Consti2 1st SET Recitation Final

8/10/2019 Consti2 1st SET Recitation Final

1/53

Article III Bill of Rights

I. Section 1

MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, etc GR No. 135!", March "#, "$$$ Maria %ati&a'r(eci)o

FACTS: Petitioner MMDA is a goverment agency tasked with the delivery o !asic services in MetroManila and the herein res"ondent #A$A is a non%stock& non%"roit cor"oration whose mem!ers are

homeowners in #'( Air $illage which is a "rivate s)!division in Makati City and also saidres"ondent is a registered owner o *e"t)ne st. a road inside #el Air $illage. Moreover& on Decem!er+,&1-- "etitioner sent a letter addressed thro)gh its chairman re/)esting res"ondent to o"en *e"t)nest. to ")!lic vehic)lar traic and likewise the "erimeter wall se"arating the s)!division rom the ad0acentalayan Aven)e wo)ld !e demolished. This notice was sent in ")rs)ant to the mandate o the MMDA(aw or 2A 3-45 which re/)ires the a)thority to )se o roads as thoro)ghares or the sae andconvenient movement o "ersons and vehic)lar traic eective 6an)ary 4& 1--7. 8owever& res"ondentinstit)ted against "etitioner !eore 2TC #ranch 1+7 Makati cIT9 or in0)nction and "rayed or a T2and "reliminary in0)nction en0oining the o"ening o *e"t)ne st. and "rohi!iting the demolition o the"erimeter wall.The 2TC iss)ed T2 the ollowing day. n 6an)ary 4+&1--7 ater d)e hearing thr 2TCdenied iss)ance o "reliminary in0)nction.n the other hand& the Co)rt o A""eals cond)cted theins"ection o *e"t)ne st. and iss)ed writ o "reliminary in0)nction en0oining the im"lementation o theMMDA; s "ro"osed action.

ISS


2/53

"roceedings s)!se/)ent thereto. The !asis o this a""licationwas that the order o dea)lt and the0)dgment rendered thereon were void !eca)se the co)rt had never ac/)ired 0)risdiction over thedeendant or over the s)!0ect o the action.

Isse: =hether or not d)e "rocess o law was o!served>

Rlings0 n 6)risdictionThe word K0)risdictionL is )sed in several dierent& tho)gh related& senses since it may have reerence1E to the a)thority o the co)rt to entertain a "artic)lar kindo action or to administer a "artic)lar kind orelie& or it may reer to the "ower o the co)rt over the "arties& or 4E over the "ro"erty which is the

s)!0ect to the litigation.The sovereign a)thority which organies a co)rt determines the nat)re and e@tent o its "owers ingeneral and th)s i@es its com"etency or 0)risdiction with reerence to the actions which it may entertainand the relie it may grant.8ow 6)risdiction is Ac/)ired6)risdiction over the "erson is ac/)ired !y the vol)ntary a""earance o a "arty in co)rt and hiss)!mission to its a)thority& or it is ac/)ired !y the coercive "ower o legal "rocess e@erted over the"erson.6)risdiction over the "ro"erty which is the s)!0ect o the litigation may res)lt either rom a sei)re o the"ro"erty )nder legal "rocess& where!y it is !ro)ght into the act)al c)stody o the law& or it may res)ltrom the instit)tion o legal "roceedings wherein& )nder s"ecial "rovisions o law& the "ower o the co)rtover the "ro"erty is recognied and made eective. In the latter case the "ro"erty& tho)gh at all timeswithin the "otential "ower o the co)rt& may never !e taken into act)al c)stody at all. An ill)stration othe 0)risdiction ac/)ired !y act)al sei)re is o)nd in attachment "roceedings& where the "ro"erty isseied at the !eginning o the action& or some s)!se/)ent stage o its "rogress& and held to a!ide theinal event o the litigation. An ill)stration o what we term "otential 0)risdiction over the res& is o)nd in

the "roceeding to register the titleo land )nder o)r system or the registrationo land. 8ere the co)rt&witho)t taking act)al "hysical control over the "ro"erty ass)mes& at the instance o some "ersonclaiming to !e owner& to e@ercise a 0)risdiction in rem over the "ro"erty and to ad0)dicate the title inavor o the "etitioner against all the world.In the terminology o American law the action to oreclose a mortgage is said to !e a "roceeding /)asiin rem& !y which is e@"ressed the idea that while it is not strictly s"eaking an action in rem yet it"artakes o that nat)re and is s)!stantially s)ch. The e@"ression ?action in rem? is& in its narrowa""lication& )sed only with reerence to certain "roceedings in co)rts o admiralty wherein the "ro"ertyalone is treated as res"onsi!le or the claim or o!ligation )"on which the "roceedings are !ased. Theaction /)asi rem diers rom the tr)e action in rem in the circ)mstance that in the ormer an individ)al isnamed as deendant& and the ")r"ose o the "roceeding is to s)!0ect his interest therein to theo!ligation or lien !)rdening the "ro"erty. All "roceedings having or their sole o!0ect the sale or otherdis"osition o the "ro"erty o the deendant& whether !y attachment& oreclos)re& or other orm oremedy& are in a general way th)s designated. The 0)dgment entered in these "roceedings isconcl)sive only !etween the "arties.It is tr)e that in "roceedings o this character& i the deendant or whom ")!lication is made a""ears&

the action !ecomes as to him a "ersonal action and is cond)ctedas s)ch. This& however& does notaect the "ro"osition that where the deendant ails to a""ear the action is /)asi in rem and it sho)ldthereore !e considered with reerence to the "rinci"les governing actions in rem.

As"ects o the Proceedings

Villegas v. i 2hiong, - nette ati4

FACTS: An ordinance o the City o Manila signed !y the "etitioner Mayor $illegas "rohi!ited theem"loyment o aliens in any occ)"ation or !)siness )nless they irst sec)red a "ermit rom himthenMayor o ManilaE and "aid a ee o P,.,,. 2es"ondent 8i)Chiong& an alien& em"loyed in Manila&

!ro)ght s)iton several gro)nds& one o which is that said ordinance is ar!itrary& o""ressive and)nreasona!le& !eing a""lied only to aliens who are th)s& de"rived o their rights to lie& li!erty and"ro"erty and thereore& violates the d)e "rocess and e/)al "rotection cla)ses o the Constit)tion. 8i)Chiong o!tained 0)dgment rom the CFI declaring the ordinance n)ll and void.

I**60 =hether or not the ordinance violates the d)e "rocess cla)se o the Constit)tion>

RING09'S. The S)"reme Co)r t airmed the decision a""ealed rom and held that the ordinance in/)estion violates the d)e "rocess o law and e/)al "rotection r)le o the Constit)tion. 2e/)iring a"erson !eore he can !e em"loyed to get a "ermit rom the City Mayor o Manila who may withhold or

re)se it at will is tantamo)nt to denying him the !asic right o the "eo"le in the Phili""ines to engage ina means o livelihood. =hile it is tr)e that the Phili""ines as a State is not o!liged to admit aliens withinits territory& once an alien is admitted& he cannot !e de"rived o lie witho)t d)e "rocess o law. Thisg)arantee incl)des the means o livelihood. The shelter o "rotection )nder the d)e "rocess and e/)al"rotection cla)se is given to all "ersons& !oth aliens and citiens.

Halve v. Co)rt o A""eals& 4+3 SC2A 7B Alnashri" Arola

FACTS: n *ovem!er 14& 1--+ "etitioners 8onorato Halve& the inc)m!ent mayor o SanIldeonso& #)lacan& and one Hodoredo Diego were charged in three se"arate inormations withhomicide and two co)nts o r)strated homicide )nder 6)dge eli"e *. $illa0)an o 2TC Malolos)lacan and !oth acc)sed "osted their res"ective !ail !onds or their tem"orary released. n the"rocess o their cases res"ondent "rosec)tor Dennis M. $illa%Ignacio iled an e@ "arte motion to

withdraw inormations in said cases and s)!se/)ently iled o)r new inromations or m)rder& twoco)nts o r)strated m)rder and illegal "ossession o irearms and no !ail having !een recommended)nder the sala o 6)dge $ictoria Fornillos and ordered the warrant o arrest or the "etitioners.ISSUE: =hether the '@ "arte motion to withdraw the original inormation is n)ll and void andthe iling o o)r new inormations are valid )nder Article + section 1 o the 1-B3 Phili""ine Constit)tion>HELD: Contrary to "etitionersJ s)!mission& the a!sence o notice and hearing does not divest atrial co)rt o a)thority to "ass on the merits o the motion. It has !een held that the order o the co)rtgranting the motion to dismiss des"ite a!sence o a notice o hearings& or "roo o service thereo& ismerely an irreg)larity in the "roceedings. It cannot de"rive a com"etent co)rt o 0)risdiction over thecase. The co)rt still retains its a)thority to "ass on the merits o the motion. The remedy o theaggrieved "arty in s)ch cases is either to have the order set aside or the irreg)larity otherwise c)red !ythe co)rt which dismissed the com"laint& or to a""eal rom the dismissal and not certiorari.

State Prosec)tors v. M)ro& 4+7 SC2A , Sherlyn Saladaga

%A27*0In a letter%com"laint& res"ondent 6)dge Man)el T. M)ro o the 2egional Trial Co)rt 2TCE oManila& #ranch 5& was charged !y State Prosec)tors *ilo C. Mariano& Heorge C. Dee and Paterno $.Tac%an with ignorance o the law& grave miscond)ct and violations o 2)les 4.,1& +.,1 and +.,4 o theCode o 6)dicial Cond)ct. 2es"ondent 0)dge iss)ed an rder dismissing eleven cases iled !y the)ndersigned com"lainant "rosec)tors& mem!ers o the D6 Panel o Prosec)tors against the acc)sedMrs. Imelda 2om)alde Marcos& or $iolation o Central #ank Foreign '@change 2estrictions& asconsolidated in C# Circ)lar *o. -7,& in relation to the "enal "rovisions o Sec. +5 o 2.A. 47& asamended& s)ch order was made on the !asis o news"a"er re"orts concerning the anno)ncement !ythe President o the Phili""ines o the liting !y the government o all oreign e@change restrictions and

2


3/53

the arrival at s)ch decision !y the Monetary #oard as "er statement o Central #ank Hovernor 6oseC)isia. 2es"ondent 6)dge did not even have the "r)dence o re/)iring irst the comment o the"rosec)tion on the eect o aoresaid Central #ank Circ)larMonetary #oard resol)tion on the "endingcases !eore dismissing the same.

I**60=hether or not the action o the 2es"ondent 6)dge& o not re/)iring irst the comment o the"rosec)tion& amo)nt to denial o d)e "rocess to the Hovernment>

6D0The co)rt held that the very act o res"ondent 0)dge in altogether dismissing s)a s"onte the

eleven criminal cases witho)t even a motion to /)ash having !een iled !y the acc)sed& and witho)t atleast giving the "rosec)tion the !asic o""ort)nity to !e heard on the matter !y way o a writtencomment or on oral arg)ment& is not only a !latant denial o elementary d)e "rocess to theHovernment !)t is "al"a!ly indicative o !ad aith and "artiality& regardless o how care)lly he mayhave eval)ated changes in the act)al sit)ation and legal standing o the cases& as a res)lt o thenews"a"er re"ort& the act remains that he gave the "rosec)tion no chance whatsoever to show or"rove that it had strong evidence o the g)ilt o the acc)sed. 8e there!y eectively de"rived the"rosec)tion o its right to d)e "rocess. The Co)rt inds res"ondent 6)dge Man)el T. M)ro g)ilty ogross ignorance o the law. 8e is here!y DISMISS'D rom the service& s)ch dismissal to carry with itcancellation o eligi!ility& oreit)re o leave credits and retirement !eneits& and dis/)aliication romreem"loyment in the government service.

