Judicial Case 1-10 (Digested) (1)

8/14/2019 Judicial Case 1-10 (Digested) (1)

1/48

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT(DIGESTED CASES)

UDICIAL DEPARTMENT

1. SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA

FACTS:Teodoro Santiago, Jr. was a graduatingtudent at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City.

Prior to the end of the school year, the said schoolonstituted a Committee on the ating of

Students for !onor com"osed of teachers of theaid school for the "ur"ose of selecting the

honor students of its graduating class. Theabo#e$named committee deliberated and ad%udgedTeodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the firstand second "lace being obtained by his two otherlassmates, Socoro &edina and Patricia 'i(gat. Three

days before the date of graduation, the third"lacer Teodoro Santiago, Jr., re"resented by hismother and with his father as counsel, sought then#alidation of the ran)ing of honor studentsby instituting an action for certiorari, in%unction anddamages in the Court of *irst +nstance of Cotabato

against the abo#e$named committee members alongwith the istrict Su"er#isor and the -cademicSu"er#isor of the "lace. The com"laint alleges gra#eabuse of discretions and irregularities in the selectionof honor students in the said school such as theollowing /a0the "lacing of Patricia 'i(gat in theecond "lace instead of him when in fact he had

been a consistent honor student and the former hadne#er been his close ri#al before e1ce"t in 2rade 3wherein she ran)ed third4 /b0the tutorial gi#en byheir teacher in English to the first honor duringummer #acation4 /c0the illegal constitution of theaid committee as the same was com"osed of all the

2rade 3+ teachers only, in #iolation of the Ser#ice&anual for Teachers of the 5ureau of Public Schoolswhich "ro#ides that the committee to select thehonor students should be com"osed of all teachers in2rades 3 and 3+4 /d0the changing of the final ratingson their grading sheets4 /e0 that "etitioner "ersonallya""ealed the matter to the School Princi"al, to theistrict Su"er#isor, and to the -cademic Su"er#isor,but said officials "assed the buc) to eachother to delay his grie#ances, and as to a""eal to higher authorities will be too late, there is no other"eedy and ade6uate remedy under theircumstances. es"ondents mo#ed for the dismissal

of the case on the grounds /70 that the action forertiorari was im"ro"er, and /80 that e#en assuminghe "ro"riety of the action, the 6uestion brought

before the court had already become academic. Themotion to dismiss was granted.

SSUE:9hether or not the action for certiorari filedby "etitioner is "ro"er.

RULING:The action for certiorari is not "ro"er.Certiorari is a s"ecial ci#il action instituted againstany tribunal, board, or officer e1ercising %udicialunctions /Section 7, ule :;0. - %udicial function is

an act "erformed by #irtue of %udicial "owers4 the

e1ercise of a %udicial function is the doing ofsomething in the nature of the action of the courtC.J. 77>80. +n order that a s"ecial ci#il action ofcertiorari may be in#o)ed in this %urisdiction thefollowing circumstances must e1ist /70 that theremust be a s"ecific contro#ersy in#ol#ing rights of"ersons or "ro"erty and said contro#ersy is brougbefore a tribunal, board or officer for hearing anddetermination of their res"ecti#e rights andobligations. +t is e#ident that the so called commiton the rating of students for honor whose actions

6uestioned in this case e1ercised neither %udicial n6uasi$%udicial functions in the "erformance of itsassigned tas). 5efore tribunal, board or officer mae1ercise %udicial or 6uasi %udicial acts, it must beclothed with "ower and authority to determine whthe law is and thereu"on ad%udicate the res"ecti#rights of the contending "arties. +n the instant casthere is nothing on record about any rule of lawwhich "ro#ides that when teachers sit down toassess the indi#idual merits of their "u"ils for"ur"oses of rating them for honors, such functionin#ol#es the determination of what the law is andthat they are therefore automatically #ested with

%udicial or 6uasi %udicial functions.

2. DAZA V. SINGSONTribunal and its Composition

The 'aban ng emo)rati)ong Pili"ino /'P0 reorgani?ed resulting to a "olitical realignment inlower house. 'P also changed its re"resentatiothe Commission on -""ointments. They withdrewseat occu"ied by a?a /'P member0 and ga#e the new 'P member. Thereafter the chamelected a new set of re"resentati#es in the which consisted of the original members e1ce"t who was re"laced by Singson. a?a 6uestioned s

re"lacement.

ISSUE: 9hether or not a change resulting from"olitical realignment #alidly changes the com"osiof the Commission on -""ointments.

HELD: -s "ro#ided in the constitution, @there shobe a Commission on -""ointments consistingtwel#e Senators and twel#e members of the !ouse"resentati#es elected by each !ouse res"ection the basis of "ro"ortional re"resentationA of "olitical "arties therein, this necessarily connotesauthority of each house of Congress to see to it t

the re6uirement is duly com"lied with. Thereformay ta)e a""ro"riate measures, not only u"oninitial organi?ation of the Commission but subse6uently thereto BT the court.

3. MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS V. CA

FACTS:&S+ entered into an D+nterim 'ease -greement 5P in -ugust 8:, 7F>: regarding the 5ay #iew !Pro"erties for a minimum term of < months until"ro"erties are sold by 5P. +n ecember 7Proclamation GH ordered dis"ositionI"ri#ati?atio

some 2o#ernment "ro"erties including the 5ay #


2/48

!otel, the dis"osition of which is transferred from5P to -sset Pri#ati?ation Trust /-PT0. &S+ was latternotified that the lease will be terminated to effect thedis"osition. &S+ sent a letter notifying -PT that thePro"erty will be a#ailable after ;,

&S+ sent a letter to -PT stating that in their o"inion,ha#ing leased the "ro"erty for more than 7 year the

agreement is long term in character and &S+ ha#eac6uired "reference in buying the "ro"erty, whileem"hasi?ing that &S+ has a legal lien on the "ro"ertybecause of its ad#ances for the hotel o"erations ande"airs which amounted to P78 &illion. -PT answered

&S+ saying that there was no agreement to thateffect. The bidding too) "lace on Bo#ember =, 7F>;,but &S+ did not "artici"ate. &a)ati$-gro Trading and'a *ili"ina y 2ongco Cor"oration were awarded the"ro"erty as the highest bidder for P>G &illion.Bo#ember 88, 7F>; &S+ filed a com"laint withn%unction on awarding and transfer of the "ro"ertyo the winning bidders. Trial court granted, but the

C- re#ersed the trial court.

SSUE:9hether &S+ as lessee has a right to retain the"ro"erty "ending reimbursement of its e1"ensesK

HELD:Bo, &S+ as lessee has no right to retain the "ro"erty"ending reimbursement. &S+ being a lessee )nowhat the "ossession of the "ro"erty was tem"oraryhereby introducing im"ro#ements and re"airs by its

own ris). &S+ cannot be considered a builder in goodaith for that matter because he ne#er "ossessed or

occu"ied the said "ro"erty as owner. 9hile &S+Lsight to be reimbursed cannot be denied, it does notha#e any right of retention.

The lease agreement also does not gi#e any"referential right to "urchase the "ro"erty in6uestion, unless it was clearly sti"ulated. +n thisase, no such sti"ulation was made and &S+s

un%ustified failure to bid in the "ublic bidding for the!otel may only be attributed or blamed to &S+.

4. MALAGA V. PENACHAOS

-CTS The +loilo State College of *isheries /+SC*0hrough its Pre$6ualifications, 5ids and -wardsCommittee /P5-C0 caused the "ublication in theBo#ember 8G, 8: and 8>, 7F>> issues of the 9estern3isayas aily an +n#itation to 5id for the constructionof a &icro 'aboratory 5uilding at +SC*. The noticeannounced that the last day for the submission of"re$6ualification re6uirements was on ecember 8,7F>>, and that the bids would be recei#ed ando"ened on ecember 78, 7F>> at < oMcloc) in theafternoon.

