -/0 of the 4ewCivil Code for the ad'ustment of the peso rate intimes of e&traordinary inflation or deflationbecause in eminent domain cases the obligation topay arises from law independent of contract(

AMIGA6LE VS. CUENCA

Fa%t#&Oictoria Amigable is the registered owner of aparticular lot( At the bac) of her "ransferCertificate of "itle -./E=, there was no annotationin favor of the government of any right or interestin the property( Fithout prior e&propriation ornegotiated sale, the government used a portion ofthe lot for the construction of the $ango and

5orordo Avenues( Qn -.8, Amigable2s counselwrote the President of the Philippines, re1uestingpayment of the portion of the said lot( It wasdisallowed by the Auditor 5eneral in his .th%ndorsement( Petitioner then filed in the court a1uo a complaint against the 9epublic of thePhilippines and 4icolas Cuenca, in his capacity asCommissioner of Public *ighways for the recoveryof ownership and possession of the lot( Accordingto the defendants, the action was prematurebecause it was not filed first at the Qffice of theAuditor 5eneral( According to them, the right ofaction for the recovery of any amount had alreadyprescribed, that the 5overnment had not given its

consent to be sued, and that plaintiff had no causeof action against the defendants(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot, under the facts of thecase, appellant may properly sue the government(

'()*&In the case of $inisterio v( Court of irst Instance ofCebu, it was held that when the government ta)esaway property from a private landowner for publicuse without going through the legal process ofe&propriation or negotiated sale, the aggrievedparty may properly maintain a suit against thegovernment without violating the doctrine of

governmental immunity from suit without itsconsent( In the case at bar, since no annotation in


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

6/38


favor of the government appears at the bac) of thecertificate of title and plaintiff has not e&ecutedany deed of conveyance of any portion of the lot tothe government, then she remains the owner ofthe lot( She could then bring an action to recoverpossession of the land anytime, becausepossession is one of the attributes of ownership(*owever, since such action is not feasible at thistime since the lot has been used for otherpurposes, the only relief left is for the governmentto ma)e due compensationrice or value of the lotat the time of the ta)ing(

RE7U6LIC VS. 7LDT

Fa%t#&"he plaintiff 9epublic of the Philippines is a politicalentity e&ercising government powers throughoneof its branches, the #ureau of "elecommunication(*erein defendant, PH" is a publicservicecorporation holding a franchise to install operatesand maintains a telephone system(After its creation, the #Q" set up its owngovernment telephone system by utili6ing its ownappropriations and other e1uipment and by rentingtrun) lines of the PH" to enable the govtofficesto call privately( #Q" entered into an agreementwith the 9CA communications for 'ointoverseastelephone service whereby #Q" would conveyoverseas calls received by 9CA to localresidents(PH" complained to the #Q" that it was a violationof the condition of their agreementsince the #Q"had used trun) lines only for the use ofgovernment offices but even to serveprivatepersons or the general public in competition with

the business of PH"( Subse1uently, theplaintiffcommenced suit against PH" as)ing the court

'udgment be rendered ordering the PH"toe&ecute a contract with the plaintiff, through the#Q" for the use of the facilities of PH"Gstelephone system throughout the country undersuch conditions as the court may considerreasonable( "he CI rendered 'udgment statingthat it could not compel PH" to enter into suchagreement(*ence this petition(

I##(&Fhether or 4ot PH" may be compelledto enter into such agreement('()*&

es, the statemay, in the interest of nationalwelfare, transfer utilities to public ownership uponpayment of 'ust compensation, there is no reasonwhy the state ma not re1uire a public utility torender services in the general interest provided

'ust compensation is paid(

TELE6A7 "#. COMELEC

Fa%t#&"%H%#AP and 5$A 4etwor) together filed apetition to challenge the validity of Comelec "imedue to the fact that said provisions -= have ta)enproperties without due process of law and without

'ust compensation@ /= it denied the radio andtelevision broadcast companies the e1ual

protection of the laws@ and 3= that it is in e&cessof the power given to the Comelec to regulate theoperation of media communication or informationduring election period(

'()*&PetitionersG argument is without merit, A))oa*%a#tn!/ +(t+( y a*o o yt()("#on #taton#/ # )%(n#(* y t+(!o"(n(nt. Aa"( 3(?(n%(# +a"( to (a))o%at(* a# t+(( a( o( n*"*a)# +oant to oa*%a#t t+an t+(( a( 3(?(n%(#to a##!n. A 3an%+#( # t+# a ,")(!(#=(%t/ aon! ot+( t+n!#/ to a(n*(* yCon!(## n a%%o*an%( t+ t+(%on#tttona) ,o"#on t+at any #%+3an%+#( o !+t !ant(* . . . #+a)) (#=(%t to a(n*(nt/ a)t(aton o (,(a)y t+( Con!(## +(n t+( %oon !oo* #o(?(#.

Indeed, provisions for CQ$%H%C "ime have beenmade by amendment of the franchises of radio andtelevision broadcast stations and, until the presentcase was brought,#%+ ,o"#on# +a* not((n t+o!+t o3 a# ta>n! ,o,(ty t+ot

=#t %o,(n#aton. At. II/ 11 o3 t+(Con#ttton at+o4(# t+( a(n*(nt o33an%+#(# 3o t+( %oon !oo*. W+at(tt( (a#( %an ( %on%("(* 3o t+(%oon !oo* t+an on( 3o 3(( a t( 3ot+( (n(3t not on)y o3 %an**at(# t ("(no( o3 t+( ,)%/ ,at%)a)y t+( "ot(#/ #ot+at t+(y )) ( 3))y n3o(* o3 t+( ##(#

n an ()(%tonH It # t+( !+t o3 t+("((# an* )#t(n(#/ not t+( !+t o3 t+(oa*%a#t(#/ +%+ # ,aaont.

4or indeed can there be any constitutionalob'ection to the re1uirement that broadcaststations give free air time( %ven in the 7nitedStates, there are responsible scholars who believethat government controls on broadcast media canconstitutionally be instituted to ensure diversity ofviews and attention to public affairs to further thesystem of free e&pression( or this purpose,broadcast stations may be re1uired to give free airtime to candidates in an election(

In truth, radio and television broadcastingcompanies, which are given franchises, do not ownthe airwaves and fre1uencies through which theytransmit broadcast signals and images( "hey aremerely given the temporary privilege of usingthem( Since a franchise is a mere privilege, thee&ercise of the privilege may reasonably beburdened with the performance by the grantee ofsome form of public service(

MANOSCA VS. COURT OF A77EALS

Fa%t#&

"he 4ational *istorical Institute declared the parcelof land owned by Petitioners as a national

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- K -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

7/38


historical landmar), because it was the site of thebirth of eli& $analo, the founder of Iglesia niCristo( "he 9epublic of the Philippines filed anaction to appropriate the land( Petitioners arguedthat the e&propriation was not for a publicpurpose(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot the ta)ing or e&ercise ofeminent domain may be granted(