Martine v. 2A, "3# *2RA 5#5 Richar) Ata&osa

%A27*0 % Man)el P. Martine act)ally seeks the dismissal o the inormation or li!el iled against him inthe Trial Co)rt.% n com"laint o then $ice%President Salvador 8. (a)rel& an Inormation was iled!eore the 2TC o Manila !y Assistant Prosec)tor Antonio 6. #allena& charging Man)el P. Martine withli!el arising rom the allegedly derogatory and sc)rrilo)s im")tationsand insin)ations against (a)rel contained in Martine; article entitled ?The Sorrows o (a)rel? ")!lishedon 6an)ary B& 1--, in his Manila Times col)mn.% Martine iled a ?Motion or 2einvestigation? whichwas denied !y 6)dge Man)el '. 9)on. The case wasset or arraignment and "re%trial conerence on6)ly+1& 1--,& !)t this setting was cancelled in view o 6)dge 9)on;s retirement.% Martine iled a"etition with the D6 seeking review o the resol)tion o the City Prosec)tor inding a "rima acie caseo li!el against him. Accordingly& +rdAsst. City Prosec)tor (o)rdes C. Ta!anag iled !eorethe trial co)rt a motion to s)s"end "roceedings "ending resol)tion !y the D6 o Martine; "etitionorreview& which was granted !y 6)dge Pe"ito.% Com"lainant (a)rel attem"ted once more to have thecase set or arraignment and trial. *o action was taken on his said motion.% A)g)st 17& 1--1: Acting6)stice Secretary Silvestre 8. #ello III declared inter alia that while the lang)age )sed in the article may!e )nsavory and )n"leasant to com"lainant& the same was not actiona!le as li!el& as it em!odiedmerely an o"inion "rotected as a "rivileged comm)nication )nder Article +5 o

the 2PC. The a""ealed

resol)tion was set aside and the City Prosec)tor was directed to ca)se the dismissal o the inormationiled against Man)el F. Martine. Conse/)ently& a motion to dismiss was iled on A)g)st 47& 1--1 andset or hearing on Decem!er13& 1--1. At the hearing& )"on maniestation o com"lainant;s co)nsel& as"rivate "rosec)tor& that he had received no co"y o the motion to dismiss& the trial co)rt directedthe case "rosec)tor to )rnish said co)nsel the desired co"y& giving the latter ten1,E days to res"ondthereto.% Motion to dismiss was granted !y 6)dge 2o!erto#arrios.% (a)rel went to CA ascri!ing error tothe lower co)rt.% CA iss)ed a 2esol)tion granting the a""eal and remanding the case or arraignmento the acc)sed and trial on the merits. The A""ellate Co)rt r)led that "rivate com"lainant had ?s)icient"ersonality and a valid grievance against the order o dismissal !eore arraignment? and thatthe remedy oa""ealwas "ro"erty

availa!le !eca)se the order o dismissal was a inal order which terminated all"roc

eedings in the case.% The a)lt or error tainting the order o dismissal o the lower co)rt consists in itsail)re to o!serve "roced)ral d)e "rocess and to e@ercise its discretion "ro"erly and 0)dicio)sly.% Thedismissal was !ased merely on the indings o the Acting Secretaryo

6)stice that no li!el wascommitted. The trial 0)dge did not make aninde"endent eval)ation orassessment o the merits o the case.% The grant o the motion to dismiss was !ased )"on considerations other than the0)dge;s own "ersonal individ)al conviction that there was no caseagainstthe acc)sed. The trial 0)dge m)st himsel !econvinced that there was indeed no s)icientevidence against the acc)sed& and this concl)sion can !e arrived at only ater an assessment o the evidencein the "ossession o the "rosec)tion.

8etitioner9s 2lai&% Martine moved to dismiss the a""eal on the gro)nd that no a""eal lies rom the dismissal o acriminal case& and certainly not !y the "rivate com"lainant& "artic)larly where dismissal was at theinstance o the City Prosec)tor )"on orders o the De"artment o 6)stice.% I any remedy was availa!leto "rivate com"lainant &it was a "etition or certiorari& not an a""eal.I**60 =* com"lainant is allowed to ile an a""eal>6D0 9'S. The right to a""eal rom a inal 0)dgment or order in a criminal case is granted to ?any"arty?& e@ce"t when the acc)sed is "laced there!y in do)!le 0eo"ardy.ReasoningSection 4& 2)le 144 2CP? =ho may a""eal. Any "arty may a""eal rom a inal 0)dgment or order&e@ce"t i the acc)sed wo)ld !e "laced there!y in do)!le

0eo"ardy.L% Co)rt r)led that the word ?"arty? m)st !e )nderstood to mean not only the government andthe acc)sed& !)t also other "ersons who may !e aected !y the 0)dgment rendered in the criminal"roceeding. Th)s& the "arty in0)red !y the crime has !een held to have the right to a""eal rom aresol)tion o the co)rt which is derogatory to his right to demand civil lia!ility arising rom the oense. Peo"le v. H)idoE% Kended "arties in criminal cases have s)icient interest and "ersonality

as ;"ersonsEaggrieved; toile the s"ecial civil action o "rohi!ition andcertiorari )nder Sections 1 and 4 o 2)le 7 inline with the )nderlying s"irit o the li!eral constr)ction o the 2)les o Co)rtNL% The "roced)ralreco)rse o a""eal taken !y "rivate com"lainant (a)rel is correct !eca)se the order o dismissal was ainal order. It inally dis"osed o the "ending action so that nothing more co)ld !e done with it in thelower co)rt.% The remedy against s)ch a 0)dgment is an a""eal& regardless o the /)estions so)ght to!e raised on a""eal& whether o act& or o law& whether involving 0)risdiction or grave a!)seo

discretion o the Trial Co)rt. . . . TEhe "arty aggrieved . . . did not have theo"tion to s)!stit)te the s"ecial civil action o certiorari )nder 2)le 7 or the remedy o a""eal "rovidedor in 2)le 51. Indeed& the e@istence and availa!ility o the right o a""eal are antithetical to the

availment o the s"ecial civil action o certiorari.% The r)le thereore in this 0)risdiction is that onceacom"laint or inormation is iled in Co)rt anydis"osition o the case as its dismissal or the conviction orac/)ittal o the acc)sed rests in the so)nd discretion o the Co)rt. Altho)gh the iscal retains thedirection and control o the "rosec)tion o criminal cases even while the case is already in Co)r thecannot im"ose his o"inion on the trial co)rt. The Co)rt is the !est and sole 0)dge on what to do with thecase !eore it.

6s4eleta v. Avelino, !" *2RA 3! %eliciano Bel)a)

3


4/53

%acts08erein "etitioner iled "etition or Certiorari or trial co)rt )nder 8on. Celso Avelino& Presiding6)dge& CFI& Ce!) City or ail)re to ollow the re/)irements o "roced)ral d)e "rocess where it ordersthe testimony o a vital witness stricken o the records when it a""ears that the ail)re o said witness toa""ear on the set or contin)ation o her testimony was d)e to 0)stiia!le circ)mstances. The "etitionercom"lains that he was denied "roced)ral d)e "rocess when res"ondent 6)dge acceded to the "lea o"lainti%res"ondent that the testimony o a witness deemed !y him as vital to his case !e ignored anddisregarded in its entirety or ail)re to !e "resent in co)rt on the day set or her cross%e@amination&des"ite d)e notice given in o"en co)rt. 8owever& it a""ears that said witness who is a new em"loyee othe ice o the De"artment o (ocal Hovernment and Comm)nity Develo"ment at the time cannotchallenge the order o his new oice and the )rgency o her 0o! and inormed "etitionerJs co)nsel o her

)navaila!ility so that the latter co)ld make the "ro"er re"resentation with the trial co)rt& or "ossi!ledeerment.

I**60 =hether or not there is a!)se o discretion on the "art o the res"ondent 6)dge o CFI& Ce!)City when he ordered the stricken o rom the records the witness testimony which is vital to the case.

6D09es& the co)rt r)led that there was indeed a!)se o discretion on the "art o the Presiding 6)dgeo the CFI o Ce!) City. 2es"ondent 6)dge wo)ld 0)stiy the aoresaid order !y characteriing there/)est or "ost"onement as tantamo)nt to delaying the administration o 0)stice. 8e was not e@actlymind)l o a 1-17 admonition o this Co)rt& when it warned that Ka so)nd discretion in this regard sho)ld!e e@ercised !y the trial 0)dge& and the highly commenda!le desire or the dis"atch o !)siness sho)ldnot !e "ermitted to t)rn the scales o 0)stice rather than accede to a reasona!le re/)est or acontin)ance. It is even more de"lora!le that there a""eared to !e a total lack o awareness o the d)e"rocess im"lications o the "etition.

=8'2'F2'& the "etition or certiorari is granted and the order o A"ril 5& 1-35& iss)ed !y res"ondent

6)dge is set aside& n)lliied and considered as totally devoid o any orce or eect. The case isremanded to the lower co)rt or )rther "roceedings in accordance with law and in consonance with thisdecision& more s"eciically that the testimony o Miss MontaOo remains in the records s)!0ect to the testo cross%e@amination& i any& !y "rivate res"ondent.

Doctrine .The mere iling o a motion to "ost"one hearing& even i the motion is not entirely gro)ndless&coners on the movant no right either to ass)me that the motion or "ost"onement wo)ld !e granted orto !e a!sent at& and shy away rom& the hearing.

2a!ino v. Cr)& 444 SC2A 5-+ Allan Tamayao

%acts0 This is a "etition or review seeking the ann)lment o the decision o res"ondent Co)rt oA""eals in CA%H.2. SP *o 1743. The first onewas SP *o. ,-+5& aorementioned. n Decem!er 45&1-B7& the Co)rt o A""eals "rom)lgated its decision in SP *o. ,B145 dismissing the "etition Anne@ 'o Memorand)m or Private 2es"ondentsE. A motion or reconsideration was iled !y "etitioners therein!)t on Decem!er 1& 1-BB& the Co)rt o A""eals iss)ed a resol)tion denying the motion or

reconsideration Anne@ F& Memorand)m or Private 2es"ondentsE. Petitioners iled in Civil Cases *o.7+, and *o. 7+1 an o""osition dated *ovem!er 43& 1-B7 CA%H.2. SP *o. 1743E& to the iss)ance oa writ o demolition. n Decem!er 1& 1-BB& the other occ)"ants o the s)!0ect "arcel o land in CivilCases *o. 7+, and 7+1& "etitioners herein& iled an action or damages& docketed as Civil Case *o.145+& o the 2egional Trial Co)rt o Anti"olo& 2ial& against res"ondents 1E Marina& Antonio& 'd)ardo&Conce"cion& Teresita Cr)& Mario& 8ector 6ose& Mariano Hongora& 6)an S.P. 8erros and Pio '.Martine& in his ca"acity as '@%icio Sheri o the 2egional Trial Co)rt o Anti"olo& 2ial SeeDecision o Co)rt o A""eals in CA%H.2. SP *o. 1743E. On December 1, 1988, petitioners filedanother actiondocketed as Civil Case *o. 1+11%A with the 2egional Trial Co)rt o Anti"olo& 2ial& orann)lment o the writ o demolition with damages against "rivate res"ondents. n the same date&David Palmenco& et al.& the deendants in Civil Cases *o. 7+, and 7+1 iled an action or in0)nction with

damages docketed as Civil Case *o. 1+14%A o the same 2egional Trial Co)rt& against "rivateres"ondents . n Decem!er 7& 1-BB& the trial co)rt in Civil Case *o. 1+11%A iss)ed a restraining orderdirecting herein "rivate res"ondents and the other deendants in said case to rerain rom im"lementingthe alias writ o demolition. Private respondents Adora Cruz, et al. filed a petitionor certiorari and"rohi!ition with the Co)rt o A""eals docketed therein as CA%H.2. SP *o. 1743& "raying that the orderdated Decem!er 7& 1-BB iss)ed in Civil Case *o. 1+11%A !e ann)lled and that the 8onora!le PatricioPata0o& the Presiding 6)dge o the 2egional Trial Co)rt o Anti"olo& 2ial& !e "rohi!ited rom cond)cting)rther "roceedings in Civil Cases *o. 145+ and *o. 1+11. This was the third time the case was !ro)ght!eore the Co)rt o A""eals. n A)g)st +,& 1--,& the Co)rt o A""eals rendered its decision in SP *o.1743 declaring the order dated Decem!er 7& 1-BB n)ll and void. n Se"tem!er 4& 1--,& the Co)rt o

A""eals denied herein "etitionersJ motion or reconsideration.