Petitioners &alaga and Ba%arro, doing business under

he name of 5E Construction and 5est 5uilt

Construction, res"ecti#ely, submitted their "re$6ualification documents at two oMcloc) in theafternoon of ecember 8, 7F>>. Petitioner cceasubmitted his own PE$C7 on ecember G, 7F>>. three of them were not allowed to "artici"ate in thbidding as their documents were considered late.

n ecember 78, 7F>>, the "etitioners filed acom"laint with the +loilo TC against the officers oP5-C for their refusal without %ust cause to acce"tthem resulting to their non$inclusion in the list of "

6ualified bidders. They sought to the resetting of ecember 78, 7F>> bidding and the acce"tance otheir documents. They also as)ed that if the biddhad already been conducted, the defendants bedirected not to award the "ro%ect "ending resolutiof their com"laint.

n the same date, Judge 'eba6uin issued arestraining order "rohibiting P5-C from conductinthe bidding and award the "ro%ect. The defendantfiled a motion to lift the restraining order on theground that the court is "rohibited from issuing suorder, "reliminary in%unction and "reliminary

mandatory in%unction in go#ernment infrastructur"ro%ect under Sec. 7 of P.. 7>7>. They alsocontended that the "reliminary in%unction hadbecome moot and academic as it was ser#ed aftethe bidding had been awarded and closed.

n January 8, 7F>F, the trial court lifted therestraining order and denied the "etition for"reliminary in%unction. +t declared that the buildinsought to be constructed at the +SC* was aninfrastructure "ro%ect of the go#ernment fallingwithin the co#erage of the sub%ect law.

ISSUE:9hether or not +SC* is a go#ernmentinstrumentality sub%ect to the "ro#isions of P 7>

RULING:The 7F>; -dministrati#e Code defines ago#ernment instrumentality as follows

+nstrumentality refers to any agency of the Bation2o#ernment, not integrated within the de"artmenframewor), #ested with s"ecial functions or

%urisdiction by law, endowed with some if not allcor"orate "owers, administering s"ecial funds, anen%oying o"erational autonomy, usually through a

charter. This term includes regulatory agencies,chartered institutions, and go#ernment$owned orcontrolled cor"orations. /Sec. 8 /G0 +ntroductoryPro#isions0.

The same Code describes a chartered institutionthus

Chartered institution $ refers to any agencyorgani?ed or o"erating under a s"ecial charter, an#ested by law with functions relating to s"ecificconstitutional "olicies or ob%ecti#es. This termincludes the state uni#ersities and colleges, and t


3/48

monetary authority of the state. /Sec. 8 /780ntroductory Pro#isions0.

t is clear from the abo#e definitions that +SC* is ahartered institution and is therefore co#ered by P..

7>7>.

There are also indications in its charter that +SC* isa go#ernment instrumentality. *irst, it was created in"ursuance of the integrated fisheries de#elo"ment"olicy of the State, a "riority "rogram of thego#ernment to effect the socio$economic life of thenation. Second, the Treasurer of the e"ublic of thePhili""ines shall also be the e1$officio Treasurer ofhe state college with its accounts and e1"enses to

be audited by the Commission on -udit or its dulyauthori?ed re"resentati#e. Third, heads of bureausand offices of the Bational 2o#ernment areauthori?ed to loan or transfer to it, u"on re6uest ofhe "resident of the state college, such a""aratus,

e6ui"ment, or su""lies and e#en the ser#ices of suchem"loyees as can be s"ared without seriousdetriment to "ublic ser#ice. 'astly, an additionalamount of P7.G& had been a""ro"riated out of the

unds of the Bational Treasury and it was alsodecreed in its charter that the funds andmaintenance of the state college would henceforthbe included in the 2eneral -""ro"riations 'aw.Be#ertheless, it does not automatically follow thatSC* is co#ered by the "rohibition in the said decreeas there are irregularities "resent surrounding theransaction that %ustified the in%unction issued asegards to the bidding and the award of the "ro%ectciting the case of atiles #s. Sucaldito0.

. PACU V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Political Law Civic EfficiencyThe "etitioning colleges and uni#ersities re6uest that-ct Bo. 8;H: as amended by -ct Bo. H be declaredunconstitutional, because -.0 They de"ri#e ownersof schools and colleges as well as teachers and"arents of liberty and "ro"erty without due "rocessof law4 5.0 They de"ri#e "arents of their natural rightand duty to rear their children for ci#ic efficiency4and C.0 Their "ro#isions conferring on the Secretaryof Education unlimited "ower and discretion to"rescribe rules and standards constitute an unlawfuldelegation of legislati#e "ower. Petitioners com"lain

hat before o"ening a school the owner must securea "ermit from the Secretary of Education. Petitionerseason out, @this section lea#es e#erything to the

uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of Educationor his de"artment. The Secretary of Education isgi#en the "ower to fi1 the standard. +n "lainanguage, the statute turns o#er to the Secretary ofEducation the e1clusi#e authority of the legislature toormulate standard . . .A -lso, the te1tboo)s to be

used in the "ri#ate schools recogni?ed or authori?edby the go#ernment shall be submitted to the 5oard5oard of Te1tboo)s0 which shall ha#e the "ower to

"rohibit the use of any of said te1tboo)s which it may

ind to be against the law or to offend the dignity and

honor of the go#ernment and "eo"le of Phili""ines, or which it may find to be against general "olicies of the go#ernment, or which it deem "edagogically unsuitable.

HELD: Petitioners do not show how these standaha#e in%ured any of them or interfered with to"eration. 9herefore, no reason e1ists for themassail neither the #alidity of the "ower nor e1ercise of the "ower by the Secretary of EducatBo %usticiable contro#ersy has been "resented to

9e are not informed that the 5oard on Te1tbohas "rohibited this or that te1t, or that "etitioners refused or intend to refuse to subsome te1tboo)s, and are in danger of losubstantial "ri#ileges or rights for so refusing.

!. MARIANO V. COMELEC

FACTS:Juanito &ariano, a resident of &a)ati, alonwith residents of Taguig suing as ta1"ayers, assaiSections 8, G7 and G8 of .-. Bo. ;>G= /@-n -ctCon#erting the &unici"ality of &a)ati into a !ighlyrbani?ed City to be )nown as the City of &a)atiA

-nother "etition which contends theunconstitutionality of .-. Bo. ;>G= was also filed

John !. smena as a senator, ta1"ayer andconcerned citi?en.

ISSUES:9hether Section 8 of .-. Bo. ;>G=delineated the land areas of the "ro"osed city of&a)ati #iolating sections ; and =GH of the 'ocal2o#ernment Code on s"ecifying metes and boundwith technical descri"tions

9hether Section G7, -rticle N of .-. Bo. ;>G=collides with Section >, -rticle N and Section ;,-rticle 3+ of the Constitution stressing that they necityOs ac6uisition of a new cor"orate e1istence wilallow the incumbent mayor to e1tend his term tomore than two e1ecuti#e terms as allowed by theConstitution

9hether the addition of another legislati#e distric&a)ati is unconstitutional as the rea""ortionmentcannot be made by a s"ecial law

HELD"RULING:

Section 8 of .-. Bo. ;>G= states that

Sec. 8. The City of &a)ati. The &unici"ality of&a)ati shall be con#erted into a highly urbani?ed to be )nown as the City of &a)ati, hereinafterreferred to as the City, which shall com"rise the"resent territory of the &unici"ality of &a)ati in&etro"olitan &anila -rea o#er which it has

%urisdiction bounded on the northeast by Pasig i#and beyond by the City of &andaluyong and the&unici"ality of Pasig4 on the southeast by themunici"alities of Pateros and Taguig4 on thesouthwest by the City of Pasay and the &unici"ali


4/48

of Taguig4 and, on the northwest, by the City of&anila.