'()*&Public use should not be restricted to thetraditional uses( "he ta)ing is for a public usebecause of the contribution of eli& $analo to theculture and history of the Philippines(

E7$A VS. DULAY

Fa%t#&"he four parcels of land which are the sub'ect ofthis case is where the $actan %&port ProcessingRone Authority in Cebu %PRA= is to beconstructed( Private respondent San Antonioevelopment Corporation San Antonio, forbrevity=, in which these lands are registered under,claimed that the lands were e&propriated to thegovernment without them reaching the agreementas to the compensation( 9espondent >udge ulaythen issued an order for the appointment of thecommissioners to determine the 'ustcompensation( It was later found out that thepayment of the government to San Antonio wouldbe P- per s1uare meter, which was ob'ected to bythe latter contending that under P -33, thebasis of 'ust compensation shall be fair and

according to the fair mar)et value declared by theowner of the property sought to be e&propriated,or by the assessor, whichever is lower( Suchob'ection and the subse1uent $otion for9econsideration were denied and hearing was setfor the reception of the commissioner2s report(%PRA then filed this petition for certiorari andmandamus en'oining the respondent from furtherhearing the case(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot the e&clusive andmandatory mode of determining 'ustcompensation in P -33is unconstitutional(

'()*&"he Supreme Court ruled that the mode ofdetermination of 'ust compensation in P -33 isunconstitutional(

"he method of ascertaining 'ust compensationconstitutes impermissible encroachment to 'udicialprerogatives( It tends to render the courts inutile ina matter in which under the Constitution isreserved to it for financial determination( "hevaluation in the decree may only serve as guidingprinciple or one of the factors in determining 'ustcompensation, but it may not substitute thecourt2s own 'udgment as to what amount shouldbe awarded and how to arrive at such amount( "he

determination of 'ust compensation is a 'udicialfunction( "he e&ecutive department or the

legislature may ma)e the initial determination butwhen a party claims a violation of the guarantee inthe #ill of 9ights that the private party may not beta)en for public use without 'ust compensation, nostatute, decree, or e&ecutive order can mandatethat its own determination shall prevail over thecourt2s findings( $uch less can the courts beprecluded from loo)ing into the 'ustness of thedecreed compensation(

DE 8NEC'T VS. COURT OF A77EALS

Fa%t#&"he instant case is an unending se1uel to severalsuits commenced almost twenty years agoinvolving a parcel of land located at the corner ofthe south end of %SA and (#( *arrison in PasayCity( "he land was owned by petitioners Cristina deNnecht and her son, 9ene Nnecht(Qn the land, the Nnechts constructed eight houses,leased out the seven and occupied one of them astheir residence( In -.D., the government filed forthe e&propriation of Nnechts2 property(

"he government wanted to use the land for thecompletion of the $anila lood Control andrainage Pro'ect and the e&tension of the %SAtowards 9o&as #oulevard( In -.8/, the City

"reasurer of Pasay discovered that the Nnechtsfailed to pay real estate ta&es on the property from-.80 to -.8/( As a conse1uence of this deficiency,the City "reasurer sold the property at publicauction for the same amount of their deficiencyta&es( "he highest bidders were respondentSpouses Anastacio and elisa #abiera the#abieras= and respondent Spouses Ale'andro and

lor Sangalang the Sangalangs=( Subse1uently,Sangalang and #abiera sold the land to respondentSalem Investment Corporation( Qn ebruary -D,-.83, the #atasang Pambansa passed #(P( #lg( 3E0authori6ing the national government to e&propriatecertain properties in Pasay City for the %SA%&tension( "he property of the Nnechts was part ofthose e&propriated under #(P( #lg( 3E0( "hegovernment gave out 'ust compensation for thelands e&propriated under #(P( #lg( 3E0( Salem wasincluded and received partial payment( Seven ofthe eight houses of the Nnechts were demolishedand the government too) possession of the portionof land on which the houses stood( Since the

Nnechts refused to vacate their one remaininghouse, Salem filed a case against them forunlawful detainer( As defense, the Nnechts claimedownership of the land and building( "he $unicipal

"rial Court however ordered the NnechtsGe'ectment thus their residence was demolished(

"he Nnechts continuously claimed ownership ofthe property and allege that they must be given

'ust compensation(

I##(& Fhether or not Nnechts are the lawfulowners of the land at sub'ect(

'()*&

"he Supreme Court held that the Nnechts were notthe owners anymore of the said land( "he NnechtsG


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

8/38


right to the land had been foreclosed after theyfailed to redeem it one year after the sale at publicauction( Since the petitions 1uestioning the orderof dismissal were li)ewise dismissed by the Courtof Appeals and this Court, the order of dismissalbecame final and res 'udicata on the issue ofownership of the land( Petitioners contended thatthey did not receive notice of their ta&delin1uency( 4either did they receive notice of theauction sale( *owever, this 1uestion has beenpreviously raised in the cases which have beenalready set aside( "he court is not a trier of facts(9es 'udicata has already set it( "he Nnechtstherefore are not the lawful owners of the land andare not any longer accountable for 'ustcompensation given by the government(4ote 9es 'udicata is a ground for dismissal of anaction( It is a rule that precludes parties fromrelitigating Issue actually litigated and determinedby a prior and final 'udgment( It pervades everywellJregulated system of 'urisprudence, and isbased upon two grounds embodied in variousma&ims of the common law 8 one, public policyand necessity, that there should be a limit tolitigation@ and another, the individual should not beve&ed twice for the same cause( Fhen a right offact has been 'udicially tried and determined by acourt of competent 'urisdiction, or an opportunityfor such trial has been given, the 'udgment of thecourt, so long as it remains unreversed, should beconclusive upon the parties and those in privitywith them in law or estate( "o follow a contrarydoctrine would sub'ect the public peace and 1uietto the will and neglect of individuals and prefer thegratification of the litigious disposition of the

parties to the preservation of the publictran1uility(9es 'udicata applies when -= theformer 'udgment or order is final@ /= the 'udgmentor order is one on the merits@ 3= it was renderedby a court having 'urisdiction over the sub'ectmatter and the parties@ E= there is between thefirst and second actions, identity of parties, ofsub'ect matter and of cause of action(

7EO7LE VS. FAJARDO

Fa%t#&"he municipal council of baao, camarines surstating among others that construction of a

building, which will destroy the view of the pla6a,shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed atthe e&pense of the owner, enacted an ordinance(*erein appellant filed a written re1uest with theincumbent municipal mayor for a permit toconstruct a building ad'acent to their gasolinestation on a parcel of land registered in a'ardoGsname, located along the national highway andseparated from the public pla6a by a cree)( "here1uest was denied, for the reason among othersthat the proposed building would destroy the viewor beauty of the public pla6a( efendantsreiterated their re1uest for a building permit, butagain the mayor turned down the re1uest(