Isse0 =hether the writ o e@ec)tion iss)ed in Civil Cases *o. 7+, and *o. 7+1 may !e enorcedagainst "etitioners>

el)0*o& Clearly& the second re/)irement aore%mentioned does not o!tain in C ivil Cases *o. 7+, and7+1& or the trial co)rt in said cases did not ac/)ire 0)risdiction over the "ersons o "etitioners as theywere not im"leaded therein and were conse/)ently not s)mmoned to a""ear and "resent theirdeenses to resist the claims o "rivate res"ondents. The act that "etitioners iled& as aorementioned&an o""osition to the iss)ance o a writ o demolition in Civil Cases *o. 7+, and *o. 7+1 does not signiythat they had vol)ntarily s)!mitted themselves to the 0)risdiction o the trial co)rt& "recisely !eca)se thevery ")r"ose o said o""osition is that no writ o demolition sho)ld !e iss)ed or enorced against themas they are not "arties to said case. F)rthermore& it cannot !e said that they had intervened in saidcases !y the iling o the aore%mentioned o""osition or the reason that there can !e no intervention ina case already terminated !y inal 0)dgment (orenana vs. Cayetano& s)"ra& ". 5-4E. The right to d)e"rocess is one o the !)ilding !locks o the ediice o o)r democratic orm o government& and co)rts

m)st ever !e vigilant in saeg)arding it& otherwise "ersons mights !e dragooned& to 0ail witho)t so m)chas the iling o a com"laint& or they may one morning wake )" with all their hard%earned "ro"ertys)ddenly gone witho)t so m)ch they !eing aware o the ca)se thereor. =8'2'F2'& the "etition isH2A*T'D. The assailed decision dated A)g)st +,& 1--, o res"ondent Co)rt o A""eals is here!yA**


5/53

"lan !eneits?. The letter was "ersonally delivered !y "etitioner;s wie. It carried his address in the

6D: It is the r)ling o the res"ondent Civil Service Commission that the sending o the said notice to

the residence o "etitioner constit)tes ?s)!stantial? com"liance with the demands o d)e "rocess. Ther)ling wo)ld have some all)re i the address o "etitioner in the


6/53

At !est& the acc)sed can only con0)re "ossi!ility o "re0)dice on the "art o the trial 0)dge d)e to the

!arrage o ")!licity that characteried the investigation and trial o the case. The SC had "revio)sly

re0ected this standard o "ossi!ility o "re0)dice and ado"ted the test o act)al "re0)dice as we r)led

that to warrant a inding o "re0)dicial ")!licity& there m)st !e allegation and "roo that the 0)dges have

!een )nd)ly inl)enced& not sim"ly that they might !e& !y the !arrage o ")!licity. In the case at !ar& the

records do not show that the trial 0)dge develo"ed act)al !ias against a""ellant as a conse/)ence o

the e@tensive media coverage o the "re%trial and trial o his case. The totality o circ)mstances o the

case does not "rove that the trial 0)dge ac/)ired a i@ed o"inion as a res)lt o "re0)dicial ")!licity which

is inca"a!le o change even !y evidence "resented d)ring the trial. The acc)sed has the !)rden to

"rove this act)al !ias and he has not discharged the !)rden. There is no evidence showing that the trial

0)dge allowed the "roceedings to t)rn into a carnival. *or did he consent to or condone any

maniestation o )nr)ly or im"ro"er !ehavior or cond)ct inside the co)rtroom d)ring the trial o the case

at !ar.

Ang Ti!ay v. CI2 7- P8I( 7+ Maria atrina Tan0)say

FACTS: The Solicitor%Heneral aeta in !ehal o the res"ondent Co)rt o Ind)strial 2elations has ileda motion or reconsideration& and the res"ondent *ational (a!or


7/53

to !e heard may !e s)!se/)ent to the clos)re. ne can 0)st imagine the dire conse/)ences o a "riorhearing: !ank r)ns wo)ld !e the order o the day& res)lting in "anic and hysteria. In the "rocess&ort)nes may !e wi"ed o)t& and disill)sionment will r)n the gam)t o the entire !anking comm)nity.

Clos)re and li/)idation o a !ank may !e considered as an e@ercise o "olice "ower. S)che@ercise may& however& !e s)!0ect to 0)dicial in/)iry and co)ld !e set aside i o)nd to !e ca"ricio)s&discriminatory& whimsical& ar!itrary& )n0)st or a denial o the d)e "rocess and e/)al "rotection cla)seso the Constit)tion.

Co)rts may interere with the Central #ankJs e@ercise o discretion in determining whether ornot a distressed !ank shall !e s)""orted or li/)idated.

ADM< v. Ca")long 444 SC2A 755 2oel Marcial

%A27*0 (eonardo 8. $illa& a irst year law st)dent o Petitioner


8/53


9/53

or a 0)dgment& in administrative or /)asi%0)diciall "roceedings& only s)!stantial evidence is re/)ired&that which means a reasona!le mind might acce"t a relevant evidence as ade/)ate to s)""ort aconcl)sion.

ao Gi Alias 2hia, +r. v. 2A 1/$ *2RA #5! Gisa)io

Facts: n Se"tem!er + 1-B& the secretary o 6)stice rendered a decision o"inion no. 1-1series o 1-B inding Filomeno Chia& 6r alias sian Pieng h) to !e a Fili"ino citien !orn on *ovem!er4B& 1B-- !eing the legitimate son o Inosencio Chia and Ma. (ay)g og H)ag)a& Pam"anga. 8owever

on cto!er +& 1-B,& the Minister o 0)stice rendered o"inion no. 153 series o 1-B,& cancelling o"inionno 1-1 series o 1-B and setting aside the citienshi" o0 ilomino Chia& Sr on the gro)nd that it waso)nded on ra)d and misinter"retation. A motion or reconsideration o said o"inion was denied !yminister o 0)stice on Fe!r)ary 1+& 1-B1.

Iss)e: =hether or not the "etitioners citienshi" was sec)red !y ra)d is "recisely the s)!0ectmatter o the "roceedings !eore the Commission on Immigration and De"ortation& in which noevidence had !een "resented yet in s)""ort o the charge o ra)d in the ac/)isition o "etitionerscitienshi".

2)ling: De"ortation "roceeding does not "artake o the nat)re o a criminal action& theconstit)tional right o a "erson sho)ld not !e denied: the r)les on criminal "roced)re in the r)les oco)rt are a""lica!le to de"rtation.

Commission on Immigration and de"ortation Citienshi": the Commission has the a)thority and0)risdiction to hear and determine the /)estion o citien raised.

P8I(CMSAT v. Alc)a 1B, SC2A 41B ttong

Ra)io 2o&&nicattions v. N72 1/: *2RA 51# ag(as

This case is a Petition or certiorari and "rohi!ition with "reliminary in0)nction to review the order o the

*ational Telecomm)nications Commission.

Facts: n 6an)ary 5& 1-B5& "rivate res"ondent P(DT iled an a""lication with res"ondent Commission

or the A""roval o 2ates or Digital Transmission Service Facilities )nder *TC Case *o. B5

,,+. At the hearing& "etitioner PT T Co.& along with other "etitioners& came to know o the

"ending "etition thro)gh the ormer& a""eared and moved or some time within which to ile an

o""osition or re"ly to said a""lication and they alleged that neither res"ondent commission nor

"rivate res"ondent P(DT inormed them o the e@istence o this "rovisional a)thority. Also&

alleging that the a""lication iled !y the P(DT is not or a""roval as its ca"tion misleadingly

indicates !)t or a)thority to engage in new services not covered !y "rivate res"ondentJs

ranchise and certiicate o ")!lic convenience and necessity. Petitioners )rther claimed that

P(DT is limited !y its legislative ranchise to render only Kradiotele"honic services&L e@cl)sive

o Kradiotelegra"hic or record services.L

Iss)e: =hether or not the res"ondent Commission had committed grave a!)sed o discretion in

iss)ing

a "rovisional a)thority in avor o P(DT& witho)t "rior notice to the "etitioners.

2)ling: The P)!lic Service Commission o)nd that the a""lication involved in the "resent "etition is

act)ally an a""lication or a""roval o rates or digital transmission service acilities& which it

may a""rove "rovisionally& and witho)t the necessity o any notice and hearing as "rovided in

the a!ove%/)oted "rovision o law. Thereore& a care)l st)dy o the records yields no cogent

reason to dist)r! the indings and concl)sions o the *TC.

Mace)a v. 6RB 1 *2RA :5: A()ra;a

Rling0 The co)rt had earlier entertained serio)s misgivings a!o)t the constit)tionality o Section 5, asagainst strong "rotest that it was violative o d)e "rocess in so ar as it de"rived the Civil servant o theright to deend himsel against the e@ "arte decision to dismiss him.

HSIS v. CA& 4,1 SC2A 771 Florendo

%A27*02es"ondent 'velyn T. intanar was em"loyed !y "etitioner Hovernment Service Ins)rance

System at its Ce!) #ranch& initially as a cas)al em"loyee& and later as records clerk& and then ascontrol clerk. As a control clerk& she was assigned to the 2ecords and Comm)nication mailingE section&Inormation and Services Division& where her "rinci"al d)ties and )nctions were Kto receive checkss"eciically& "olicy loan& ed)cational assistance loan& and miscellaneo)s checksE coming rom theacco)nting section and list down the checks "ersonally !y re/)iring them to sec)re release "a"ers to!e signed !y the division head& or to mail the checks to the !orrower%mem!ers.