Em"hasis has been "ro#ided in the "ro#ision underdis"ute. Said delineation did not change e#en by annch the land area "re#iously co#ered by &a)ati as amunici"ality. +t must be noted that the re6uirementof metes and bounds was meant merely as a tool inhe establishment of '2s. +t is not an end in itself.

urthermore, at the time of consideration or .-. Bo.;>G=, the territorial dis"ute between themunici"alities of &a)ati and Taguig o#er *ort5onifacio was under court litigation. ut ofbecoming a sense of res"ect to co$e6ual de"artmentof go#ernment, legislators felt that the dis"utehould be left to the courts to decide.

Section G7 of .-. Bo. ;>G= "ro#ides that

Sec. G7. fficials of the City of &a)ati. Thee"resent electi#e officials of the &unici"ality of

&a)ati shall continue as the officials of the City of

&a)ati and shall e1ercise their "owers and functionsuntil such time that a new election is held and theduly elected officials shall ha#e already 6ualified andassume their offices Pro#ided, The new city willac6uire a new cor"orate e1istence. The a""ointi#eofficials and em"loyees of the City shall li)ewiseontinues e1ercising their functions and duties andhey shall be automatically absorbed by the city

go#ernment of the City of &a)ati.

Section >, -rticle N and section ;, -rticle 3+ of theConstitution "ro#ide the following

Sec. >. The term of office of electi#e local officials,e1ce"t barangay officials, which shall be determinedby law, shall be three years and no such official shaller#e for more than three consecuti#e terms.

3oluntary renunciation of the office for any length ofime shall not be considered as an interru"tion in theontinuity of his ser#ice for the full term for which he

was elected.

Sec. ;. The &embers of the !ouse of e"resentati#eshall be elected for a term of three years which shall

begin, unless otherwise "ro#ided by law, at noon onhe thirtieth day of June ne1t following their election.

Bo &ember of the !ouse of e"resentati#es shaller#e for more than three consecuti#e terms.

3oluntary renunciation of the office for any length ofime shall not be considered as an interru"tion in theontinuity of his ser#ice for the full term for which he

was elected.

This challenge on the contro#ersy cannot beentertained as the "remise on the issue is on theoccurrence of many contingent e#ents. Consideringhat these e#ents may or may not ha""en,

"etitioners merely "ose a hy"othetical issue which

has yet to ri"en to an actual case or contro#ersy.

&oreo#er, only &ariano among the "etitioners is aresident of Taguig and are not the "ro"er "arties raise this abstract issue.

Section G/70, -rticle 3+ of the Constitution clearly"ro#ides that the Congress may be com"rised of nmore than two hundred fifty members, unlessotherwise "ro#ided by law. -s thus worded, theConstitution did not "reclude Congress fromincreasing its membershi" by "assing a law, other

than a general rea""ortionment of the law.

#. MACASIANO V. NHA

E S ' T + B

DAVIDE$ JR.$ J.:

Petitioner see)s to ha#e this Court declare asunconstitutional Sections 8> and == of e"ublic -

Bo. ;8;F, otherwise )nown as the rbane#elo"ment and !ousing -ct of 7FF8. !e "redicahis locust standi on his being a consultant of thee"artment of Public 9or)s and !ighways /P9!"ursuant to a Contract of Consultancy on "eratiofor emo#al of bstructions and Encroachments oPro"erties of Public omain /e1ecuted immediateafter his retirement on 8 January 7FF8 from thePhili""ine Bational Police0 and his being a ta1"aye-s to the first, he alleges that said Sections 8> an== Qcontain the seeds of a ri"ening contro#ersy thser#e as drawbac)Q to his Qtas)s and dutiesregarding demolition of illegal structuresQ4 becaus

of the said sections, he Qis unable to continue thedemolition of illegal structures which he assiduousand faithfully carried out in the "ast.Q1-s a ta1"ahe alleges that Qhe has a direct interest in seeing it that "ublic funds are "ro"erly and lawfullydisbursed.Q 2

e"ublic -ct Bo. ;8;F was a""ro#ed on 8= &arch7FF8 and "ublished in the = &ay 7FF8 issue of thefficial 2a?ette.3The challenged "ro#isions thereread as follows

SEC. 8>. Eviction and Demolition.

E#iction or demolition as a "racticeshall be discouraged. E#iction ordemolition, howe#er, may be alloweunder the following situations

/a0 9hen "ersons or entities occu"ydanger areas such as esteros, railrotrac)s, garbage dum"s, ri#erban)s,shorlines, waterways, and other "u"laces such as sidewal)s, roads, "aand "laygrounds4


5/48

/b0 9hen go#ernment infrastructure"ro%ects with a#ailable funding areabout to be im"lemented4 or

/c0 9hen there is a court order fore#iction and demolition.

+n the e1ecution of e#iction ordemolition orders in#ol#ingunder"ri#ileged and homeless citi?ens,the following shall be mandatory

/70 Botice u"on the affected "ersons orentities at least thirty /0 -de6uate relocation, whether

tem"orary or "ermanent Provided,however,That in cases of e#iction anddemolition "ursuant to a court orderin#ol#ing under"ri#ileged andhomeless citi?ens, relocations shall beunderta)en by the local go#ernmentunit concerned and the Bational!ousing -uthority with the assistanceof other go#ernment agencies withinforty$fi#e/=G0 days from ser#ice ofnotice of final %udgment by the court,after which "eriod the said order shallbe e1ecuted Provided, further, Thatshould relocation not be "ossible

within the said "eriod financialassistance in the amount e6ui#alenthe "re#ailing minimum daily wagemulti"lied by si1ty /:H0 days shall be1tended to the affected families bythe local go#ernment concerned.

The e"artment of the +nterior and'ocal 2o#ernment and the !ousingand rban e#elo"ment CoordinatiCouncil shall %ointly "romulgate the

necessary rules and regulations tocarry out the abo#e "ro#ision.

111 111 111

Sec. ==. Moratorium on Eviction andDemolition. There shall be amoratorium on the e#iction of all"rogram beneficiaries and on thedemolition of their houses or dwelliunits for a "eriod of three /


6/48

does not belong to or fall within its %urisdiction. +tdisagrees with the "etitionerMs stand that the saidections are unconstitutional and a#ers that Section

8> merely "ro#ides for the Qhumanitarian a""roachQowards less "ri#ileged, citi?ens and does not in fact

"rohibit but merelydiscourages e#iction ordemolition, while Section == only co#ers "rogrambeneficiaries.

n 7G January 7FF


7/48

rom time to time of areas recommend for clearing4d0 to "ro#ide ad#ice in de#elo"ing a""ro"riatetandards and techni6ues in cost effecti#em"lementation of the remo#al and demolition ofobstructions and encroachments . . .4 and /e0 tode#elo" o"erational "rocedures that willnstitutionali?e demolition"rocesses.Q 1#&oreo#er, the consultancy contracte1"ired on


8/48

he scheduled sale of the artwor)s on the groundhat "etitioners had not "resented a clear legal righto a restraining order and that "ro"er "arties had not

been im"leaded.

n 77 January 7FF7, the sale at "ublic auction"roceeded as scheduled and the "roceeds of7


9/48

ultural treasures.Q n the other hand, a Qnationalultural treasuresQ is a uni6ue ob%ect found locally,

"ossessing outstanding historical, cultural, artisticandIor scientific #alue which is highly significant andm"ortant to this country and nation. This Courta)es note of the certification issued by the irector

of the &useum that the +talian "aintings andil#erware sub%ect of this "etition do not constitute

"rotected cultural "ro"erties and are not amonghose listed in the Cultural Pro"erties egister of the

Bational &useum.

9!EE*E, for lac) of merit, the "etition for"rohibition and mandamus is +S&+SSE.