Fhereupon, appellants proceeded with theconstruction of the building without a permit,

because they needed a place of residence verybadly, their former house having been destroyedby a typhoon and hitherto they had been living onleased property( "hereafter, defendants werecharged in violation of the ordinance andsubse1uently convicted( *ence this appeal(

I##(&Fhether or 4ot the ordinance is a valide&ercise of police power(

'()*&4o( It is not a valid e&ercise of police power( "heordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in thatit operates to permanently deprive appellants ofthe right to use their own property@ hence, itoversteps the bounds of police power, andamounts to a ta)ing of appellant2s propertywithout 'ust compensation( Fe do not overloo)that the modern tendency is to regard thebeautification of neighborhoods as conducive tothe comfort and happiness of residents(As the case now stands, every structure that maybe erected on appellantsG land, regardless of itsown beauty, stands condemned under theordinance in 1uestion, because it would interferewith the view of the public pla6a from the highway(

"he appellants would, in effect, be constrained tolet their land remain idle and unused for theobvious purpose for which it is best suited, beingurban in character( "o legally achieve that result,the municipality must give appellants 'ustcompensation and an opportunity to be heard

US "#. Ln! S Fan/ 10 7+) 10

Fa%t#&efendant, Hing Su an, is accused of attemptingto e&port Philippine silver coins from thePhilippines contrary to Act 4o( -E-- of thePhilippine Commission(*is defenses, amongothers, involved the deprivation of due processdue to the confiscation of thecoins(

'()*&(((phrase ?due process of law? was defined by

>udge Story, in his wor) on Constitutional Haw, as ?the law in its regular course of administrationthrough the courts of 'ustice(?ue process of law in each particular case means

such an e&ertion of the powers of the governmentas the settled ma&ims of law permitand sanction,and under such safeguards for the protection ofindividual rights as those ma&ims prescribed forthe class of cases to whichthe one in 1uestionbelongs(>udge Cooley, in his wor) onConstitutional Himitations, says?ue process of law? is process or proceedingsaccording to the law of the land( ?ue process oflaw? is not that the law shal l be according tothewishes of all the inhabitants of the state, butsimply Lirst( "hat there shall be a lawprescribed in harmony with the general powers ofthe legislative department of the 5overnment

Second( "hat this law shall be reasonable in itsoperation@


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

9/38


"hird( "hat it shall be enforced according to theregular methods of procedure prescribed@ andourth( "hat it shall be applicable ali)e to all theciti6ens of the state or to all of a class(Hower courtGs decision was affirmed convicting himguilty with costs against him

W+t( L!+t Co,oaton "#. Cty o3 Man)a

Fa%t#&City of $anila passes an Qrdinance preventinghotels, motels, lodging houses, pension housesand similar establishments offer ing shorttimeadmission as well as proJrated or wash up rates forabbreviated stays(Petitioners allege, among others, that theQrdinance deprives their customers theConstitutional guaranty to the right of due process(

'()*&"he purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrarygovernmental encroachment against the life,liberty and property of individuals( "hedueprocess guaranty serves as a protection againstarbitrary regulation or sei6ure( %ven corporationsandpartnerships are protectedby the guarantyinsofar as their property is concerned(

"he due process guaranty has traditionally beeninterpreted as imposing two related but distinctrestrictions on government,?procedural dueprocess? and ?substantive due process(?Procedural due process refers to the proceduresthat the government mustfollow before itdeprives a person of life, liberty, or property(Procedural due process concerns itself with

government action adheringto the establishedprocess when it ma)es an intrusion into the privatesphere(Substantive due process completes the protectionenvisioned by the due process clause( It in1uireswhether the government hassufficient

'ustification for depriving a person of life, liberty,or property(%ven as the implementation of moral normsremains an indispensable complement togovernance, that prerogative is hardly absol ute,especially in the face of the norms of due processof liberty( And while the tension may often be leftto the courts to relie ve, it ispossible for the

government to avoid the constitutional conflict byemploying more 'udicious, less drastic means topromote morality(Petition was granted by the Court and held theQrdinance unconstitutional(

6an%o E#,ao) "#. 7a)an%a/ B 7+) 21

Fa%t#&%ngracio Palanca "an1uinyeng secured a debt withvarious parcels of real property in $anila( "he debtamounted to P/-8,/.E(-0 at 8 per annum,payable 1uarterly( PropertyGs estimated value wasaboutP/./,8( After the instrumentGs e&ecution,

mortgagor returned to Amoy, China and died on>anuary /.,-8-0("he foreclosure proceeding

needed publication pursuant to section 3.. of theCode of Civil Procedure(Publication was made ina newspaper of $anila and an order of the courtdeposited in the post office ina stampedenvelope of the summons and complaint directedto defendant("he cler), however, failed tocomply with the mail publication re1uirement(

"he ban) was able to foreclose the propertywithout the defendant(After seven years, the administrator of the estate,Oicente Palanca, appeared and re1uested the courtto set aside the order of default of >uly /, -.08,and the 'udgment rendered upon >uly 3, -.08, andtovacate all the proceedings subse1uent thereto(

"he basis of this application, as set forth in themotionitself, was that the order of default andthe 'udgment rendered thereon were void becausethe courthad never ac1uired 'urisdiction over thedefendant or over the sub'ect of the action(*isappeal was denied by the lower court, hence theappeal(*is appeal was denied by the lower court, hencethe appeal(

I##(&Fhether or not the procedural aspect ofthe right to due process has been pre'udiced(

'()*&-( "here must be a COURT o TRI6UNAL clothedwith 'udicial power to hear and determine thematter before it@/(JURISDICTION must be lawfully ac1uired overthe person of the defendant or over the propertywhich is the sub'ect of the proceeding@3( "he defendant must be given the

O77ORTUNITY to be heard@ andE( >udgment must be rendered upon lawful'EARING(

"he essentials of procedural fairness inn 'udicialproceedings areConclusions stated by the court indicated that the

'udgment appealed from is without error, and thesame is accordingly affirmed(

ANG TI6AY VS. CIR

FACTS&Petitioner, Ang "ibay has filed an opposition forboth the motion for reconsideration of CI9 and the

motion for a new trial by the 4ational Habor 7nion("he 4ational Habor 7nion2s case they alleged that"oribio "eodoro, who dominated the 4ationalFor)ers2 #rotherhood of Ang "ibay,made a falseclaim that there was a shortage of leather soles inA4g "ibay that made it necessary for him to lay offwor)ers, however, claim was unsupported byrecords of the #ureau of Customs M the accountsof native dealers of leather( Such was 'ust ascheme adapted to systematically discharge allthe members of the 4H7, inc(, from wor)( T 7nfairlabor practice for discriminating against the4ational Habor 7nion, Inc(, and un'ustly favoringthe 4ational For)ersG #rotherhood(T "hat the

e&hibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to therespondents that even with the e&ercise of due