Sometime in 1-3-& two 4E mem!ers o the HSIS in se"arate aidavits com"lained that theyhad not received their "olicy loan checks. As a res)lt& two 4E investigations were cond)cted se"aratelyo HSIS em"loyees who might have !een involved in the loss and ra)d)lent encashment o the two 4Echecks. All the declarations o the em"loyees investigated were red)ced to writing and d)ly s)!scri!edand sworn to.

n 17 cto!er 1-3-& 'velyn intanar re/)ested another and se"arate investigation rom theDe"artment o Investigation& HSIS& Manila to which she was never considered or investigationaltho)gh she had re/)ested s)ch re%investigation. From the !asis o the aidavits& it was concl)dedthat the loss o the two 4E checks occ)rred while they were in the c)stody o 'velyn intanar. As s)ch&Private res"ondent was dismissed rom the service.

n + 6)ne 1-B,& 'velyn intanar iled an a""eal with the Civil Service Commission&contending that her s)mmary dismissal was a violation o her right to sec)rity o ten)re and o theconstit)tional g)arantee o d)e "rocess. The CSC indorsed the a""eal to HSIS President and HeneralManager which inormed that res"ondentJs dismissal was mandated )nder "aragra"h a o Section 5,Presidential Decree *o. B,3.

The lower co)rt rendered a decision in avor o the Private 2es"ondent. n A""eal& the Co)rto A""eals airmed. Petitioner moved or reconsideration& witho)t s)ccess.

I**60=hether or not Section 5, o Presidential Decree *o. -,3 constit)tes de"rivation o "roced)rald)e "rocess.

6D09es. The em"loyee m)st !e inormed o the charges against him and that he m)st have areasona!le o""ort)nity to "resent his side o the matter. The !)rden was )"on "etitioner o showing atleast a "rima acie case that 'velyn intanar had indeed committed acts o dishonesty. In the case at!ar& records show that "etitioner ailed in "rod)cing convincing evidence o res"ondentJs g)ilt.Petitioner has add)ced no !asis or overt)rning the act)al concl)sions reached !y the trial co)rt andairmed !y the Co)rt o A""eals.

=hereore& "remises considered& the "resent "etition or review is here!y denied d)e co)rseor lack o merit. The decision o Co)rt o A""eals is here!y airmed.

8ellenic Phili""ine Shi""ing Inc v. Siete& 1- SC2A 13- #agasina

%A27*0Challenged in this "etition is the decision o the res"ondent *(2C holding 8ellenic Phili""ineShi""ing Com"any lia!le or the illegal dismissal o Ca"t. '"ianio Siete& herein "rivate res"ondent& andawarding him salaries and other !eneits corres"onding to the )ne@"ired "ortion o his em"loymentcontract. 'norcement o this decision has meanwhile !een held in a!eyance ")rs)ant to o)r tem"oraryrestraining order dated A)g)st +& 1-BB.Siete was em"loyed on May 44& 1-B& as Master o M$ 8o)da H !y S)ltan Shi""ing Co.& (td.& thro)ghits crewing agent& herein "etitioner. 8e !oarded the vessel on May 45& 1-B& at Cy"r)s. From there& itsailed on 6)ne 1& 1-B& to 'l Ferrol& S"ain& where it loaded cargo that it s)!se/)ently discharged atTri"oli& (e!anon& rom 6)ne 4%4-& 1-B. It then "roceeded !ack to Cy"r)s& arriving there on 6)ne +,&1-B.n 6)ly B& 1-B& Ca"t. =ilredo (im !oarded the vessel and advised Siete that he had instr)ctions romthe owners to take over its command. These instr)ctions were conirmed !y a tele@ sent !y S)ltanShi""ing to Siete on 6)ly 1,& 1-B. *either (im nor the tele@ indicated the reason or his relie. The

"rivate res"ondent claims this inormation was also withheld rom him !y the "etitioner )"on hisre"atriation to Manila.n 6)ly 14& 1-B& Siete iled a com"laint against the "etitioner or illegal dismissal and non%"ayment ohis salary and other !eneits )nder their em"loyment contract. n Se"tem!er 7& 1-B& the "etitioneralleged in its answer that the com"lainant had !een dismissed !eca)se o his ail)re to com"lete withthe instr)ction o S)ltan Shi""ing to erase the tim!er load line on the vessel and or his negligence inthe discharge o the cargo at Tri"oli that endangered the vessel and stevedores. Siete denied theseaverments in his re"ly dated Se"tem!er 4+& 1-B& and reiterated that he had not earlier !een inormedo the ca)se o his dismissal and re"atriation& either in Cy"r)s or later in Manila.Ater considering the "osition "a"ers and doc)mentary evidence o the "arties& Administrator Tomas D.Achacoso o the Phili""ine verseas 'm"loyment Administration P'AE dismissed the com"laint&

10


11/53

holding that there was valid ca)se or Siete;s removal. 4 The decision "laced m)ch val)e on the vario)scomm)nications "resented !y the "etitioner to show that Siete was indeed g)ilty o the charges that0)stiied his se"aration.n 6an)ary 5& 1-BB& the "rivate res"ondent a""ealed to the *(2C& contending that the records"resented !y the "etitioner were "re"ared long ater his dismissal and were es"ecially s)s"ect !eca)sethey came rom "ersons in the em"loy o S)ltan Shi""ing. 8e insisted that he was dismissed witho)teven !eing inormed o the charges against him or given an o""ort)nity to re)te them. 8e added that&even ass)ming he was negligent in the )nloading o the cargo at Tri"oli& this shortcoming did notwarrant s)ch a severe "enalty as his dismissal.In its decision dated 6)ne 43& 1-BB& + the ")!lic res"ondent reversed the P'A Administrator& holding

that the dismissal violated d)e "rocess and that the doc)ments s)!mitted !y the "etitioner werehearsay& sel %serving& and not veri ied. Accordingly& i t dis"osed as ol lows:A new decision is entered inding the dismissal o com"lainant as illegal. 2es"ondent is here!y orderedto "ay to the com"lainant his salaries& wages and other !eneits corres"onding to the )ne@"ired "ortiono his em"loyment contract with S)ltan Shi""ing Com"any& (td.& dated May 44& 1-B.

I**60=hether or not that *(2C committed grave a!)se o discretion in reversing the indings oP'A>

6D0The Co)rt notes that the re"orts s)!mitted !y the "etitioner to "rove its charges were all"re"ared ater the act o Siete;s dismissal and were signed !y its own em"loyees. 5 Their motives arenecessarily s)s"ect. The mere act that they have made s)ch re"orts does not itsel "rove the charges&which were investigated e@ "arte& i at all. It is not denied that Siete was not inormed o the charges!eorehand or that he was given an o""ort)nity to re)te them. 'ven ater his arrival in Manila& he waske"t in the dark a!o)t the reason or his dismissal. The e@c)se o the "etitioner that it itsel did not know

why he was dismissed& !eing only a crewing agent o S)ltan Shi""ing& deserves no comment.The (a!or Code "rovides as ollows:Sec. 1. Sec)rity o ten)re and d)e "rocess. *o worker shall !e dismissed e@ce"t or a 0)st ora)thoried ca)se "rovided !y law and ater d)e "rocess.Sec. 4. *otice o dismissal. Any em"loyer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall )rnish him a writtennotice stating the "artic)lar acts or omission constit)ting the gro)nds or his dismissal. In cases oa!andonment o work& the notice shall !e served at the worker;s last known address.

Sec. . Answer and hearing. The worker may answer the allegations stated against him in the noticeo dismissal within a reasona!le "eriod rom recei"t o s)ch notice. The em"loyer shall aord theworker am"le o""ort)nity to !e heard and to deend himsel with the assistance o his re"resentative& ihe so desires.Sec. 7. Decision to dismiss. The em"loyer shall immediately notiy a worker in writing o a decision todismiss him stating clearly the reasons thereor.

=e are not "ers)aded that the *(2C committed grave a!)se o discretion in reversing the indings o

the P'A s)staining the "etitioner and dismissing the "rivate res"ondent;s com"laint. n the contrary&we agree that the "rivate res"ondent was illegally dismissed !eca)se& irst& he was not accorded a airinvestigation as re/)ired !y law& and second& !eca)se the gro)nds invoked or his se"aration have not!een "roved !y the "etitioner.=8'2'F2'& the challenged decision as a!ove modiied is AFFI2M'D and the "etition DISMISS'D&with costs against the "etitioner. The tem"orary restraining order dated A)g)st +&1-BB& is (IFT'D.S 2D'2'D.

*ala= v. NR2, "$" *2RA # Isnani

This is a "etition or review on certiorari o the Decision 1rendered in *(2C Case *o. 5%1434%B dated6)ly 47& 1-B-& airming the dismissal o the "etitioner !y the res"ondent !ank& and reversing there!ythe Decision "o (a!or Ar!iter #enigno C. $illarente& 6r. o March 4-& 1-BB which declared the"etitioner;s dismissal as illegal and ordered his reinstatement with !ackwages and !eneits.

's"ero Santos Salaw& "etitioner& was em"loyed as a credit investigator%a""raiser !y the herein "rivateres"ondent Associated #ank. Ater having !een acc)sed o selling !ankJs oreclosed machines andelectric generators in the total amo)nt o P7,&,,,.,, and allegedly in cahoots with his s)"ervisor aso)nd in the e@tracted sworn statement o the Criminal Investigative Service CISE o the Phili""ineConsta!)lary& on A"ril 1& 1-B herein "rivate res"ondent terminated the em"loyment o Salaw

eective March 43& 1-B or alleged serio)s miscond)ct or will)l diso!edience and ra)d or will)l!reach o the tr)st re"osed on him !y the "rivate res"ondents. 'm"hasied on !oth investigationscond)cted !y the Phili""ine Consta!)lary and Personnel Disci"line and Investigation CommitteePDICE was the a!sence or non% avail o legal co)nsel or the "etitioner.

In the illegal dismissal iled !y the "etitioner against res"ondent !ank& the la!or ar!iter decided in avorthe Salaw& !)t /)ickly overt)rned !y the *(2C when the case was a""ealed. 8ence& this case at !ar.

ssue! =hether or not "etitioner was de"rive o d)e "rocess or not !eing re"resented !y co)nseld)ring investigation.

"eld!The S)"reme Co)rt held that the investigation o "etitioner Salaw violated his constit)tional rightto d)e "rocess& "etitioner was "er)nctorily denied the assistance o co)nsel d)ring investigation. Theright to co)nsel& a very !asic re/)irement o s)!stantive d)e "rocess& has to !e o!served as

g)aranteed !y the 1-B3 Constit)tion to "erson )nder investigation& !e the "roceeding administrate civil&or criminal. These rights cannot !e waived e@ce"t in writing in the "resence o co)nsel.

=8'2'F2'& "remises considered& 0)dgment is here!y rendered S'TTI*H ASID' the a""ealeddecision o the *(2C 2'I*STATI*H the decision o the la!or ar!iter.