&. LEGASPI V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

F*+:Ci#il Ser#ice Commission denied 3alentin 'egas"iOs"etitioner0 re6uest for information on the ci#iler#ice eligibilities of 8 "eo"le em"loyed asanitarians, Julian Sibonghanoy and &ariano -gas, inhe !ealth e"artment in Cebu.Petitioner claims that his right to information is

guaranteed by the Constitution "rays for thessuance of the e1traordinary writ of mandamus toom"el the res"ondent Commission to disclose saidnformation.the Solicitor 2eneral challenges the "etitionerOstanding to sue u"on the ground that the latter does

not "ossess any legal right to be informed of the ci#iler#ices eligibilities of the go#ernment em"loyeesoncerned.Sol2en further argues that there is no ministerial

duty on the "art of the Commission to furnish the"etitioner with the information he see)s.

++,-:9B the "etitioner has legal to access go#ernmentecords to #alidate the ci#il ser#ice eligibilities of the

!ealth e"artment em"loyees.

H-/:Ci#il Ser#ice Commission is ordered to o"en itsegister of eligible for the "osition of sanitarian, ando confirm or deny, the ci#il ser#ice eligibility of Julian

Sibonghanoy and &ariano -gas, for said "osition inhe !ealth e"artment of Cebu City, as re6uested byhe "etitioner 3alentin '. 'egas"i.

R*0:The "etitioner, being a citi?en who, as such is clothedwith "ersonality to see) redress for the allegedobstruction of the e1ercise of the "ublic right. 9eind no cogent reason to deny his standing to bringhe "resent suit.n recogni?ing the "eo"leMs right to be informed, bothhe 7F;< Constitution and the Bew Charter e1"ressly

mandate the duty of the State and its agents toafford access to official records, documents, "a"ersand in addition, go#ernment research data used asbasis for "olicy de#elo"ment, sub%ect to suchmitations as may be "ro#ided by law.while the

manner of e1amining "ublic records may be sub%ect

to reasonable regulation by the go#ernment agenin custody thereof, the duty to disclose theinformation of "ublic concern, and to afford acces"ublic records cannot be discretionary on the "artsaid agencies. Certainly, its "erformance cannot bmade contingent u"on the discretion of suchagencies. therwise, the en%oyment of theconstitutional right may be rendered nugatory by whimsical e1ercise of agency discretion. Theconstitutional duty, not being discretionary, its"erformance may be com"elled by a writ of

mandamus in a "ro"er case.5ut the constitutional guarantee to information onmatters of "ublic concern is not absolute. +t does o"en e#ery door to any and all information. nderthe Constitution, access to official records, "a"ersetc., are Qsub%ect to limitations as may be "ro#ideby lawQ /-rt. +++, Sec. ;, second sentence0. The lawmay therefore e1em"t certain ty"es of informatiofrom "ublic scrutiny, such as those affecting natiosecurity. +t follows that, in e#ery case, the a#ailabof access to a "articular "ublic record must becircumscribed by the nature of the informationsought, i.e., /a0 being of "ublic concern or one tha

in#ol#es "ublic interest, and, /b0 not being e1em"by law from the o"eration of the constitutionalguarantee. case of denial of access, the go#ernmeagency has the burden of showing that theinformation re6uested is not of "ublic concern, orit is of "ublic concern, that the same has beene1em"ted by law from the o"eration of theguarantee.

1'. DUMALAO V. COMELECF*+: Petitioner Patricio umlao, is a for2o#ernor of Bue#a 3i?caya, who has filed certificate of candidacy for said "osition of 2o#e

in the forthcoming elections of January


10/48

"resent, and what is em"hatically significant is thathe retired em"loyee has already declared himselfired and una#ailable for the same go#ernment wor),

but, which, by #irtue of a change of mind, he would)e to assume again. +t is for this #ery reason thatne6uality will neither result from the a""lication ofhe challenged "ro#ision. Just as that "ro#ision does

not deny e6ual "rotection, neither does it "ermit ofuch denial.

The e6ual "rotection clause does not forbid all lclassification. 9hat is "roscribes is a classificawhich is arbitrary and unreasonable. Tconstitutional guarantee is not #iolated byreasonable classification based u"on substandistinctions, where the classification is germanthe "ur"ose of the low and a""lies to all thbelonging to the same class.

9!EE*E, the first "aragra"h of section =5atas Pambansa 5ilang G8 is hereby declared #ali

11. BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION V. LARON

F*+:7. - lease contract between the City of agu"an andP U & -gro was e1ecuted for the use of a city lotalled the &agsaysay &ar)et -rea. Subse6uently, the

City filed a case to rescind the contract due to theailure of PU& to com"ly with the lease contractonditions.

8. Thereafter, the City issued a resolution grantinghe lease of said lot to the "etitioner 5ugnay

Cnstruction for the establishment of a &agsaysay&ar)et building. -s a result, res"ondent a#an?oiled a ta1"ayerMs suit against the City assailing the

#alidity of the lease contract between the "etitionerand the city. a#an?o was the counsel of PU& -gron the earlier case.

++,-: 9hether or not the res"ondent is the real"arty in interest

H-/:

B.

7. The Court held that the res"ondent has notanding to file the case. There was no disbursement

of "ublic funds in#ol#ed in this case since it is the"etitioner, a "ri#ate "arty which will fund the"lanned construction of the mar)et building.

12. ILOSBAYAN V. GUINGONA JR.

FACTS:Pursuant to Section 7 of the charter of the PCS /.-.Bo. 77:F, as amended by 5.P. 5lg. =80 which grants

t the authority to hold and conduct @charitywee"sta)es races, lotteries and other similar

acti#ities,A the PCS decided to establish an on$lineottery system for the "ur"ose of increasing itse#enue base and di#ersifying its sources of funds.

Sometime before &arch 7FF


11/48

or entity, whether domestic or foreign.A is legal and#alid.

HELD:9e find the instant "etition to be of transcendentalm"ortance to the "ublic. The ramifications of suchssues immeasurably affect the social, economic, andmoral well$being of the "eo"le e#en in the remotestbarangays of the country and the counter$"roducti#eand retrogressi#e effects of the en#isioned on$lineottery system are as staggering as the billions in

"esos it is e1"ected to raise. The legal standing thenof the "etitioners deser#es recognition and, in thee1ercise of its sound discretion, this Court herebybrushes aside the "rocedural barrier which thees"ondents tried to ta)e ad#antage of.

The language of Section 7 of .-. Bo. 77:F isndis"utably clear. The PCS cannot share itsranchise with another by way of collaboration,

association or %oint #enture. Beither can it assign,ransfer, or lease such franchise. 9hether theontract in 6uestion is one of lease or whether the

P2&C is merely an inde"endent contractor shouldnot be decided on the basis of the title or designation

of the contract but by the intent of the "arties, whichmay be gathered from the "ro#isions of the contracttself. -nimus hominis est anima scri"ti. The intentionof the "arty is the soul of the instrument.ndoubtedly, from the #ery ince"tion, the PCS andhe P2&C mutually understood that any arrangement

between them would necessarily lea#e to the P2&Che technical, o"erations, and management as"ects

of the on$line lottery system while the PSC would,"rimarily, "ro#ide the franchise. The so$calledContract of 'ease is not, therefore, what it "ur"ortso be. 9o#en therein are "ro#isions which negate itsitle and betray the true intention of the "arties to be

n or to ha#e a %oint #enture for a "eriod of eightyears in the o"eration and maintenance of the on$ne lottery system.

9e thus declare that the challenged Contract of'ease #iolates the e1ce"tion "ro#ided for in"aragra"h 5, Section 7 of .-. Bo. 77:F, as amendedby 5.P. 5lg. =8, and is, therefore, in#alid for beingontrary to law. This conclusion renders unnecessaryurther discussion on the other issues raised by the

"etitioners.