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

10/38


diligence they could not be e&pected to haveobtained them and offered as evidence in theCourt of Industrial 9elations(

"hat the attached documents and e&hibits are ofsuch farJreaching importance and effect that theiradmission would necessarily mean themodification and reversal of the 'udgmentrendered herein(

'ELD&motion for reconsideration denied, motion for newtrial granted(iscussion of the 4ature of the CI9 to emphasi6ecertain guiding principles which should beobserved in the trial of cases brought before it(Court of Industrial 9elations -0 an administrativecourt J e&ercises 'udicial or 1uasiJ'udicial functionsin the determination of disputes betweenemployers and employeesJ has 'urisdiction over the entire Philippines, toconsider, investigate, decide, and settle any1uestion, matter controversy or dispute arisingbetween, and

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

11/38


coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrageand other acts showing disdain for and defiance of7niversity authority(? E Parenthetically, thependency of a civil case for damages and acriminal case for malicious mischief againstpetitioner 5u6man, cannot, without more, furnishsufficient warrant for his e&pulsion or debarmentfrom reJenrollment( Also apparent is the omissionof respondents to cite this Court to any dulypublished rule of theirs by which students may bee&pelled or refused reJenrollment for poorscholastic standing(

"here are withal minimum standards which mustbe met to satisfy the demands of procedural dueprocess@ and these are, that

@1 t+( #t*(nt# #t ( n3o(* ntn! o3 t+( nat( an* %a#( o3 anya%%#aton a!an#t t+(anuary -3,-.8E, when they were confiscated by the policestation commander of #arotac 4uevo, Iloilo, forviolation of the above measure( "he petitionersued for recovery, and the 9egional "rial Court of

Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing ofa supersedeas bond of P-/,000(00( Afterconsidering the merits of the case, the courtsustained the confiscation of the carabaos and,since they could no longer be produced, orderedthe confiscation of the bond( "he court alsodeclined to rule on the constitutionality of thee&ecutive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lac)of authority and also for its presumed validity(

'()*&T+( *( ,o%(## %)a#( a# >(,tnt(ntona))y "a!( #o t o)* (an a)#o%on"(n(nt)y (#)(nt. "his was felt necessary

because due process is not, li)e some provisions ofthe fundamental law, an ?iron rule? laying down an

implacable and immutable command for allseasons and all persons( le&ibility must be thebest virtue of the guaranty( "he very elasticity ofthe due process clause was meant to ma)e itadapt easily to every situation, enlarging orconstricting its protection as the changing timesand circumstances may re1uire(T+( n (?((nt# o3 *( ,o%(##a( not%( an* +(an! +%+/ !(n(a))y#,(a>n!/ ay not ( *#,(n#(* t+(%a#( t+(y a( nt(n*(* a# a #a3(!a*a!an#t o33%a) atan(##. It is a gratifyingcommentary on our 'udicial system that the

'urisprudence of this country is rich withapplications of this guaranty as proof of our fealtyto the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fairplay( Fe have consistently declared that everyperson, faced by the awesome power of the State,is entitled to ?the law of the land,? which anielFebster described almost two hundred years agoin the famous artmouth College Case, as ?the lawwhich hears before it condemns, which proceedsupon in1uiry and renders 'udgment only aftertrial(? It has to be so if the rights of every personare to be secured beyond the reach of officialswho, out of mista)en 6eal or plain arrogance,would degrade the due process clause into a wornand empty catchword(It +a# a)(a*y ((n (a>(* t+at t+(( a(o%%a#on# +(n not%( an* +(an! ay ("a)*)y *#,(n#(* t+ nott+#tan*n! t+(#a) (?((nt 3o t+(#( n!aant((# o3 *( ,o%(##. It # a)#o%on%(*(* t+at #ay a%ton ay ("a)*)y ta>(n n a*n#tat"( ,o%((*n!#

a# ,o%(*a) *( ,o%(## # not n(%(##a)y=*%a) on)y. In t+( (5%(,tona) %a#(#a%%(,t(*/ +o("( t+(( # a =#t3%aton 3ot+( o##on o3 t+( !+t to a ,("o#+(an!/ to t/ t+( (*a%y o3 t+(,o)( #o!+t to ( %o(%t(* an* t+(!(n%y o3 t+( n((* to %o(%t t.ue process is violated because the owner of theproperty confiscated is denied the right to beheard in his defense and is immediatelycondemned and punished(

%Q :/:JA was declared unconstitutional(

Tana*a "# T"(a

Fa%t#&ue process was invo)ed by the petitioners indemanding the disclosure of a number ofpresidential decrees which they claimed had notbeen published as re1uired by law( "hegovernment argued that while publication wasnecessary as a rule, it was not so when it was?otherwise provided,? as when the decreesthemselves declared that they were to becomeeffective immediately upon their approval(

I##(& FQ4 publication is needed for laws that

were to become effective immediately(


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

12/38


'()*&It is not correct to say that under the disputedclause publication may be dispensed withaltogether( "he reason is that such omission wouldoffend due process insofar as it would deny thepublic )nowledge of the laws that are supposed togovern the legislature could validly provide that alaw is effective immediately upon its approvalnotwithstanding the lac) of publication or after anunreasonably short period after publication=, it isnot unli)ely that persons not aware of it would bepre'udiced as a result and they would be so notbecause of a failure to comply with but simplybecause they did not )now of its e&istence,Significantly, this is not true only of penal laws asis commonly supposed( Qne can thin) of manynonJpenal measures, li)e a law on prescription,which must also be communicated to the personsthey may affect before they can begin to operate(

"he term ?laws? should refer to all laws and notonly to those of general application, for strictlyspea)ing all laws relate to the people in generalalbeit there are some that do not apply to themdirectly( An e&ample is a law granting citi6enship toa particular individual, li)e a relative of President$arcos who was decreed instant naturali6ation( Itsurely cannot be said that such a law does notaffect the public although it un1uestionably doesnot apply directly to all the people( "he sub'ect ofsuch law is a matter of public interest which anymember of the body politic may 1uestion in thepolitical forums or, if he is a proper party, even inthe courts of 'ustice( In fact, a law without anybearing on the public would be invalid as an

intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as anultra vires act of the legislature( "o be valid, thelaw must invariably affect the public interest evenif it might be directly applicable only to oneindividual, or some of the people only, and t to thepublic as a whole(Fe hold therefore that allstatutes, including thoseof local application and private laws, shall bepublished as a condition for their effectivity, whichshall begin fifteen days after publication unless adifferent effectivity date is fi&ed by the legislature(

'a)) "# 7)% S("%( Co##on

Fa%t#&A petition for certiorari was filed see)ing for therevocation and annulment of an order byrespondent Public Service Commission dated >uly3, -./ which changed part of the route of the busservice established by the respondent CA$ "ransitCo(, Inc(, between #alara and City *all, $anila(Petitioner herein is the holder of variouscertificates of public convenience to operate autoJtruc) services between #alara and various pointsin the City of $anila and its suburbs(Qn >uly /, -./, CA$ "ransit Co(, Inc( filed apetition with the respondent Commission allegingthat the route authori6ed in its City *all$anila=J