Macayayong v. "le 4,5 SC2A +34 9nawat

%A27*0 Petitioner Macayayong had !een detailed with the vario)s oices in the ice o the Presidentthe last one !eing the #oard o (i/)idatorsE rom 1-7B )" to the time he was dro""ed rom the rostero the De"artment o (a!or eective 6an)ary +1& 1-37. n 6an)ary and 1-& 1-37& the Secretary o

(a!or notiied Macayayong that his services wo)ld !e terminated eective 6an)ary +1& 1-37 !y reasono his ail)re to re"ort !ack to his ice which )rgently needed his services. And on 6an)ary 4+& 1-37&the Secretary iss)ed an order dro""ing Macayayong rom the roster o the De"artment o (a!or orA!andonment o Post. The order is anchored on the alleged act that Macayayong !latantly deiedre"eated recall orders.

n Fe!r)ary 14& 1-37& "etitioner a""ealed to the Civil Service Commission rom the orderrendered !y the Secretary o (a!or. n A"ril 47& 1-37& the Civil Service Commission chairmen !yres"ondent Clave rendered 2esol)tion *o. +1 airming the a""ealed order o res"ondent "le. nMay 1-& 1-33& the "etitioner iled another a""eal with the ice o the President rom 2esol)tion *o.+1 o the Civil Service Commission. n 6)ne 4,& 1-3-& ater the la"se o almost two 4E years&res"ondent Clave& as Presidential Assistant& airmed his own a""ealed resol)tion rendered in his role

11


12/53

as Chairman o the Civil Service Commission. 8ence& this "etition or certiorari and mandam)s. In aresol)tion dated Fe!r)ary 1+& 1-B,& the Co)rt gave d)e co)rse to the "etition and re/)ired !oth "artiesto s)!mit their res"ective memoranda. Ater the re/)ired memoranda were iled& the Co)rt declared thecase s)!mitted or decision in the resol)tion dated A"ril +,& 1-B,.

I**60 =hether or not "etitioner;s s)mmary dismissal is in violation o the d)e "rocess o law>

6D0 Petitioner alleged that the order o s)mmary dismissal on the gro)nd o a!andonment o "ostwas rendered witho)t o!serving the d)e "rocess re/)irement o the law and in violation o his sec)rityo ten)re. n the other hand& res"ondent alleged that "etitioner was never denied d)e "rocess. In act&

he was sent the necessary notiications and was given an )ltimat)m to re"ort !ack to his home oicewhich he disregarded. This may !e considered as s)!stantial com"liance with the d)e "rocess r)le.The "etition is witho)t merit. Petitioner contends that he was denied d)e "rocess !eca)se he was notgiven eno)gh time to o!ey said recall. 8e alleges that the 6an)ary and 1- letters sent to him werereceived together with the order o the Secretary o (a!or on 6an)ary +,& 1-37& which was the eve othe eectively o his dismissal on 6an)ary +1& 1-37. 8ence& he was not given the o""ort)nity to !eheard. Petitioner;s contention is )ntena!le. The records show that !eore "etitioner was dro""ed romthe roster o the De"artment o (a!or& he was notiied twice !y his home oice to re"ort !ack to work&on 6an)ary and on 6an)ary 1-& 1-37. In the aoresaid notices& the "etitioner was )rged to come !ackto his home oice !eca)se his services were !adly needed& with a warning that in case he ails tore"ort& he wo)ld !e dro""ed rom the roster o the De"artment o (a!or.

Alono v. Ca")long& 455 SC2A B, Ca!anlong

Facts This is a "etition or certiorarito set aside the order dated March +1& 1--+ o res"ondent 0)dgeIgnacio Ca")long& which granted a writ o "reliminary in0)nction en0oining "etitioner rom "reventivelys)s"ending "rivate res"ondent 6)liet Fa0ardo as manager o the Administrative Services De"artment othe 8ome Develo"ment M)t)al F)nd.n Decem!er 13& 1--4 Celeste H. Al%6awaneh& who had !een s)""lying oice )niorms and "rovidingtrans"ortation service to Pag%i!ig F)nd em"loyees& wrote a letter to the Chie '@ec)tive icer& herein"etitioner Uorayda Alono& com"laining against "rivate res"ondent.n Decem!er 4B& 1--4& a ormal charge was iled against "rivate res"ondent or dishonesty&miscond)ct& disgrace)l and immoral cond)ct& contracting o loans o money or other "ro"erty rom"ersons with whom the oice o the em"loyee concerned had !)siness relations& and cond)ct"re0)dicial to the !est interest o the service.Iss)e: =hether or not the s)s"ension o the "rivate res"ondent witho)t irst giving her the rightto !e heard in her deense is valid>

2)ling: The "reventive s)s"ension o a civil service em"loyee or oicer can !e ordered evenwitho)t a hearing !eca)se s)ch s)s"ension is not a "enalty !)t only a "reliminary ste" in anadministrative investigation. The ")r"ose is to "revent the acc)sed rom )sing his "osition or oice toinl)ence "ros"ective witnesses or tam"er with the records which may !e vital in the "rosec)tion o thecase.=8'2'F2'& the "etition or certiorariis H2A*T'D the writ o "reliminary in0)nction dated A"ril 1&1--+ is A**


13/53

the 2es"ondent Co)rt reversed itsel /)ashing the writ o "rohi!ition and setting aside the order orestit)tion and "ayment o attorneyJs ees& stating that altho)gh the res"ondent Mayor initially iss)ed anorder o demolition witho)t 0)ridical "rocess& the deiciency was remedied when the a""ellant iled a"etition or "rohi!ition and in0)nction and was heard on oral arg)ment ater a""ellees iled their answer.

Isse0 =hether or not 2es"ondent Mayor co)ld s)mmarily& witho)t 0)ridical "rocess& order thedemolition o "etitionerJs )onset !)ilding.

el)0 rdinance *o. 153& enacted on 43 Decem!er 1-33& and relied )"on !y res"ondents& is entitled

?An rdinance 'sta!lishing Com"rehensive Uoning 2eg)lations or the M)nici"ality o Isa!ela . . .? It isnot dis")ted that the )onset !)ilding& which is !eing )sed or the storage o co"ra& is located o)tsidethe one or wareho)ses. It is reerred to in rdinance as a non%conorming str)ct)re& which sho)ld !erelocated. And in the event that an immediate relocation o the !)ilding can not !e accom"lished&Section 17 o the rdinance "rovides:

A certiicate o non%conormance or all non%conorming )ses shall !e a""lied or !ythe owner or agent o the "ro"erty involved within twelve 14E months rom thea""roval o this rdinance otherwise the non%conorming )se may !e condemnedor removed at the owner;s e@"ense.

'ven granting that "etitioner ailed to a""ly or a Certiicate o *on%conormance& theoregoing "rovision sho)ld not !e inter"reted as a)thoriing the s)mmary removal o a non%conorming!)ilding !y the m)nici"al government. For i it does& it m)st !e str)ck down or !eing in contravention othe re/)irements o d)e "rocess& as originally held !y the res"ondent Co)rt.

Petitioner was in law)l "ossession o the lot and )onset !)ilding !y virt)e o a "ermit romthe Phili""ine Ports A)thority Port o Uam!oangaE when demolition was eected. It was not s/)attingon ")!lic land. Its "ro"erty was not o triling val)e. It was entitled to an im"artial hearing !eore atri!)nal a)thoried to decide whether the )onset !)ilding did constit)te a n)isance in law. There wasno com"elling necessity or "reci"itate action. It ollows then that res"ondent ")!lic oicials o theM)nici"ality o Isa!ela& #asilan& transcended their a)thority in a!ating s)mmarily "etitioner;s )onset!)ilding. They had de"rived "etitioner o its "ro"erty witho)t d)e "rocess o law. The act that "etitioneriled a s)it or "rohi!ition and was s)!se/)ently heard thereon will not c)re the deect& as o"ined !y theCo)rt o A""eals& the demolition having !een a fait accompli"rior to hearing and the a)thority todemolish witho)t a 0)dicial order !eing a "re0)dicial iss)e.

The 0)dgment o res"ondent Co)rt o A""eals& dated 1+ 6)ne 1--,& /)ashing the writ o"rohi!ition and setting aside the order o restit)tion and "ayment o attorneyJs ees is S'T ASID' itsoriginal Decision& "rom)lgated on 4 6an)ary 1--,& is 2'I*STAT'D. The case was 2'MA*D'D to

the 2egional Trial Co)rt o #asilan& #ranch 4& or the determination o the 0)st com"ensation d)e"etitioner or the demolition o its )onset !)ilding.

Misamis ccidental Association $. DF 4+B SCA2A 7+ Delatado

Facts: Petitioner Misamis riental Association o Coco Traders& Inc. is a domestic cor"orationwhose mem!ers& individ)ally or collectively& are engaged in the !)ying and selling o co"ra in Misamisriental. n the other hand& res"ondents re"resent de"artments o the e@ec)tive !ranch o government

charged with the generation o )nds and the assessment& levy and collection o ta@es and otherim"osts.

It alleges that "rior to the iss)ance o 2even)e Memorand)m Circ)lar 2MCE 53%-1 on 6)ne11& 1--1& which im"lemented $al)e Added Ta@ $ATE 2)ling 1-,%-,& co"ra was classiied asagric)lt)ral ood "rod)ct )nder Section 1,+!E o the *ational Internal 2even)e Code and& thereore&e@em"t rom $AT at all stages o "rod)ction or distri!)tion.

The "etitioner contends that the #)rea) o Food and Dr)g o the De"artment o 8ealth and

not the #)rea) o Internal 2even)e #I2E is the com"etent government agency to determine the "ro"erclassiication o ood "rod)cts. It cites the o"inion o Dr. )intin intanar o the #)rea) o Food andDr)g to the eect that co"ra sho)ld !e considered ?ood? !eca)se it is "rod)ced rom cocon)t which isood and B,R o cocon)t "rod)cts are edi!le. The res"ondents& on the contrary& arg)e that the o"iniono the #I2& as the government agency charged with the im"lementation and inter"retation o the ta@laws& is entitled to great res"ect.

(ikewise& "etitioner claims that 2MC *o. 53%-1 is discriminatory and violative o the e/)al"rotection cla)se o the Constit)tion !eca)se while cocon)t armers and co"ra "rod)cers are e@em"t&traders and dealers are not& altho)gh !oth sell co"ra in its original state. Petitioners add that oil millersdo not en0oy ta@ credit o)t o the $AT "ayment o traders and dealers.

Th)s& the "resent "etition or "rohi!ition and in0)nction seeking to n)lliy 2even)eMemorand)m Circ)lar *o. 53%-1 and en0oin the collection !y res"ondent reven)e oicials o the $al)eAdded Ta@ $ATE on the sale o co"ra !y mem!ers o "etitioner organiation.

Isses0 1. =hether or not d)e "rocess is o!served>

el)0 *o hearing was

=8'2'F2'& the "etition is DISMISS'D.

Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission 1-5 SC2A 43B T)!o

%acts: Ardelia Medenilla& a contr)act)al em"loyee working as P)!lic 2elations icer II or theDe"artment o P)!lic =orks and 8ighways DP=8E. (ater in 1-B3& Medenilla was detailed as

Technical Assistant in the ice o the Assistant Secretary or Administration and Man"owerManagement. n 6an)ary +,& 1-B3& ")rs)ant to '@ec)tive rder *o. 145& a reorganiation ens)edwithin the DP=8 and all the "ositions therein were a!olished. A revised staing "attern together withthe g)idelines on the selection and "lacement o "ersonnel was iss)ed& incl)ded in the revised staing"attern is the contested "osition o S)"ervising 8)man 2eso)rce Develo"ment icer. n 6an)ary 4&1-B-& the "etitioner was a""ointed to the dis")ted "osition. n 6an)ary 43& 1-B-& res"ondents Am"aroDellosa& 2osalinda 6)ria and Marita #)rdeos together with others all o whom are em"loyees in the8)man 2eso)rce Training and Material Develo"ment Division& Administrative and Man"owerManagement Service o the DP=8& 0ointly lodged a "rotest contesting the a""ointment o the "etitionerto the "osition. The "rotestants alleged that since they are ne@t%in%rank em"loyees& one o them sho)ldhave !een a""ointed. n A)g)st 4& 1-B- the "rotest was dismissed. The "rivate res"ondents a""ealed

13


14/53

the decision to the Civil Service Commission. n Fe!r)ary 4B& 1--,& the Commission "rom)lgated aresol)tion to disa""rove the "romotional a""ointment o Ardelia Medenilla. The "etitioner on March 4+&1--, iled a motion or reconsideration o the resol)tion. 8owever& the Commission on May 4+& 1--,denied the "etitioner;s motion or reconsideration& or lack o e@"erience and eligi!ility is in /)estion.