13. PHILCONSA (PHILIPPINE CONSTRUCTIONASSOCIATION) V. ENRIUEZ

FACTS:!ouse 5ill Bo. 7HFHH, the 2eneral -""ro"riation 5illof 7FF= /2-5 of 7FF=0, was "assed and a""ro#ed byboth houses of Congress on ecember 7;, 7FF8. S"ecial "ro#isions which authori?e the useincome and the creation, o"eration and maintenaof re#ol#ing funds in the a""ro"riation for S

ni#ersities and Colleges /SCOs0,


12/48

"residential #eto or a condition im"osed on an itemn an a""ro"riation bill.To the e1tent the "owers of Congress are im"aired,o is the "ower of each member thereof, since his

office confers a right to "artici"ate in the e1ercise ofhe "owers of that institution /Coleman #. &iller, for the

Bational Stud *arm, P.. Bo. FH8$- for the Securitiesand E1change Commission4 E.. Bo. : X7F:=Y0.The re6uirement in S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. 8 on theuse of *undA for the -*P moderni?ation "rogramhat the President must submit all "urchases of

military e6ui"ment to Congress for its a""ro#al, is ane1ercise of the @congressional or legislati#e #eto.A!owe#er the case at bench is not the "ro"eroccasion to resol#e the issues of the #alidity of theegislati#e #eto as "ro#ided in S"ecial Pro#isions Bos.8 and < because the issues at hand can be dis"osed

of on other grounds. Therefore, being @ina""ro"ri"ro#isions, S"ecial Pro#isions Bos. 8 and < w"ro"erly #etoed.*urthermore, S"ecial Pro#ision Bo.


13/48

TC as lessee, for the latter to o"erate the systemand "ay rentals for the said use.

9hat "ri#ate res"ondent owns are the rail trac)s,olling stoc)s, rail stations, terminals and the "ower

"lant, not a "ublic utility. 9hile a franchise is neededo o"erate these facilities to ser#e the "ublic, they do

not themsel#es constitute a "ublic utility. 9hatonstitutes a "ublic utility in not their ownershi" butheir use to ser#e the "ublic.

The Constitution, in no uncertain terms, re6uires aranchise for the o"eration of a "ublic utility.

!owe#er, it does not re6uire a franchise before onean own the facilities needed to o"erate a "ublic

utility so long as it does not o"erate them to ser#ehe "ublic. +n law, there is a clear distinction betweenhe @o"erationA of a "ublic utility and the ownershi"

of the facilities and the e6ui"ment used to ser#e the"ublic.

1. OPOSA V. FACTORAN

FACTS: Princi"al "etitioners, are all minors dulye"resented and %oined by their res"ecti#e "arents.m"leaded as an additional "laintiff is the Phili""ineEcological Betwor), +nc. /PEB+0, a domestic, non$toc) and non$"rofit cor"oration organi?ed for the

"ur"ose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted actiongeared for the "rotection of our en#ironment andnatural resources. The original defendant was the!onorable *ulgencio S. *actoran, Jr., then Secretaryof the e"artment of En#ironment and Baturalesources /EB0. !is substitution in this "etition byhe new Secretary, the !onorable -ngel C. -lcala,

was subse6uently ordered u"on "ro"er motion by

he "etitioners. The com"laint was instituted as aa1"ayersM class suit and alleges that the "laintiffsare all citi?ens of the e"ublic of the Phili""ines,a1"ayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and

en%oyment of the natural resource treasure that ishe countryMs #irgin tro"ical forests.Q The same wasiled for themsel#es and others who are e6uallyoncerned about the "reser#ation of said resource

but are Qso numerous that it is im"racticable to bringhem all before the Court.Q

n 88 June 7FFH, the original defendant, Secretaryactoran, Jr., filed a &otion to ismiss the com"laint

based on two grounds, namely the "laintiffs ha#e noause of action against him and, the issue raised byhe "laintiffs is a "olitical 6uestion which "ro"erly

"ertains to the legislati#e or e1ecuti#e branches of2o#ernment. +n their 78 July 7FFH ""osition to the&otion, the "etitioners maintain that, the com"lainthows a clear and unmista)able cause of action, the

motion is dilatory and the action "resents austiciable 6uestion as it in#ol#es the defendantMsabuse of discretion.

n 7> July 7FF7, res"ondent Judge issued an ordergranting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. +nhe said order, not only was the defendantMs claim

that the com"laint states no cause of action agahim and that it raises a "olitical 6uestion sustainthe res"ondent Judge further ruled that the granof the relief "rayed for would result in im"airment of contracts which is "rohibited by fundamental law of the land.

Plaintiffs thus filed the instant s"ecial ci#il actioncertiorari under ule :G of the e#ised ules of Cand as) this Court to rescind and set aside dismissal order on the ground that the res"ond

Judge gra#ely abused his discretion in dismissingaction. -gain, the "arents of the "laintiffs$minorsonly re"resent their children, but ha#e also %othe latter in this case.

Petitioners contend that the com"laint clearly unmista)ably states a cause of action as it contsufficient allegations concerning their right tsound en#ironment based on -rticles 7F, 8H andof the Ci#il Code /!uman elations0, Section =E1ecuti#e rder /E..0 Bo. 7F8 creating the ESection < of Presidential ecree /P..0 Bo. 7/Phili""ine En#ironmental Policy0, Section 7:, -r

++ of the 7F>; Constitution recogni?ing the righthe "eo"le to a balanced and healthful ecology,conce"t of generational genocide in Criminal and the conce"t of manMs inalienable right to s"reser#ation and self$"er"etuation embodiednatural law. Petitioners li)ewise rely on res"ondentMs correlati#e obligation "er Section E.. Bo. 7F8, to safeguard the "eo"leMs right thealthful en#ironment.

+t is further claimed that the issue of the res"ondSecretaryMs alleged gra#e abuse of discretiongranting Timber 'icense -greements /T'-s0 to co

more areas for logging than what is a#ailin#ol#es a %udicial 6uestion.

-nent the in#ocation by the res"ondent Judge ofConstitutionMs non$im"airment clause, "etitiomaintain that the same does not a""ly in this cbecause T'-s are not contracts. They li)ewise subthat e#en if T'-s may be considered "rotectedthe said clause, it is well settled that they may be re#o)ed by the State when the "ublic interesre6uires.

ISSUE:

9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e locus standi.

9hether or not the "etiton is in a form of a class s

9hether or not the T'-Os can be out rigcancelled.

9hether or not the "etition should be dismissed.

HELD:-s to the matter of the cancellation of T'-s, res"ondents submit that the same cannotdone by the State without due "rocess of law. issued, a T'- remains effecti#e for a certain "eriotime usually for twenty$fi#e /8G0 years. uring


14/48

effecti#ity, the same can neither be re#ised norancelled unless the holder has been found, after

due notice and hearing, to ha#e #iolated the terms ofhe agreement or other forestry laws andegulations. PetitionersM "ro"osition to ha#e all the

T'-s indiscriminately cancelled without the re6uisitehearing would be #iolati#e of the re6uirements ofdue "rocess.

The sub%ect matter of the com"laint is of commonand general interest not %ust to se#eral, but to all

iti?ens of the Phili""ines. Conse6uently, since the"arties are so numerous, it, becomes im"racticable,f not totally im"ossible, to bring all of them beforehe court. The "laintiffs therein are numerous ande"resentati#e enough to ensure the full "rotection

of all concerned interests. !ence, all the re6uisitesor the filing of a #alid class suit under Section 78,

ule < of the e#ised ules of Court are "resent bothn the said ci#il case and in the instant "etition, theatter being but an incident to the former.

Petitioners minors assert that they re"resent theirgeneration as well as generations yet unborn. Their

"ersonality to sue in behalf of the succeedinggenerations can only be based on the conce"t ofntergenerational res"onsibility insofar as the right toa balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.Bature means the created world in its entirety. E#erygeneration has a res"onsibility to the ne1t to"reser#e that rhythm and harmony for the fullen%oyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. TheminorsM assertion of their right to a sounden#ironment constitutes, at the same time, the"erformance of their obligation to ensure the"rotection of that right for the generations to come.

The com"laint focuses on one s"ecific fundamentalegal right the right to a balanced and healthfulecology which, for the first time in our nationMsonstitutional history, is solemnly incor"orated in theundamental law. Section 7:, -rticle ++ of the 7F>;

Constitution.

9hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology iso be found under the eclaration of Princi"les and

State Policies and not under the 5ill of ights, it doesnot follow that it is less im"ortant than any of thei#il and "olitical rights enumerated in the latter.

Such a right belongs to a different category of rights

altogether for it concerns nothing less than self$"reser#ation and self$"er"etuation a"tly andittingly stressed by the "etitioners the ad#ancement

of which may e#en be said to "redate allgo#ernments and constitutions. -s a matter of fact,hese basic rights need not e#en be written in the

Constitution for they are assumed to e1ist from thence"tion of human)ind. +f they are now e1"licitlymentioned in the fundamental charter, it is becauseof the well$founded fear of its framers that unless theights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to

health are mandated as state "olicies by theConstitution itself, thereby highlighting theirontinuing im"ortance and im"osing u"on the state a

solemn obligation to "reser#e the first and "roand ad#ance the second, the day would not befar when all else would be lost not only for "resent generation, but also for those to cgenerations which stand to inherit nothing "arched earth inca"able of sustaining life.

Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanand healthful ecology and the right to health, as as the other related "ro#isions of the Constituconcerning the conser#ation, de#elo"ment

utili?ation of the countryMs natural resources, tPresident Cora?on C. -6uino "romulgated on 7H J7F>; E.. Bo. 7F8, Section = of which e1"remandates that the e"artment of En#ironment Batural esources Qshall be the "rimary go#ernmagency res"onsible for the conser#atmanagement, de#elo"ment and "ro"er use of countryMs en#ironment and natural resours"ecifically forest and gra?ing lands, mineresources, including those in reser#ation watershed areas, and lands of the "ublic domainwell as the licensing and regulation of all natresources as may be "ro#ided for by law in orde

ensure e6uitable sharing of the benefits dertherefrom for the welfare of the "resent and futgenerations of *ili"inos.Q Section < thereof ma)esfollowing statement of "olicy

The abo#e "ro#ision stresses Qthe necessitymaintaining a sound ecological balance "rotecting and enhancing the 6uality of en#ironment.Q Section 8 of the same Title, on other hand, s"ecifically s"ea)s of the mandate ofEB4 howe#er, it ma)es "articular reference tofact of the agencyMs being sub%ect to law and higauthority.

+t may, howe#er, be recalled that e#en before ratification of the 7F>; Constitution, s"ecific statalready "aid s"ecial attention to the Qen#ironmerightQ of the "resent and future generations.

June 7F;;, P.. Bo. 77G7 and P.. Bo. 77G8 wissued. Thus, the right of the "etitioners tbalanced and healthful ecology is as clear as EBMs duty under its mandate and by #irtue o"owers and functions under E.. Bo. 7F8 and -dministrati#e Code of 7F>; to "rotect and ad#athe said right.

- denial or #iolation of that right by the other has the correlati#e duty or obligation to res"ec"rotect the same gi#es rise to a cause of actPetitioners maintain that the granting of the T'which they claim was done with gra#e abusediscretion, #iolated their right to a balanced healthful ecology4 hence, the full "rotection there6uires that no further T'-s should be renewegranted.

+t is settled in this %urisdiction that in a motiodismiss based on the ground that the com"laint fto state a cause of action4 the 6uestion submittethe court for resolution in#ol#es the sufficiency of


15/48

acts alleged in the com"laint itself. Bo other matterhould be considered4 furthermore, the truth ofalsity of the said allegations is beside the "oint forhe truth thereof is deemed hy"othetically admitted.

Policy formulation or determination by the e1ecuti#eor legislati#e branches of 2o#ernment is not s6uarely"ut in issue. 9hat is "rinci"ally in#ol#ed is theenforcement of a right #is$a$#is "olicies alreadyormulated and e1"ressed in legislation. +t must,

nonetheless, be em"hasi?ed that the "olitical6uestion doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable

obstacle to the e1ercise of %udicial "ower or them"enetrable shield that "rotects e1ecuti#e andegislati#e actions from %udicial in6uiry or re#iew.

n the second "lace, e#en if it is to be assumed thathe same are contracts, the instant case does notn#ol#e a law or e#en an e1ecuti#e issuancedeclaring the cancellation or modification of e1istingimber licenses. !ence, the non$im"airment clauseannot as yet be in#o)ed. Be#ertheless, grantingurther that a law has actually been "assed

mandating cancellations or modifications, the sameannot still be stigmati?ed as a #iolation of the non$

m"airment clause. This is because by its #ery natureand "ur"ose, such as law could ha#e only been"assed in the e1ercise of the "olice "ower of thetate for the "ur"ose of ad#ancing the right of the

"eo"le to a balanced and healthful ecology,"romoting their health and enhancing the generalwelfare.

inally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did,how the non$im"airment clause could a""ly withes"ect to the "rayer to en%oin the res"ondent

Secretary from recei#ing, acce"ting, "rocessing,enewing or a""ro#ing new timber licenses for, sa#e

n cases of renewal, no contract would ha#e as of yete1isted in the other instances. &oreo#er, withes"ect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as

a matter of right.

Petition is hereby 2-BTE, and the challengedrder of res"ondent Judge of 7> July 7FF7 dismissingCi#il Case Bo. FH$;;; is hereby set aside. The"etitioners may therefore amend their com"laint tom"lead as defendants the holders or grantees of the6uestioned timber license agreements.

1!. ILOSBYAN V. MORATO

FACTS:n Jan. 8G, 7FFG, PCS and P2&C signed an

E6ui"ment 'ease -greement /E'-0 wherein P2&Ceased online lottery e6ui"ment and accessories toPCS. /ental of =.


16/48

Constitution does not a""ly to the +nterim 5atasanPambansa.

SSUE:9hether or not the SC can com"el C&E'ECo hold a s"ecial election to fill #acancies in theegislature.

HELD The SCOs %urisdiction o#er the C&E'EC isonly to re#iew by certiorari the latterOs decision,orders or rulings. This is as clearly "ro#ided in -rticleN++$C, Section 77 of the Bew Constitution which

eads @-ny decision, order, or ruling of theCommission may be brought to the Su"reme Courton certiorari by the aggrie#ed "arty within thirty daysrom his recei"t of a co"y thereof.A There is in thisase no decision, order or ruling of the C&E'EC

which is sought to be re#iewed by this Court underts certiorari %urisdiction as "ro#ided for in the

afore6uoted "ro#ision, which is the only )nown"ro#ision conferring %urisdiction or authority on theSu"reme Court o#er the C&E'EC.t is ob#ious that the holding of s"ecial elections ine#eral regional districts where #acancies e1ist,

would entail huge e1"enditure of money. nly the

5atasang Pambansa /5P0 can ma)e the necessarya""ro"riation for the "ur"ose, and this "ower of the5P may neither be sub%ect to mandamus by theourts much less may C&E'EC com"el the 5P to

e1ercise its "ower of a""ro"riation. *rom the role 5Phas to "lay in the holding of s"ecial elections, whichs to a""ro"riate the funds for the e1"enses thereof,t would seem that the initiati#e on the matter mustome from the 5P, not the C&E'EC, e#en when the

#acancies would occur in the regular not +5P. The"ower to a""ro"riate is the sole and e1clusi#e"rerogati#e of the legislati#e body, the e1ercise ofwhich may not be com"elled through a "etition for

mandamus. 9hat is more, the "ro#ision of SectionG/80, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution was intended toa""ly to #acancies in the regular Bational -ssembly,now 5P, not to the +5P.