#alara line is entirely different from that supportedby the evidence presented in the hearing, and

praying that the certificate be amended( Qn thefollowing day, >uly 3, and without previous noticeto the petitioner or a previous hearing thereon,ordered the modification of the line in accordancewith the petition(

I##(&FQ4 the order of the amendment of the route,without notice to the petitioner and otherinterested parties, or hearing in which the lattermay be given opportunity to be present, waslawfully and validly issued by the Commission(FQ4 petitioner2s right to due process was violated('()*&

"he order by the Commission of amending theroute was not validly issued and petitioner2s rightto due process was violated(In the first place, the power to issue provisionalpermits is e&pressly authori6ed( In the secondplace, the change ordered is not provisionalmerely, li)e that granted in a provisional permit,but final and permanent in character( In the thirdplace, even if the Commission is not bound by therules in 'udicial proceedings, it must bow its headto he constitutional mandate that no person shallbe deprived of a right without due process of law(

"he *( ,o%(## o3 )a %)a#( o3 t+(Con#ttton n*# not on)y t+( Go"(n(nto3 t+( R(,)% o3 t+( 7+),,n(#/ t a)#o(a%+ an* ("(yon( o3 t# an%+(#/ a!(n%(#/(t%. -: C(>(S(, --E.(=?ue process of law, or, inthe mean accord with the procedure outlines in thelaw, or, in the absence of e&press procedure, undersuch safeguards for the protection of individual

rights as the settled ma&ims of law permit andsanction for the particular class of cases to whichthe one in 1uestion belongs,? -: C(>(S(, --E-(= Inthe case at bar, the Public Service Act does notinclude the amendment made in the disputedorder among those may be ordered without noticeor hearing in accordance with Section -D of theAct( Is the amendment, without notice or hearing,permitted by the well settled ma&ims of lawK Fedeclare it is not, because *( ,o%(## o3 )a!aant((# not%( an* o,,otnty to (+(a* to ,(#on# +o o)* ( a33(%t(* yt+( o*( o a%t %ont(,)at(*.

In a 5eneral sense it means the !+t to (+(a* (3o( #o( tna) +a"n!

=#*%ton to *(t(n( t+( ?(#ton n*#,t(.

6y *( ,o%(## o3 )a # (ant o*()y,o%((*n! a*o,t(* to t+( nat( o3 t+(%a#(/ (3o( a tna) +a"n! =#*%ton/+%+ ,o%((*# ,on not%(/ t+ ano,,otnty to (( +(a*/ t+ 3)) ,o( to!ant ()(3.

Some legal procedure in which the personproceeded against, if he is to be concluded

thereby, shall have an opportunity to defendhimself(


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

13/38


A course of proceeding according to these rulesand principles which have been established in oursystem of 'urisprudence for the protection andenforcement of private rights(

S(ano "# Natona) Lao R()aton#Co##on

Fa%t#&A petition was filed see)ing a review of aresolution made by the 4ational Habor relationscommission which reversed the decision renderedby theHaborArbiter and dismissed petitionerGscomplaint for illegal dismissal and denied hismotion for reconsideration(

Petitioner was hired by private respondent Isetannepartment Store( Sometime in -..-, as a costJcutting measure, said respondent decided to phaseout its entire security section and engage theservices of an independent security agency( Amemorandum was subse1uently wrote topetitioner informing him of his terminationimmediately date of effectivity of termination wase&actly the same as the date the memorandumwas made=(

I##(&FQ4 there was a violation of petitionerGs right todue process when respondentJemployer failed togive the re1uired - month notice provided in theHabor Code(

'()*&

?It is now settled that where the dismissal of oneemployee is in fact for a 'ust and valid cause and isso proven to be but he is not accorded his right todue process, i(e(, he was not furnished the twinre1uirements of notice and opportunity to beheard, the dismissal shall be upheld but theemployer must be sanctioned for nonJcompliancewith the re1uirements of, or for failure to observe,due process(?

"here are three reasons why, on the other hand,violation by the employer of the noticere1uirement cannot be considered a denial of dueprocess resulting in the nullity of the employeeGs

dismissal or layoff("he first is that the ue Process Clause of theConstitution is a limitation on governmentalpowers( It does not apply to the e&ercise of privatepower, such as the termination of employmentunder the Habor Code( "his is plain from the te&t ofArt( III, U- of the Constitution, vi6( ?4o person shallbe deprived of life, liberty, or property without dueprocess of law( ( ( (? "he reason is simple Qnly theState has authority to ta)e the life, liberty, orproperty of the individual( "he purpose of the ueProcess Clause is to ensure that the e&ercise of thispower is consistent with what are consideredcivili6ed methods(

"he second reason is that notice and hearing arere1uired under the ue Process Clause before the

power of organi6ed society are brought to bearupon the individual( "his is obviously not the caseof termination of employment under Art( /83( *erethe employee is not faced with an aspect of theadversary system( "he purpose for re1uiring a 30Jday written notice before an employee is laid off isnot to afford him an opportunity to be heard onany charge against him, for there is none( "hepurpose rather is to give him time to prepare forthe eventual loss of his 'ob and the QH% anopportunity to determine whether economiccauses do e&ist 'ustifying the termination of hisemployment(

"he third reason why the notice re1uirement underArt( /83 can not be considered a re1uirement ofthe ue Process Clause is that the employercannot really be e&pected to be entirely animpartial 'udge of his own cause( "his is also thecase in termination of employment for a 'ust causeunder Art( /8/(Fe hold, therefore, that, with respect to Art( /83 ofthe Habor Code, the employerGs failure to complywith the notice re1uirement does not constitute adenial of due process but a mere failure to observea procedure for the termination of employmentwhich ma)es the termination of employmentmerely ineffectual( Indeed, under the Habor Code,only the absence of a 'ust cause for thetermination of employment can ma)e the dismissalof an employee illegal(

Lao G " Cot o3 A,,(a)#

Fa%t#&*erein petitioner faces a charge for deportation

when a 'udgment was rendered cancelling hisciti6enship obtained from a prior 'udgment= on theground that it was founded on fraud andmisrepresentation( Petitioners were re1uired toregister as aliens but refused( "hey filed a motionfor reconsideration of the of the order directingthem to register as aliens and to oppose themotion for their arrest but was denied by ActingCommissioner 4ituda( Petitioners filed for certiorariin the CI of $anila which was dismissed fo lac) oflegal basis( Petition for certiorari was alsodismissed on appeal in the CA and a motion forreconsideration was also denied( *ence, thepresent petition(

I##(&FQ4 petitioners are entitled to the right to dueprocess even if they are aliens(

'()*&"he power to deport an alien is an act of the State(It is an act by or under the authority of thesovereign power( It is a police measure againstundesirable aliens whose presence in the countryis found to be in'urious to the public good anddomestic tran1uility of the people(

Although a *(,otaton ,o%((*n! *o(# not

,ata>( o3 t+( nat( o3 a %na) a%ton/+o("(/ %on#*(n! t+at t # a +a#+ an*

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- 1B -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

14/38


(5tao*nay a*n#tat"( ,o%((*n!a33(%tn! t+( 3((*o an* )(ty o3 a,(#on/ t+( %on#tttona) !+t o3 #%+,(#on to *( ,o%(## #+o)* not ( *(n(*.T+#/ t+( ,o"#on# o3 t+( R)(# o3 Cot o3t+( 7+),,n(# ,at%)a)y on %na),o%(*( a( a,,)%a)( to *(,otaton,o%((*n!#.