Isse: =hether or not Ardelia Medenilla is eligi!le or the "osition o S)"ervising 8)man 2eso)rceDevelo"ment icer.

Decision: 9es. The "etitioner "ossesses the a""ro"riate civil service eligi!ility and re/)isite ed)cational

!ackgro)nd. 8ence& the resol)tion o the Commission on May 4+&1--, considered "etitionerJs PD *o.-,3 eligi!ility. As to the "etitionerJs e@"erience& the Commission ailed to consider it. The "etitioner has"lenty o e@"erience in the ield o 8)man 2eso)rce De"artment and her one year and seven monthswith H)thrie%6ensen who was engaged in research relating to "erormance a""raisal systems and merit"romotion systems which d)ties are all related to 8)man 2eso)rce Develo"ment "roves the "etitioner"ossesses these skills in more than the "rivate res"ondents. Petition granted& the resol)tions iss)ed !yCivil Service Commission dated Fe!r)ary 4B& 1--, and May 4+& 1--, are set aside.

Mendiola v. CSC& 441 SC2A 4- Fernande

%A27* Petitioner has !een an em"loyee o the #)rea) since May 41& 1-3+. In 1-B3& PresidentCoraon A/)ino iss)ed '@ec)tive rder *o. 143 mandating the reorganiation o the De"artment oFinance. In accordance with the said '@ec)tive rder& the Commissioner o the #)rea) iss)ed a

memorand)m dated 6an)ary 1-& 1-BB 5 to streamline the #)rea). The said memorand)m "rovided the"riority or the se"aration o "ersonnel& to wit:

?CAT'H29 I Personnel with administrative& criminal andor "atently )ndesira!le"ersonnel.

CAT'H29 II Personnel a!ove 7, yrs. o age as o 6an)ary 1& 1-BB& and *T occ)"yingsensitive o key s)"ervisorymanagerial "ositions.

CAT'H29 III Personnel with amily relations within the Second Degree o consang)inityor ainity.

CAT'H29 I$ Personnel directly or indirectly in the management or control o any "rivateenter"rise which may !e aected !y the )nctions o 'II#& and

CAT'H29 $ Personnel other than the a!ove !)t willing to !e se"arated to takeadvantage o grat)ity ")rs)ant to '@ec)tive rder *o. 143.?

n March +,& 1-BB& "etitioner received a notice o termination rom service eective at the close ooice ho)rs o A"ril +,& 1-BB. Alleging that he was not inormed o the ca)se o his dismissal& "etitionera""ealed his case to the chairman o the A""eals #oard. 8is a""eal was denied. S)!se/)ently& hea""ealed to the Commission and averred that he was denied d)e "rocess when he was dismissed romthe service. F)rthermore& he claimed that he co)ld have !een incl)ded in Category I o the 6an)ary 1-&1-BB memorand)m. 8owever& he contested s)ch incl)sion !eca)se he had !een commended and

satisactorily rated or his "erormance. n Se"tem!er 41& 1-BB& the Commission resolved the case in"etitioner;s avor and held that the a""ellants were not accorded d)e "rocess o law and werese"arated rom the service not in accordance with the "rescri!ed r)les on reorganiation. Thea""ellants; se"aration rom service is& thereore& considered illegal and here!y ordered that a""ellants!e rea""ointed to their "revio)s "ositions or to "ositions o com"ara!le or e/)ita!le rank witho)t loss oseniority and that they !e "aid !ack salaries reckoned rom the dates o their termination. nSe"tem!er 14& 1-B-& "etitioner iled with the Commission a letter inorming the latter o the #)rea);sre)sal to reinstate him and re/)esting or the taking o remedial action !y the Commission. Theseactions on the "art o "etitioner allegedly remained )nheeded. And on 6)ly 47& 1--,& "etitioner o)ndo)t that the #)rea) iled on cto!er 43& 1-BB a motion or reconsideration o the Se"tem!er 41& 1-BB

resol)tion. n Fe!r)ary 1& 1-B-& the Commission gave d)e co)rse to the motion or reconsiderationthere!y setting aside its Se"tem!er 41& 1-BB resol)tion.

I**6 =hether or not the res"ondent Commission erred in giving d)e co)rse to the motion orreconsideration o res"ondent #)rea).

6D >ith res4ect to 4etitioner9s contention that he =as )enie) )e 4rocess =hen the2o&&ission hear) the Brea9s &otion for reconsi)eration =ithot notice to hi&, >e agree=ith res4on)ent Brea9s arg&ent that the )efect =as cre) ( the filing ( 4etitioner of his'&ni(s Motion on +l 3$, 1$. 7hs, in Me)enilla v. 2ivil *ervice 2o&&ission, >e sai) thatthe lac< of notice to 4etitioner regar)ing the 4en)ing a44eal an) the hearing of sai) a44eal =ascre) ( the filing of a &otion for reconsi)eration. Denial of )e 4rocess cannot (esccessfll invo


15/53

"etitioner and the Coo"erative while that in Civil Case *o. %531,, was the non%"ayment o rent andthe act o "hysical "ossession o the leased "ro"erty.8owever& "etitioner admits that when he moved or reconsideration o said order& he received his co"yo the o""osition and res"ondent 0)dge cond)cted a hearing on his motion.

I* $I'= =8'2'F& the "etition is dismissed& the tem"orary restraining order is lited and the orderdated A)g)st +1& 1-B3 and Se"tem!er 1B& 1-B3 o res"ondent 0)dge are airmed. Costs against"etitioner.S 2D'2'D.

(ao v. CSC& 4+7 SC2A 57- 8)ssin

%acts0Then case involves a /)estion on the validity o the decision o the Civil Service Commission revoking

herein "etitionerJs eligi!ility or !eing n)ll and void on the gro)nd that it violates the "etitionerJs right to

d)e "rocess o law. According to the ")!lic res"ondent& the revocation was "remised on a letter stating

that "etitioner;s act)al score was +5.5BR& not 37.57R as indicated in his certiicate o eligi!ility. The

Civil Service Commission 2egional oice charged "etitioner with dishonesty& grave miscond)ct and

cond)ct "re0)dicial to the !est interests o the service& and ordered the 2egional ice to cond)ct anew

a ormal investigation o the case. Petitioner asked or reconsideration& alleging that 2esol)tion *o. -4%

B+3 was iss)ed in violation o his right to d)e "rocess and that the CSC had o)nd him to have ailed

the Civil Service '@aminations witho)t evidence !eing "resented to s)""ort the inding.Isse0=hether the "etitioner was denied d)e "rocess o law when the CSC revoked his certiicate o eligi!ilityel)0The S)"reme Co)rt held that K


16/53

The Co)rt cannot agree. The circ)mstance that the chance to !e heard is not availed o does notdis"arage that o""ort)nity and de"rive the "erson o the right to d)e "rocess. This Co)rt hasconsistently held in cases too n)mero)s to mention that d)e "rocess is not violated where a "erson isnot heard !eca)se he has chosen& or whatever reason& not to !e heard.

In the "roceedings !eore the Commission& the 4etitionerwas given )ll o""ort)nity which it tookE to"resent its side& in its answer with co)nterclaim to the com"laint& in its testimony at the hearings& in itsmotion to dismiss the com"laint& and in its 1,%"age memorand)m. There is a!sol)tely no /)estion thatin that "roceeding& the "etitioner was act)ally and even e@tensively heard.

I**60 =hether or not d)e "rocess was not violated>

6D0 2ight to !e heard D)e "rocess is not violated where a "erson is not heard !eca)se he haschosen& or whatever reason& not to !e heard I he o"ts to !e silent where he has a right to s"eak& hecannot later com"lain that he was )nd)ly silenced.The Co)rt cannot agree. The arg)ment ass)mesthat the right to a hearing is a!sol)te and may not !e waived in any case )nder the d)e "rocess cla)se.This is not correct. As a matter o act& the right to !e heard is as oten waived as it is invoked& andvalidly as long as the "arty is given an o""ort)nity to !e heard on his !ehal. The circ)mstance that thechance to !e heard is not availed o does not dis"arage that o""ort)nity and de"rive the "erson o theright to d)e "rocess. This Co)rt has consistently held in cases too n)mero)s to mention that d)e"rocess is not violated where a "erson is not heard !eca)se he has chosen& or whatever reason& notto !e heard. It sho)ld !e o!vio)s that i he o"ts to !e silent where he has a right to s"eak& he cannotlater !e heard to com"lain that he was )nd)ly silenced. Stronghold Ins)rance Co.& Inc. vs. Co)rt oA""eals& 4, SC2A 7,1--4EG

Feeder International (ine v. CA 1-3 SC2A B54 6oan Solatorio

Facts: The MT Q


17/53

Private res"ondents lost no time in iling a com"laint or illegal dismissal against "etitioner and Mr.Havino #ayan with the regional oice o the *(2C at the *ational Ca"ital 2egion& Manila. Ater d)e trialthe la!or ar!iter ordered Aris Phils.E& Inc. to reinstate (eodegario de H)man and com"any to theirormer res"ective "ositions or any s)!stantial e/)ivalent "ositions i already illed )"& witho)t loss oseniority right and "rivileges.

n 1- 6)ly 1-B-& de H)man and com"any iled a Motion For Iss)ance o a =rit o '@ec)tion ")rs)antto Section 14 o 2.A. *o. 731 which "rovides that KIn any event& the decision o the (a!or Ar!iterreinstating a dismissed or se"arated em"loyee& in so ar as the reinstatement as"ect is concerned&

shall immediately !e e@ec)tory& even "ending a""eal. The em"loyee shall either !e admitted !ack towork )nder the same terms and conditions "revailing "rior to his dismissal or se"aration or& at theo"tion o the em"loyer& merely reinstated in the "ayroll. The "osting o a !ond !y the em"loyer shall notstay the e@ec)tion or reinstatement "rovided therein.?

n 41 6)ly 1-B-& "etitioner iled its A""eal. n 47 6)ly 1-B-& the com"lainants& e@ce"t Flor 2ayos delSol& iled a Partial A""eal. n 1, A)g)st 1-B-& com"lainant Flor 2ayos del Sol iled a Partial A""eal.n 4- A)g)st 1-B-& "etitioner iled an ""osition to the motion or e@ec)tion alleging that Section 14 o2.A. *o. 731 on e@ec)tion "ending a""eal cannot !e a""lied retroactively to cases "ending at thetime o its eectivity. Petitioner s)!mitted a 2e0oinder to the 2e"ly on Se"tem!er 1-B-. n cto!er1-B-& the (a!or Ar!iter iss)ed an rder granting the motion or e@ec)tion and the iss)ance o a "artialwrit o e@ec)tion ?as ar as reinstatement o herein com"lainants is concerned in consonance with the"rovision o Section 4 o the r)les "artic)larly the last sentence thereo.?