1%. ATTY. LOZANO V. SPEAER NOGRALES

FACTS:The two "etitions, filed by their res"ecti#e"etitioners in their ca"acities as concerned citi?ensand ta1"ayers, "rayed for the nullification of !ouseesolution Bo. 77HF entitled - esolution Callingu"on the &embers of Congress to Con#ene for thePur"ose of Considering Pro"osals to -mend or e#ise

he Constitution, "on a Three$fourths 3ote of -ll the&embers of Congress. 5oth "etitions see) to rigger a %usticiable contro#ersy that would warrant a

definiti#e inter"retation by the Court of Section 7,-rticle N3++, which "ro#ides for the "rocedure foramending or re#ising the Constitution. The"etitioners alleged that ! 77HF is unconstitutionalor de#iation from the "rescribed "rocedures to

amend the Constitution by e1cluding the Senate ofhe Phili""ines from the com"lete "rocess of

"ro"osing amendments to the Constitution and forac) of thorough debates and consultations.SSUE:9hether or not the Congress committed a

#iolation in "romulgating the !77HF.

HELD:Bo, the !ouse that the Congress oughcon#ene into a Constituent -ssembly and adsome ules for "ro"osing changes to the cha

The !ouse has said it would forward !.es.77Hthe Senate for its a""ro#al and ado"tion and "ossible "romulgation of a Joint and Concuresolution con#ening the Congress into a Constitu-ssembly. Petitioners ha#e not sufficiently "roany ad#erse in%ury or hardshi" from the com"lained of. !ouse esolution Bo. 77HF resol#ed that the !ouse of e"resentati#es s

con#ene at a future time for the "ur"ose"ro"osing amendments or re#isions to Constitution. Bo actual con#ention has yet trans"and no rules of "rocedure ha#e yet been ado"ted"ro"osal has yet been made, and hence, usur"ation of "ower or gross abuse of discretion yet ta)en "lace. !ouse esolution Bo. 77HF in#oa 6uintessential e1am"le of an uncertain contingfuture e#ent that may not occur as antici"atedindeed may not occur at all. The !ouse has not"erformed a "ositi#e act that would warrantinter#ention from this Court. Judicial re#iewe1ercised only to remedy a "articular and conc

in%ury.The "etitions were dismissed.

1&. LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINESCOMELEC

ACTION:These are consolidated "etitions for "rohibition "rayer for the issuance of a writ of "reliminin%unction or tem"orary restraining order filed by'eague of Cities of the Phili""ines, City of +loilo, of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Tre(as assailing constitutionality of the sub%ect Cityhood 'aws

en%oining the Commission on Elections /C&E'and res"ondent munici"alities from conduc"lebiscites "ursuant to the Cityhood 'aws.

FACT: uring the 77th Congress, Congress enacinto law


17/48

Congress ended without the Senate a""ro#ing Jointesolution Bo. 8F.uring the 7G of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code.

SSUE:The "etitions raise the following fundamental issues

7. 9hether the Cityhood 'aws #iolate Section 7H,-rticle N of the Constitution4 and8. 9hether the Cityhood 'aws #iolate the e6ual"rotection clause.

HELD:9e grant the "etitions.The Cityhood 'aws #iolate Sections : and 7H, -rticleN of the Constitution, and are thus unconstitutional.irst, a""lying the P7HH million income re6uirementn - FHHF to the "resent case is a "ros"ecti#e, not aetroacti#e a""lication, because - FHHF too) effectn 8HH7 while the cityhood bills became law more

han fi#e years later.Second, the Constitution re6uires that Congress shall"rescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city inhe 'ocal 2o#ernment Code and not in any other law,ncluding the Cityhood 'aws.Third, the Cityhood 'aws #iolate Section :, -rticle Nof the Constitution because they "re#ent a fair andust distribution of the national ta1es to localgo#ernment units.ourth, the criteria "rescribed in Section =GH of the

'ocal 2o#ernment Code, as amended by - FHHF, foron#erting a munici"ality into a city are clear, "lain

and unambiguous, needing no resort to any statutoryonstruction.

*ifth, the intent of members of the 77th Congrese1em"t certain munici"alities from the co#erag- FHHF remained an intent and was ne#er wriinto Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code.Si1th, the deliberations of the 77th or 78th Congon una""ro#ed bills or resolutions are not e1triaids in inter"reting a law "assed in the 7Congress.Se#enth, e#en if the e1em"tion in the Cityhood 'were written in Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernmCode, the e1em"tion would still be unconstitutio

for #iolation of the e6ual "rotection clause.

2'. VENANCIO INONOG VS JUDGE FRANCISIBAY

The "resent administrati#e case stemmed from Sinum"aang SalaysayX7Y of 3enancio P. +nonog, fwith the ffice of the Court -dministrator /C--"ril 8:, 8HHG, charging Judge *rancisco 5. +bathe egional Trial Court /TC0, 5ranch 7, 8HHG in Criminal Case Bos. H8$7


18/48

a "eriod of fi#e /G0 days and to "ay a fined XsicY ofP7,HHH.HH.

'et a warrant issue for his arrest furnishing co"ieshereof to the irector 2eneral Phili""ine Bational

Police, the irector of the Bational 5ureau ofn#estigation, and the Station Commander of &a)atiPolice Station.

S EE.

&a)ati City, 7> &arch 8HHG.

The rele#ant facts, culled from the records,ollow

Com"lainant alleged that he is the security$dri#er ofhe Chief of the 5usiness Permit i#ision of &a)ati

City. -ccording to com"lainant, at around 7HH a.m.of &arch 7>, 8HHG, he "ar)ed the #ehicle that hedri#es for his boss in a #acant "ar)ing s"ace at thebasement of the &a)ati City !all because the slotwhere he usually "ar)ed was already occu"ied. -the time, the "ar)ing slots at the basement of the

&a)ati City !all were indicated only by numbers andnot by names of officials to whom they wereassigned. Thereafter, com"lainant notified hisu"erior that he will not be re"orting for wor) for theest of that day, &arch 7>, 8HHG, because he was noteeling well. Thus, he left the #ehicle in the said

basement "ar)ing area and went home to Tanay,i?al.

'ater that morning, com"lainant recei#ed a call fromhis brother, also an em"loyee of the City2o#ernment of &a)ati, informing him that he shoulda""ear before the sala of res"ondent %udge at 7H


19/48

n his office, but e#en at home. es"ondent %udgementioned that he was able to dis"ose


20/48

himself or counsel, a "erson guilty of any of theollowing acts may be "unished for indirectontem"t

a0 &isbeha#ior of an officer of a court in the"erformance of his official duties or in his officialransactions4

b0 isobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,"rocess, order, or %udgment of a court, including theact of a "erson who, after being dis"ossessed or

e%ected from any real "ro"erty by the %udgment or"rocess of any court of com"etent %urisdiction, entersor attem"ts or induces another to enter into or u"onuch real "ro"erty, for the "ur"ose of e1ecuting acts

of ownershi" or "ossession, or in any mannerdisturbs the "ossession gi#en to the "erson ad%udgedo be entitled thereto4

c0 -ny abuse of or any unlawful interference withhe "rocesses or "roceedings of a court notonstituting direct contem"t under section 7 of this

ule4

d0 -ny im"ro"er conduct tending, directly orndirectly, to im"ede, obstruct, or degrade theadministration of %ustice4

e0 -ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of aourt, and acting as such without authority4

f0 *ailure to obey a sub"oena duly ser#ed4

g0 The rescue, or attem"ted rescue, of a "erson or"ro"erty in the custody of an officer by #irtue of anorder or "rocess of a court held by him. 111 111111

SEC. =. !ow "roceedings commenced.Proceedingsor indirect contem"t may be initiated motu "ro"rio

by the court against which the contem"t wasommitted by an order or any other formal chargee6uiring the res"ondent to show cause why hehould not be "unished for contem"t. 111 111

111

The "hrase @im"ro"er conduct tending, directly orndirectly, to im"ede, obstruct, or degrade the

administration of %usticeA is so broad and generalhat it encom"asses wide s"ectrum of acts that could

onstitute indirect contem"t. !owe#er, the act ofom"lainant in "ar)ing his car in a slot allegedlyeser#ed for res"ondent %udge does not fall underhis category. There was no showing that he acted

with malice andIor bad faith or that he wasm"ro"erly moti#ated to delay the "roceedings of theourt by ma)ing use of the "ar)ing slot su""osedlyeser#ed for res"ondent %udge. 9e cannot also sayhat the said act of com"lainant constitutes

disres"ect to the dignity of the court. +n sum, thencident is too flimsy and inconse6uential to be thebasis of an indirect contem"t "roceeding.