7nder Section 3Dc= of the Philippine ImmigrationAct of -.E0 as amended, it is provided

c=4o alien shall be deported without beinginformed of the specific grounds for deportationnor without being given a hearing under rules ofprocedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner ofImmigration(*ence, the charge against an alien must specifythe acts or omissions complained of which must bestated in ordinary and concise language to enablea person of common understanding to )now onwhat ground he is intended to be deported andenable the CI to pronounce a proper 'udgment(

Petition is hereby granted and the 1uestionedorder of the respondent commission onimmigration and deportation is hereby set aside(

7'ILI77INE JUDGES ASSO. VS. 7RADO

Fa%t#&"he Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular4o( ./J/8 to implement Section 3 of 9A D3Ewithdrawing the fran)ing privilege from the SC, CA,9"Cs, $e"Cs, $"Cs and Hand 9egistration

Commission and with certain other governmentoffices( It is alleged that 9A D3E is discriminatorybecause while withdrawing the fran)ing privilegefrom 'udiciary, it retains the same for the PresidentM OiceJPresident of the Philippines, Senator Mmembers of the *ouse of 9epresentatives,CQ$%H%C, 4ational Census M Statistics Qffice andthe general public( "he respondents counter thatthere is no discrimination because the law is basedon a valid classification in accordance with thee1ual protection clause(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot Section 3 of 9A D3E isconstitutional(

'()*&"he e1ual protection of the laws is embraced inthe concept of due process, as every unfairdiscrimination offends the re1uirements of 'usticeand fair play( It has nonetheless been embodied ina separate clause in Article III Section - of theConstitution to provide for amore specificguarantee against any form of undue favoritism orhostility from the government( Arbitrariness ingeneral may be challenged on the basis of the dueprocess clause( #ut if the particular act assailedparta)es of an unwarranted partiality or pre'udice,the sharper weapon to cut it down is the e1ual

protection clause( %1ual protection simply re1uiresthat all persons or things similarly situated should

be treated ali)e, both as to rights conferred andresponsibilities imposed( Fhat the clause re1uiresis e1uality among e1uals as determined accordingto a valid classification( Section 3 of 9A D3E isdeclared unconstitutional( Circular 4o( ./J/8 is setaside insofar

7EO7LE VS. CAYAT

Fa%t#&!Haw prohibits any member of a nonJChristian tribeto buy, receive, have in his possession, or drin),any into&icating li1uors of any )ind(+ "he law, Act4o( -:3., e&empts only the soJcalled native winesor li1uors which the members of such tribes havebeen accustomed to ta)e(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot the law denies e1ualprotection to one prosecuted and sentenced forviolation of said law(

'()*&4o( It satisfies the re1uirements of a validclassification, one of which is that the classificationunder the law must rest on real or substantialdistinctions( "he distinction is reasonable( "heclassification between the members of the nonJChristian and the members of the Christian tribesis not based upon accident of birth or parentagebut upon the degree of civili6ation and culture( "heterm nonJChristian tribes2 refers to a geographicalarea and more directly to natives of the Philippinesof a low grade civili6ation usually living in tribalrelationship apart from settled communities( "hedistinction is reasonable for the Act was intended

to meet the peculiar conditions e&isting in the nonJChristian tribes+ "he prohibition is germane to thepurposes of the law( It is designed to insure peaceand order in and among the nonJ Christian tribeshas often resulted in lawlessness and crimethereby hampering the efforts of the governmentto raise their standards of life and civili6ation( "hislaw is not limited in its application to conditionse&isting at the time of the enactment( It isintended to apply for all times as long as thoseconditions e&ist( "he Act applies e1ually to allmembers of the class( "hat it may be unfair in itsoperation against a certain number of nonJChristians by reason of their degree of culture is

not an argument against the e1uality of itsoperation nor affect the reasonableness of theclassification thus established(

RU6I VS. 7ROVINCIAL 6OARD OF MINDORO

Fa%t#&"his is an application for habeas corpus in favor of9ubi and other $anguianes of the Province of$indoro( "he provincial board of $indoro adoptedresolution 4o( / which states that !provincialgovernor of any province in which nonJChristianinhabitants uncivili6ed tribes= are found isauthori6ed, when such a course is deemed

necessary in the interest of law and order, to directsuch inhabitants to ta)e up their habitation on


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

15/38


sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected byhim and approved by the provincial board+( It isresolved that under section /0DD of theAdministrative Code, 800 hectares of public land inthe sitio of "igbao on 4au'an Ha)e be selected as asite for the permanent settlement of $angyanes in$indoro( urther, $angyans may only solicithomesteads on this reservation providing that saidhomestead applications are previouslyrecommended by the provincial governor(

"hereafter, the provincial governor of $indoroissued e&ecutive order 4o( /, which says that theprovincial governor has selected a site in the sitioof "igbao on 4au'an Ha)e for the permanentsettlement of $angyanes in $indoro( In that case,pursuant to Section /-E of the 9evisedAdministrative Code, all the $angyans in thetownships of 4au'an and Pola and the $angyanseast of the #aco 9iver including those in thedistricts of ulangan and 9ubiGs place in Calapan,were ordered to ta)e up their habitation on the siteof "igbao, 4au'an Ha)e( Also, that any $angyanwho shall refuse to comply with this order shallupon conviction be imprisoned not e&ceed in si&tydays, in accordance with section /D. of therevised Administrative Code( Said resolution of theprovincial board of $indoro were claimed asnecessary measures for the protection of the$angyanes of $indoro as well as the protection ofpublic forests in which they roam, and to introducecivili6ed customs among them(It appeared that 9ubi and those living in hisrancheria have not fi&ed their dwelling within thereservation of "igbao and are liable to bepunished( It is alleged that the $anguianes are

being illegally deprived of their liberty by theprovincial officials of that province( 9ubi and hiscompanions are said to be held on the reservationestablished at "igbao, $indoro, against their will,and one abalos is said to be held under thecustody of the provincial sheriff in the prison atCalapan for having run away form the reservation(