18/53

F)rthermore& its letters dated 4 and + cto!er 1--4 which "resented incontroverti!le "roo that it hadintrod)ced s)!stantial im"rovements on its acilities or the "ast two and a hal years while its a""ealwas "ending were not taken into acco)nt& there!y gravely a!)sing its discretion.

ISS


19/53

el)0P2'MIS'S C*SID'2'D& this Co)rt holds that 2A 3,B, otherwise known as the Pl)nder (aw&as amended !y 2A 37-& is C*STIT

8eld: D)e Process The twin re/)irements o notice and hearing constit)te essential elements o d)e"rocess in the dismissal o em"loyees.This Co)rt has consistently held that the twin re/)irements onotice and hearing constit)te essential elements o d)e "rocess in the dismissal o em"loyees. As tothe re/)irement o notice& it has !een held that the em"loyer m)st )rnish the worker with two writtennotices !eore termination o em"loyment can !e legally eected: aE notice which a""rises theem"loyee o the "artic)lar acts or omissions or which his dismissal is so)ght and& !E s)!se/)entnotice which inorms the em"loyee o the em"loyerJs decision to dismiss him.The essence o d)e "rocess is sim"ly an o""ort)nity to !e heard& and not that an act)al hearing sho)ldalways and indis"ensa!ly !e held.=ith regard to the re/)irement o a hearing& this Co)rt has heldthat the essence o d)e "rocess is sim"ly an o""ort)nity to !e heard& and not that an act)al hearingsho)ld always and indis"ensa!ly !e held.*ote.D)e "rocess was designed to aord an o""ort)nity to !e heard& not that an act)al hearingsho)ld always and indis%"ensa!ly !e held. Pamantasan ng ()ngsod ng Maynila vs. Civil ServiceCommission& 451 SC2A ,7 1--GE

6oson v. '@ec)tive Secretary 4-, SC2A 43- inang

FACTS The case at !ar involves the validity o the s)s"ension rom oice o "etitioner 'd)ardo *onato6oson as Hovernor o the "rovince o *)eva 'ci0a. Private res"ondent scar C. Tinio is the $ice%Hovernor o said "rovince while "rivate res"ondents (oreto P. Pangilinan& Cris")lo S. 'sg)erra& SolitaC. Santos& $icente C. Palilio and *a"oleon H. Interior are mem!ers o the Sangg)niang Panlalawigan.

19


20/53

Private res"ondents "rayed or the s)s"ension or removal o "etitioner or an emergency

a)dit o the "rovincial treas)ry o *)eva 'ci0a and or the review o the "ro"osed loan in light o theinancial condition o the "rovince&

ISS


21/53

*as)g!)& #atangas. The events o this case occ)rred d)ring the inc)m!ency o then PresidentCoraon C. A/)ino. In %e(rar 1/!& President A/)ino iss)ed Proclamation *o. + "rom)lgating aProvisional Constit)tion. As head o the "rovisional government& the President e@ercised legislative"ower K)ntil a legislat)re is elected and convened )nder a new Constit)tion.L In the e@ercise o thislegislative "ower& the President signed on 6)ly 44& 1-B3& Proclamation *o. 1+1 instit)ting aCom"rehensive Agrarian 2eorm Program and '@ec)tive rder *o. 44- "roviding the mechanismsnecessary to initially im"lement the "rogram.n 6)ly 43& 1-B3& the Congress o the Phili""ines ormally convened and took over legislative "owerrom the President. This Congress "assed 2e")!lic Act *o. 773& the Com"rehensive Agrarian 2eorm(aw CA2(E o 1-BB. The Act was signed !y the President on 6)ne 1,& 1-BB and took eect on 6)ne1& 1-BB.#eore the lawJs eectivity& on May 7& 1-BB& "etitioner iled with res"ondent DA2 a vol)ntary oer to sell8acienda Caylaway ")rs)ant to the "rovisions o '.. *o. 44-. 8aciendas Palico and #anilad werelater "laced )nder com")lsory ac/)isition !y res"ondent DA2 in accordance with the CA2(. For a validim"lementation o the CA2 Program& two notices are re/)ired: 1E the &otice of Coverage and letter ofinvitation to a "reliminary conerence sent to the landowner and 4E *otice o Ac/)isition. Theim"lementation o the CA2( is an e@ercise o the StateJs "olice "ower and the "ower o eminentdomain. To the e@tent that the CA2( "rescri!es retention limits to the landowners& there is an e@erciseo "olice "ower or the reg)lation o "rivate "ro"erty in accordance with the Constit)tion. #)t where& tocarry o)t s)ch reg)lation& the owners are de"rived o lands they own in e@cess o the ma@im)m areaallowed& there is also a taking )nder the "ower o eminent domain. The taking contem"lated is not amere limitation o the )se o the land. =hat is re/)ired is the s)rrender o the title to and "hysical"ossession o the said e@cess and all !eneicial rights accr)ing to the owner in avor o the armer!eneiciary.

ISS

2


22/53

The res"ondent iled or "etition o mandam)s& certiorari& and "rohi!ition. The 2TC o *C2 r)led inavor o the res"ondent. Secretary o 6)stice was made to iss)e a co"y o the re/)ested "a"ers& aswell as cond)cting )rther "roceedings.

I**6*0 1. =* "rivate is res"ondent entitled to the two !asic d)e "rocess rights o notice andhearing.

8eld: '@tradition Co)rt holds now that "rivate res"ondent is !eret o the right to notice and hearingd)ring the eval)ation stage o the e@tradition "rocess.=e now hold that "rivate res"ondent is !ereto the right to notice and hearing d)ring the eval)ation stage o the e@tradition "rocess. There is no"rovision in the 2P%


23/53

I**60 =hether or not "etitionerJs ail)re to "ay docket and other law)l ees within the"rescri!ed "eriod de"rived him o "roced)ral d)e "rocess>RING0 ?Proced)ral r)les are not to !e !elittled or dismissed sim"ly !eca)se their non%o!servancemay have res)lted in "re0)dice to a "arty;s s)!stantive rights. (ike all r)les& they are re/)ired to !eollowed e@ce"t only or the most "ers)asive o reasons when they may !e rela@ed to relieve a litiganto an in0)stice not commens)rate with the degree o his tho)ghtlessness in not com"lying with the"roced)re "rescri!ed.? The Co)rt reiterates that r)les o "roced)re& es"ecially those "rescri!ing thetime within which certain acts m)st !e done& ?have ot !een held as a!sol)tely indis"ensa!lenecessaryE to the "revention o needless delays and to the orderly and s"eedy discharge o !)siness.The reason or r)les o this nat)re is !eca)se the dis"atch o !)siness !y co)rts wo)ld !e im"ossi!le&and intolera!le delays wo)ld res)lt& witho)t r)les governing "ractice. S)ch r)les are a necessaryincident to the "ro"er& eicient and orderly discharge o 0)dicial )nctions.? Indeed& in no )ncertainterms& the Co)rt held that the said r)les may !e rela@ed only in ?e@ce"tionally meritorio)s cases.?>6R6%'R6& the Petition is here!y '(A&)*D. #ayom!ong& *)eva $icaya #ranch 43E in CivilCase *o.5,B is declared &A and */*C+)O(0.

Aga!on v. *(2C 554 SC2A 3+& H2 1B7-+& *ov. 13& 4,,5 8ael Dal)s

%A27*: Private res"ondent 2iviera 8ome Im"rovements& Inc. is engaged in the !)siness o selling andinstalling ornamental and constr)ction materials. It em"loyed "etitioner $irgilio Aga!on and 6ennyAga!on as gy"s)m !oard and cornice installers on 6an)ary 4& 1--4 )ntil Fe!r)ary 4+& 1--- when theywere dismissed or a!andonment o work. Petitioners then iled a com"laint or illegal dismissal. The(a!or Ar!iter rendered a decision declaring the dismissal illegal. n a""eal& the *(2C reversed thedecision !eca)se it o)nd that the "etitioners had a!andoned their work and were not entitled to!ackwages and se"aration "ay. The Co)rt o A""eals in t)rn r)led that the dismissal o the "etitionerswas not illegal !eca)se they had a!andoned their em"loyment.

I**60=hether or not "roced)res or dismissal were o!served> illegal dismissalE

6D0 *o. Private res"ondent did not ollow the notice re/)irements and instead arg)ed that sendingnotices to the last known addresses wo)ld have !een )seless !eca)se they did not reside thereanymore.

8eld: 9es. There can !e no do)!t that the e@ercise o the "olice "ower o the Phili""ine Hovernment!elongs to the (egislat)re and that this "ower is limited only !y the Acts o Congress and those)ndamentals "rinci"les which lie at the o)ndation o all re")!lican orms o government. An Act o the(egislat)re which is o!vio)sly and )ndo)!tedly oreign to any o the ")r"oses o the "olice "ower andintereres with the ordinary en0oyment o "ro"erty wo)ld& witho)t do)!t& !e held to !e invalid. #)t wherethe Act is reasona!ly within a "ro"er consideration o and care or the ")!lic health& saety& or comort& itsho)ld not !e dist)r!ed !y the co)rts.?The "ower vested in the legislat)re !y the constit)tion to make& ordain& and esta!lish all manner owholesome and reasona!le laws& stat)tes& and ordinances& either with "enalties or witho)t& notre")gnant to the constit)tion& as they shall 0)dge to !e or the good and welare o the commonwealth&and o the s)!0ects o the same.??The "olice "ower o the State& so ar& has not received a )ll and com"lete deinition. It may !e said&however& to !e the right o the State& or state )nctionary& to "rescri!e reg)lations or the good order&"eace& health& "rotection& comort& convenience and morals o the comm)nity& which do not ... violate

any o the "rovisions o the organic law.??It the "olice "owerG has or its o!0ect the im"rovement o social and economic conditioned aectingthe comm)nity at large and collectively with a view to !ring a!o)t ?he greatest good o the greatestn)m!er.?Co)rts have consistently and wisely declined to set any i@ed limitations )"on s)!0ects callingor the e@ercise o this "ower. It is elastic and is e@ercised rom time to time as varying social conditionsdemand correction.??It may !e said in a general way that the "olice "ower e@tends to all the great ")!lic needs. It may !e")t orth in aid o what is sanctioned !y )sage& or held !y the "revailing morality or strong and"re"onderant o"inion to !e greatly and immediately necessary to the ")!lic welare.??It is m)ch easier to "erceive and realie the e@istence and so)rces o this "olice "ower than to mark its!o)ndaries& or to "rescri!e limits to its e@ercise.?

23


24/53

8eo4le v. %a;ar)o 1$: 8hil. ::3 Gisa)io

%acts0The m)nici"al co)ncil o #aao& Camarines S)r stating among others that constr)ction o a!)ilding& which will destroy the view o the "laa& shall not !e allowed and thereore !edestroyed at the e@"ense o the owner& enacted an ordinance. 8erein a""ellant iled a writtenre/)est with the inc)m!ent m)nici"al mayor or a "ermit to constr)ct a !)ilding ad0acent totheir gasoline station on a "arcel o land registered in Fa0ardo;s name& located along thenational highway and se"arated rom the ")!lic "laa !y a creek. The re/)est was denied&or the reason among others that the "ro"osed !)ilding wo)ld destroy the view or !ea)ty othe ")!lic "laa. Deendants reiterated their re/)est or a !)ilding "ermit& !)t again themayor t)rned down the re/)est. =here)"on& a""ellants "roceeded with the constr)ction othe !)ilding witho)t a "ermit& !eca)se they needed a "lace o residence very !adly& theirormer ho)se having !een destroyed !y a ty"hoon and hitherto they had !een living onleased "ro"erty. Thereater& deendants were charged in violation o the ordinance ands)!se/)ently convicted.

Isse0 =hether or *ot the ordinance is a valid e@ercise o "olice "ower>

el)0*o. It is not a valid e@ercise o "olice "ower. The ordinance is )nreasona!le ando""ressive& in that it o"erates to "ermanently de"rive a""ellants o the right to )se their own"ro"erty hence& it overste"s the !o)nds o "olice "ower& and amo)nts to a taking oa""ellantJs "ro"erty witho)t 0)st com"ensation. =e do not overlook that the modern tendencyis to regard the !ea)tiication o neigh!orhoods as cond)cive to the comort and ha""iness oresidents.

As the case now stands& every str)ct)re that may !e erected on a""ellants; land& regardlesso its own !ea)ty& stands condemned )nder the ordinance in /)estion& !eca)se it wo)ldinterere with the view o the ")!lic "laa rom the highway. The a""ellants wo)ld& in eect&!e constrained to let their land remain idle and )n)sed or the o!vio)s ")r"ose or which it is!est s)ited& !eing )r!an in character. To legally achieve that res)lt& the m)nici"ality m)st givea""ellants 0)st com"ensation and an o""ort)nity to !e heard.

'rmita%Malate 8otel "erator vs. City o Manila 4, SC2A B5- ttong

Facts: Petitioners assailed the constit)tionality o Manila rdinance *o. 537, reg)lating the o"eration

o hotels& motels and lodging ho)ses on the gro)nd that it is )nreasona!le and hence violative to thed)e "rocess cla)se& wherein it re/)ires esta!lishments to "rovide g)est registration orms on the lo!!yo"en or ")!lic view at all times.

2es"ondent City Mayor contends that the challenged ordinance was a valid and "ro"er e@ercise o"olice "ower meas)re or the "ro"er ")r"ose o c)r!ing immorality. An e@"lanatory note or thechallenged ordinance made mention o the alarming increase in the rate o "rostit)tion& ad)ltery andornication in Manila tracea!le in great "art to the e@istence o motels and the like.

Iss)e: =hether or not rdinance *o. 537, is violative o the d)e "rocess cla)se.

8eld: D)e "rocess Standards o legal inirmity.There is no controlling and "recise deinition o d)e"rocess. It )rnishes tho)gh a standard to which governmental action sho)ld conorm in orderthat de"rivation o lie& li!erty or "ro"erty& in each a""ro"riate case& !e valid. The standard od)e "rocess which m)st e@ist !oth as a "roced)ral and as s)!stantive re/)isite to ree thechallenged ordinance& or any governmental action or that matter& rom im")tation o legalinirmity& is res"onsiveness to the s)"remacy o reason. o!edience to the dictates o 0)stice. Itwo)ld !e an aront to reason to stigmatie an ordinance enacted "recisely to meet what am)nici"al lawmaking !ody considers an evil o rather serio)s "ro "ortions as an ar!itrary andca"ricio)s e@ercise o a)thority. =hat sho)ld !e deemed )nreasona!le and what wo)ldamo)nt to an a!dication o the "ower to govern is inaction in the ace o an admitteddeterioration o the state o ")!lic morals.In avor o the o"erators. 2ight to "ro"erty and to earn a living.

9not v. Intermediate Co)rt o A""eals 15B SC2A 7- Falcatan

%acts0Petitioner Trans"orted si@ cara!aos in a ")m" !oat when they were coniscated !y the stationcommander o *)evo& Iloilo& or violation o ' no. 747. The "etitioner s)ed or recovery& and the 2TCiss)ed a writ o replevinrecover23)"on his iling o a supersedeas!ond o P 14& ,,,. Co)rt s)stainedconiscation o the cara!aos and& and& since they co)ld no longer !e "rod)ced& ordered theconiscation o the !ond. Co)rt declined the constit)tionality o ' 747& as raised !y "etitioner or lacko a)thority. Petitioner a""ealed to IAC& which )"held decision o the lower co)rt. .

Isse0=hether or not e@ec)tive order no. 747 is constit)tional and within d)e "rocess>

el)0The co)rt inds that the challenged meas)res is an in"alid eercise o the police power!eca)se the method em"loyed to conserve the cara!aos is not reasona!ly necessary to the ")r"ose othe law and& worse is )nd)ly o""ressive. D)e "rocess is violated !eca)se the owner o the "ro"ertyconiscated is denied the right to !e heard in his deense and is immediately condemned and ")nished.The strength o democracy lies not in the rights it g)arantees !)t in the co)rage o the "eo"le to invokethem whenever they are ignored or violated. 2ights are !)t wea"ons on the wall i& like e@"ensiveta"estry& all they do is em!ellish and im"ress. =e agree with the res"ondent co)rt& that the "olicestation commander who coniscated the cara!aos is not lia!le in damages or enorcing the e@ec)tiveorder.=hereore '@ec)tive order *o. 747 is here!y declared )nconstit)tional. Decision o Co)rt o A""eals isreversed. The supersedeas!ond is cancelled and the amo)nt thereo is ordered restored to the"etitioner.

Agstin v. 6), // *2RA 15 ag(as

Facts: Ag)stin is the owner o a $olkswagen #eetle Car. 8e is assailing the validity o (etter oInstr)ction *o 44-& which re/)ires all motor vehicles to have early warning devices "artic)larly to e/)i"

them with a "air o Krelectoried triang)lar early warning devices.L Ag)stin is arg)ing that this order is

)nconstit)tional& harsh& cr)el& and )nconsciona!le to the motoring ")!lic. Cars are already e/)i""ed

with !linking lights which is already eno)gh to "rovide warning to other motorists. And that the mandate

to com"el motorists to !)y a set o relectoried early warning devices is red)ndant and wo)ld only

make man)act)rers and dealers instant millionaires.

24


25/53

I**60 =hether or not the said is ' is valid.

6D0 Such early warnin! de"ice re.uire#ent is not an epensi"e redundancy, nor oppressi"e,

or car ownerswhose cars are already e/)i""ed with 1E Q!linking%lights in the ore and at o said motor

vehicles&J 4E Q!attery%"owered !linking lights inside motor vehicles&J +E Q!)ilt%in relectoried ta"es on

ront and rear !)m"ers o motor vehicles&J or 5E Qwell%lighted two 4E "etrole)m lam"s the inkeE . . .

!eca)se: /ein! uni"ersal a#on! the si!natory countries to the said $%'& 0ienna Con"entions,

and visi!le even )nder adverse conditions at a distance o at least 5,, meters& any motorist rom thisco)ntry or rom any "art o the world& who sees a relectoried rectang)lar early warning device

installed on the roads& highways or e@"ressways& will concl)de& witho)t thinking& that somewhere along

the travelled "ortion o that road& highway& or e@"ressway& there is a motor vehicle which is stationary&

stalled or disa!led which o!str)cts or endangers "assing traic. n the other hand& a motorist who

sees any o the aorementioned other !)ilt%in warning devices or the "etrole)m lam"s will not

immediately get ade/)ate advance warning !eca)se he will still think what that !linking light is all

a!o)t. Is it an emergency vehicle> Is it a law enorcement car> Is it an am!)lance> S)ch con)sion or

)ncertainty in the mind o the motorist will th)s increase& rather than decrease& the danger o collision.

Balacit v. 2%I 1!3 *2RA 1/" A()ra;a

Decision:9es& the law was enacted to remedy a real act)al threat and danger to national economy"osed !y alien dominance and control o the retail !)sinesses and ree citiens and co)ntry rom s)chdominance and control. It "rotects its own "ersonality and ins)res its sec)rity and )t)re. The law does

not violate the e/)al "rotection cla)se o the Constit)tion !eca)se s)icient gro)nds e@ist or thedistinction !etween alien and citien in the e@ercise o the occ)"ation reg)lated& nor the d)e "rocess olaw cla)se& !eca)se the law is "ros"ective in o"eration and recognies the "rivilege o aliens alreadyengaged in the occ)"ation and reasona!ly "rotects their "rivilege. The e/)al "rotection cla)se is notinringed !y legislation which a""lies only to those "ersons alling within a s"eciied class& i it a""liesalike to all "ersons within s)ch class& and reasona!le gro)nds e@ists or making a distinction !etweenthose who all within s)ch class and those who do not. The wisdom and eicacy o the law to carry o)tits o!0ectives a""ear to !e "lainly evident as a matter o act it seems not only a""ro"riate !)tact)ally necessary and that in any case s)ch matter alls within the "rerogative o the (egislat)re&with whose "ower and discretion the 6)dicial de"artment o the Hovernment may not interere. The"rovisions o the law are clearly em!raced in the title& and this s)ers rom no d)"licity and has not

misled the legislators or the segment o the "o")lation aected. (astly& it cannot !e said to !e void ors)""osed conlict with treaty o!ligations !eca)se no treaty has act)ally !een entered into on thes)!0ect and the "olice "ower may not !e c)rtailed or s)rrendered !y any treaty or any otherconventional agreement.

$illegas v. 8i) Chiong Tsai Pao 8o B7 SC2A 43, Fernande

%A27*An ordinance o the City o Manila "rohi!ited the em"loyment o aliens in any occ)"ation or toengage or "artici"ate in any "osition or occ)"ation or !)siness en)merated& whether "ermanent&tem"orary or cas)al& witho)t irst sec)ring an em"loyment "ermit rom the Mayor o Manila and "ayingthe "ermit ee o P,.,, e@ce"t "ersons em"loyed in the di"lomatic or cons)lar missions o oreignco)ntries& or in the technical assistance "rograms o !oth the Phili""ine Hovernment and any oreigngovernment& and those working in their res"ective ho)seholds& and mem!ers o religio)s orders orcongregations& sect or denomination& who are not "aid monetarily or in kind. 2es"ondent& an alien&em"loyed in Manila& !ro)ght s)it and o!tained 0)dgment rom the CFI declaring the ordinance n)ll andvoid.6D The contention that rdinance *o. 7+3 is not a ")rely ta@ or reven)e meas)re !eca)se its"rinci"al ")r"ose is reg)latory in nat)re has no merit. =hile it is tr)e that the irst "art which re/)iresthat the alien shall sec)re an em"loyment "ermit rom the Mayor involves the e@ercise o discretion and0)dgment in the "rocessing and a""roval or disa""roval o a""lications or em"loyment "ermits andthereore is reg)latory in character the second "art which re/)ires the "ayment o P,.,, asem"loyee;s ee is not reg)latory !)t a reven)e meas)re. There is no logic or 0)stiication in e@actingP,.,, rom aliens who have !een cleared or em"loyment. It is o!vio)s that the ")r"ose o theordinance is to raise money )nder the g)ise o reg)lation.

rdinance *o. 7+3 does not lay down any criterion or standard to g)ide the Mayor in the e@ercise ohis discretion. It has !een held that where an ordinance o a m)nici"ality ails to state any "olicy or toset )" any standard to g)ide or limit the mayor;s action& e@"resses no ")r"ose to !e attained !yre/)iring a "ermit& en)merates no conditions or its grant or re)sal& and entirely lacks standard& th)sconerring )"on the Mayor ar!itrary and )nrestricted "ower to grant or deny the iss)ance o !)ilding"ermits& s)ch ordinance is invalid&

Documents

Consti2 1st SET Recitation Final