I##(& Fhether or 4ot Section /-E of theAdministrative Code deprive a person of his libertywithoutdue process of law(Fhether or 4ot Section/-E of the Administrative Code of -.-D isconstitutional(

'()*&"he Court held that section /-E of theAdministrative Code does not deprive a person ofhis liberty without due process of law and does notdeny to him the e1ual protection of the laws, andthat confinement in reservations in accordancewith said section does not constitute slavery andinvoluntary servitude( "he Court is further of theopinion that section /-E of the AdministrativeCode is a legitimate e&ertion of the police power,somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the7nited States( Section /-E of the AdministrativeCode of -.-D is constitutional( "he preamble of theresolution of the provincial board of $indoro which

set apart the "igbao reservation, it will be read,assigned as reasons fort the action, the following

-= "he failure of former attempts for theadvancement of the nonJChristian people of theprovince@ and /= the only successfully method foreducating the $anguianes was to oblige them tolive in a permanent settlement( "he SolicitorJ5eneral adds the following@ 3= "he protection ofthe $anguianes@ E= the protection of the publicforests in which they roam@ = the necessity ofintroducing civili6ed customs among the$anguianes( Considered purely as an e&ercise ofthe police power, the courts cannot fairly say thatthe Hegislature has e&ceeded its rightful authority(It is, indeed, an unusual e&ercise of that power( #uta great malady re1uires an e1ually drastic remedy(Qne cannot hold that the liberty of the citi6en isunduly interfered without when the degree ofcivili6ation of the $anguianes is considered( "heyare restrained for their own good and the generalgood of the Philippines( 4or can one say that dueprocess of law has not been followed( 4one of therights of the citi6en can be ta)en away e&cept bydue process of law( "o constitute ?due process oflaw,? as has been often held, a 'udicial proceedingis not always necessary( In some instances, even ahearing and notice are not re1uisite a rule which isespecially true where much must be left to thediscretion of the administrative officers in applyinga law to particular cases( "he idea of the provisionin 1uestion is to unify the people of the Philippinesso that they may approach the highest conceptionof nationality( "he public policy of the 5overnmentof the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view tobenefit the ilipino people as a whole( "he$anguianes, in order to fulfill this governmentalpolicy, must be confined for a time, as we have

said, for their own good and the good of thecountry(

"herefore, petitioners are not unlawfullyimprisoned or restrained of their liberty( *abeascorpus can, therefore, not issue(

V))(!a# "# 'o

Fa%t#&

A petition for certiorari is filed to review thedecision rendered by the CI of $anila whereinQrdinance :3D, which prohibits aliens from beingemployed or to engage or participate in any

position or occupation or business without firstsecuring an employment permit from the $ayor of$anila and paying the permit fee of fifty pesos&&&, was declared null and void for it is arbitrary,oppressive and unreasonable, being applied onlyto aliens who are thus deprived of their rights tolife, liberty and property and therefore violates thedue process and e1ual protection clauses of theConstitution(

I##(&FQ4 respondent 'udge committed a serious andpatent error of law in ruling that ordinance :3Dviolated the due process and e1ual protection

clauses of the Constitution(


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

16/38


'()*&4o, respondent 'udge did not commit the errorsassigned( "he ordinance in 1uestion violates thedue process of law and e1ual protection rule of theConstitution(9e1uiring a person before he can be employed toget a permit from the City $ayor of $anila whomay withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount todenying him the basic right of the people in thePhilippines to engage in a means of livelihood(Fhile it is true that the Philippines as a State is notobliged to admit aliens within its territory, once analien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of lifewithout due process of law( "his guaranteeincludes the means of livelihood( T+( #+()t( o3,ot(%ton n*( t+( *( ,o%(## an* (?a),ot(%ton %)a#( # !"(n to a)) ,(#on#/ot+ a)(n# an* %t4(n#.

Int(natona) S%+oo) A))an%( o3 E*%ato# "#P#n!

Fa%t#&

Petitioners are employees teachers= ofrespondentGs school who are receiving less thantheir counterparts hired abroad and now crydiscrimination( "he school contends that a foreignJhire would necessarily uproot himself from hishome country, leave his family and friends, andta)e the ris) of devaiting from a promising careerpath J all for the purpose of pursuing his professionas an educator, but this time in a foreign land andsuch person does not en'oy security of tenure aswell so the compensation scheme is simply the

SchoolGs adaptive measure to remain competitiveon an international level in terms of attractingcompetent pruofessionals in the field ofinternational education( "he schoolGs classificationbetween foreignJhires and localJhires was in thepointJofJhire so foreigners hired locally are beingclassified as localJhires( Petitioner claims that suchclassification is discriminatory to ilipinos and thatthe grant of higher salaries to foreignJhiresconstitutes racial discrimination( Qn the otherhand, the Acting Secretary of Habor upheld thepointJof hire classification for the distinction insalary rates( *e also stated that "he 7nion cannotalso invo)e the e1ual protection clause to 'ustify its

claim of parity( It is an established principle ofconstitutional law that the guarantee of e1ualprotection of the laws is not violated by legislationor private covenants based on reasonableclassification( A classification is reasonable if it isbased on substantial distinctions and apply to allmembers of the same class( Oerily, there is asubstantial distinction between foreign hires andlocal hires, the former en'oying only a limitedtenure, having no amenities of their own in thePhilippines and have to be given a goodcompensation pac)age in order to attract them to

'oin the teaching faculty of the School(

*ence the present petition(

I##(&FQ4 the Acting secretary erred in upholding thereasonableness of the classification made byrespondentJschool(

'()*&es( "hat public policy abhors ine1uality anddiscrimination is beyond contention( QurConstitution and laws reflect the policy againstthese evils( "he Constitution 8 in the Article onSocial >ustice and *uman 9ights e&horts Congressto ?give highest priority to the enactment ofmeasures that protect and enhance the right of allpeople to human dignity, reduce social, economic,and political ine1ualities(? "he very broad Article-. of the Civil Code re1uires every person, ?in thee&ercise of his rights and in the performance of hisduties, Bto act with 'ustice, give everyone his due,and observe honesty and good faith(

"he Constitution -8 also directs the State topromote ?e1uality of employment opportunities forall(? Similarly, the Habor Code -. provides that theState shall ?ensure e1ual wor) opportunitiesregardless of se&, race or creed(? It would be anaffront to both the spirit and letter of theseprovisions if the State, in spite of its primordialobligation to promote and ensure e1ualemployment opportunities, closes its eyes toune1ual and discriminatory terms and conditionsof employment(

"he Constitution en'oins the State to ?protect therights of wor)ers and promote their welfare,? /?to afford labor full protection(? "he State,therefore, has the right and duty to regulate the

relations between labor and capital( "heserelations are not merely contractual but are soimpressed with public interest that labor contracts,collective bargaining agreements included, mustyield to the common good( Should such contractscontain stipulations that are contrary to publicpolicy, courts will not hesitate to stri)e down thesestipulations(In this case, we find the pointJofJhire classificationemployed by respondent School to 'ustify thedistinction in the salary rates of foreignJhires andlocal hires to be an invalid classification( "here isno reasonable distinction between the servicesrendered by foreignJhires and localJhires( "he

practice of the School of according higher salariesto foreignJhires contravenes public policy and,certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of thisCourt(

R(,)% "# San*!anayan

Fa%t#&Immediately upon her assumption to office

following the successful %SA 9evolution, thenPresident Cora6on C( A1uino issued %&ecutiveQrder 4o( - !%Q 4o( -+= creating the PresidentialCommission on 5ood 5overnment !PC55+=( %Q4o( - primarily tas)ed the PC55 to recover all illJ

gotten wealth of former President erdinand %($arcos, his immediate family, relatives,

CREATED 6Y& JNMONTECLARO/ 8VALMORIA/ ADULOSA/ an* ot+( #o%(#- 1K -

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

17/38


subordinates and close associates( %Q 4o( -vested the PC55 with the power !a= to conductinvestigation as may be necessary in order toaccomplish and carry out the purposes of thisorder+ and the power !h= to promulgate suchrules and regulations as may be necessary to carryout the purpose of this order(+ Accordingly, thePC55, through its then Chairman >ovito 9( Salonga,created an AP AntiJ5raft #oard !AP #oard+=tas)ed to investigate reports of une&plainedwealth and corrupt practices by AP personnel,whether in the active service or retired(

#ased on its mandate, the AP #oardinvestigated various reports of alleged une&plainedwealth of respondent $a'or 5eneral >osephus V(9amas !9amas+=( Qn /D >uly -.8D, the AP #oardissued a 9esolution on its findings andrecommendation on the reported une&plainedwealth of 9amas(

%vidence in the record showed thatrespondent is the owner of a house and lot locatedat -Ja)an St(, Ha Oista, Vue6on City( *e is alsothe owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City(

"he lot has an area of 3,3/D s1uare meters("he value of the property located in

Vue6on City may be estimated modestly atPD00,000(00(

"he e1uipment

8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

18/38


during the interregnum(

It is widely known that rs. !"uino#srise to the presidency was not due toconstitutional processes$ in fact% it wasachieved in violation of the provisions of the1973 Constitution as a &atasang 'am(ansaresolution had earlier declared r. arcos asthe winner in the 19)* presidential election.

"hus it can be said that the organi6ation of $rs(A1uino2s 5overnment which was met by littleresistance and her control of the state evidencedby the appointment of the Cabinet and other )eyofficers of the administration, the departure of the$arcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the >udiciaryand the $ilitary signaled the point where thelegal system then in effect% had ceased to (eo(eyed (y the +ilipino.

uring the interregnum, the government inpower was concededly a revolutionary governmentbound by no constitution( 4o one could validly1uestion the se1uestration orders as violative ofthe #ill of 9ights because there was no #ill of9ights during the interregnum( *owever, upon theadoption of the reedom Constitution, these1uestered companies assailed the se1uestrationorders as contrary to the #ill of 9ights of thereedom Constitution(

Mana)) " CA @ GR 11B O%t. / 1

Fa%t#&At about /-0 P$ on April --, -.88, Police AntiJ4arcotics 7nit of Naloo)an City conducted

surveillance along A( $abini Street, in front of theNaloo)an City Cemetery( "his was done afterreceiving information that drug addicts wereroaming around said area(7pon reaching the cemetery, the policemenchanced upon a male person, the petitioner, infront of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs(

"he petitioner had reddish eyes and was wal)ing ina swaying manner(Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, butthe officers were able to introduce themselves andas)ed him what he was holding in his hands(Petitioner resisted( Policeman %spiritu as)ed him ifhe could see what the petitioner had in his hands(

"he petitioner showed his wallet and allowed theofficer to e&amine it( Policeman %spiritu foundsuspected crushed mari'uana residue inside( *e)ept the wallet and its mari'uana contents andtoo) petitioner to head1uarters to be furtherinvestigated(

"he suspected mari'uana was sent to the 4#Iorensic Chemistry Section for analysis(

I##(&Fhether or not the search and sei6ure of thesuspected mari'uana is unreasonable, and henceinadmissible as evidence(

'()*&"he general rule is a search and sei6ure must be

validated by a previously secured 'udicial warrant@otherwise, such a search and sei6ure isunconstitutional and sub'ect to challenge( Anyevidence obtained in violation of thisconstitutionally guaranteed right is legallyinadmissible in any proceeding(

"he e&ceptions to the rule are -= searchincidental to a lawful arrest, /= search of movingvehicles, 3= sei6ure in plain view, E= customssearch, and = waiver by the accused of their rightagainst unreasonable search and sei6ure( In thesecases, the search and sei6ure may be made onlywith probable cause( Probable cause being at bestdefined as a reasonable ground of suspicion,supported by circumstances sufficiently strong inthemselves to warrant a cautious man in the beliefthat the person accused is guilty of the offensewith which he is charged@ or the e&istence of suchfacts and circumstances which could lead areasonably discreet and prudent man to believethat an offense has been committed and that theitems=, articles= or ob'ects= sought in connectionwith said offense or sub'ect to sei6ure anddestruction by is in the place to be searched(Additionally, stopJandJfris) has already beenadopted as another e&ception to the general ruleagainst a search without a warrant(In the present case, petitioner effectively waivedthe inadmissibility of the evidence illegallyobtained when he failed to raise the issue or ob'ectthereto during the trial(

"he Supreme Court affirmed with modifications theassailed ecision and 9esolution of the respondentcourt(

A!%ao) "# Mo)na

Fa%t#&In the aforecited order, complainant 'udge

alleged that respondent, in conducting thepreliminary investigation of the aboveJmentionedcriminal case, failed to e&ercise utmost care in theissuance of a warrant of arrest against theaccused, 9olando Anama, based as it was, merelyon the statements of two /= witnesses who had nopersonal )nowledge of the commission of theoffense charged(

Such action, complainant 'udge averred,was a clear violation of section /, Article III of the

-.8D Constitution which re1uires that before awarrant of arrest is issued, ?the 'udge mustpersonally determine the e&istence of probablecause from an e&amination under oath of thecomplainant and his witnesses(?/

$ere hearsay evidence cannot be the basisthat probable cause e&ists, stated complainant

'udge( "here must be something more concrete(Conse1uently, in the same order,

complainant 'udge recalled the warrant of arrestand the order directing its issuance and directedthe 4ational #ureau of Investigation, through9egional Qffice 4o( /, Ilagan, Isabela, to conductan investigation in order to avoid a possible

miscarriage of 'ustice(In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was


8/13/2019 53721142 Digested Cases

19/38


the in1uest 'udge in the preliminary investigationof the above entitled case and finding thee&istence of probable cause, he ordered theissuance of the warrant of arrest against t

Documents

53721142 Digested Cases