+n 'u Rm #. &ahinay,X, 8HH;.


21/48

Considering that this is not the first time thates"ondent %udge committed the same offense andn Bu(e?, which had similar factual antecedents ashe case at bar, the Court already saw fit to im"ose

u"on him a fine in the amount of P=H,HHH.HH, it is"ro"er to im"ose on him the same "enalty in thisase.

9!EE*E, in #iew of the foregoing, res"ondentudge *rancisco 5. +bay is found guilty of gra#e abuse

of authority. !e is ordered to "ay a *+BE of *ortyThousand Pesos /P=H,HHH.HH0 to be deducted fromhis retirement benefits.

21. BIRAOGO V. PHILIPPINE TRUTHCOMMISSION OF 2'1'

FACTS:

President 5enigni Simeon -6uino +++ signedE1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7 establishing the Phili""ineTruth Commission of 8H7H /Truth Commission0.

The Phili""ine Truth Commission /PTC0 is a

mere ad hoc body formed under the ffice of thePresident with the "rimary tas) to in#estigate re"ortsof graft and corru"tion committed by third$le#el"ublic officers and em"loyees, their co$"rinci"als,accom"lices and accessories during the "re#iousadministration, and thereafter to submit its findingand recommendations to the President, Congressand the mbudsman. Though it has been describedas an @inde"endent collegial body,A it is essentiallyan entity within the ffice of the President Pro"erand sub%ect to his control.To accom"lish its tas), the PTC shall ha#e all the"owers of an in#estigati#e body under Section


22/48

hould be resol#ed for the guidance of all. The Courta)es cogni?ance of the "etition not due to

o#erwhelming "olitical undertones that clothe thessue in the eyes of the "ublic, but because the Courttands firm in its oath to "erform its constitutional

duty to settle legal contro#ersies with o#erreachingignificance to society.

SSUE: 9hether or not E1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7#iolates the "rinci"le of se"aration of "owers byusur"ing the "owers of Congress to create and to

a""ro"riate funds for "ublic offices, agencies andommissions4 oes the creation of the PTC fall withinhe ambit of the "ower to reorgani?e as e1"ressed in

Section


23/48

whether or not E1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7u""lants the "owers of the mbudsman and the

J

HELD:

The PresidentOs "ower to conductn#estigations to ensure that laws are faithfullye1ecuted is well recogni?ed. -s the Chief E1ecuti#e,he "resident re"resents the go#ernment as a whole

and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the

officials and em"loyees of his de"artment. !e hashe authority to directly assume the functions of the

e1ecuti#e de"artment.

+n#o)ing this authority, the Presidentonstituted the PTC to "rimarily in#estigate re"orts

of graft and corru"tion and to recommend thea""ro"riate action. Bo 6uasi$%udicial "owers ha#ebeen #ested in the said body as it cannot ad%udicateights of "ersons who come before it. \uasi$%udicial

"owers in#ol#e the "ower to hear and determine6uestions of fact to which the legislati#e "olicy is toa""ly and to decide in accordance with the standards

aid down by law itself in enforcing and administeringhe same law. +n sim"ler terms, %udicial discretion isn#ol#ed in the e1ercise of these 6uasi$%udicial "ower,uch that it is e1clusi#ely #ested in the %udiciary and

must be clearly authori?ed by the legislature in thease of administrati#e agencies.

*act$finding is not ad%udication and itannot be li)ened to the %udicial function of a court ofustice, or e#en a 6uasi$%udicial agency or office. Theunction of recei#ing e#idence and ascertainingherefrom the facts of a contro#ersy is not a %udicialunction. To be considered as such, the act of

ecei#ing e#idence and arri#ing at factualonclusions in a contro#ersy must be accom"aniedby the authority of a""lying the law to the factualonclusions to the end that the contro#ersy may be

decided or resol#ed authoritati#ely, finally anddefiniti#ely, sub%ect to a""eals or modes of re#iew asmay be "ro#ided by law. E#en res"ondentshemsel#es admit that the commission is bereft of

any 6uasi$%udicial "ower.

Contrary to "etitionersO a""rehension, the PTC willnot su""lant the mbudsman or the J or erodeheir res"ecti#e "owers. +f at all, the in#estigati#e

unction of the commission will com"lement those ofhe two offices. The recommendation to "rosecute isbut a conse6uence of the o#erall tas) of theommission to conduct a fact$finding in#estigation.

The actual "rosecution of sus"ected offenders, muchess ad%udication on the merits of the charges againsthem, is certainly not a function gi#en to theommission. The "hrase, @when in the course of itsn#estigation,A under Section 8/g0, highlights this factand gi#es credence to a contrary inter"retation fromhat of the "etitioners. The function of determining

"robable cause for the filing of the a""ro"riateom"laints before the courts remains to be with the

J and the mbudsman.

-t any rate, the mbudsmanOs "ower to in#estigunder .-. Bo. :;;H is not e1clusi#e but is shawith other similarly authori?ed go#ernment agensuch as the PC22 and %udges of munici"al trial coand munici"al circuit trial courts. The "owerconduct "reliminary in#estigation on charges aga"ublic em"loyees and officials is li)ewconcurrently shared with the e"artment of Justes"ite the "assage of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Cin 7FF7, the mbudsman retains concur

%urisdiction with the ffice of the President and local Sanggunians to in#estigate com"laints agalocal electi#e officials.

-lso, E1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7 cancontra#ene the "ower of the mbudsmanin#estigate criminal cases under Section 7G /7.-. Bo. :;;H, which states

/70 +n#estigate and "rosecute on its own orcom"laint by any "erson, any act or omission of "ublic officer or em"loyee, office or agency, wsuch act or omission a""ears to be illegal, un%

im"ro"er or inefficient. +t has "rimary %urisdico#er cases cogni?able by the Sandiganbayan andthe e1ercise of its "rimary %urisdiction, it may to#er, at any stage, from any in#estigatory agencgo#ernment, the in#estigation of such cases.

The act of in#estigation by the mbudsmanenunciated abo#e contem"lates the conduct o"reliminary in#estigation or the determination ofe1istence of "robable cause. This is categoricallyof the PTCOs s"here of functions. +ts "owerin#estigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it ad#ise and guide the President in the "erformanc

his duties relati#e to the e1ecution and enforcemof the laws of the land. +n this regard, the commits no act of usur"ation of the mbudsma"rimordial duties.

The same holds true with res"ect to the Jauthority under Section < /80, Cha"ter 7, Title5oo) +3 in the e#ised -dministrati#e Code is bymeans e1clusi#e and, thus, can be shared witbody li)ewise tas)ed to in#estigate the commisof crimes.

*inally, nowhere in E1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7 can i

inferred that the findings of the PTC are toaccorded conclusi#eness. +ts findings would, at bbe recommendatory in nature. -nd being so, mbudsman and the J ha#e a wider degrelatitude to decide whether or not to re%ect recommendation. These offices, therefore, are de"ri#ed of their mandated duties but will insteadaided by the re"orts of the PTC for "ossindictments for #iolations of graft laws.

ISSUE:

whether or not E1ecuti#e rder B#iolates the e6ual "rotection clause


24/48

HELD:

-lthough the "ur"ose of the TruthCommission falls within the in#estigati#e "ower ofhe President, the Court finds difficulty in u"holdinghe constitutionality of E1ecuti#e rder Bo. 7 in #iew

of its a""arent transgression of the e6ual "rotectionlause enshrined in Section 7, -rticle +++ /5ill of

ights0 of the 7F>; Constitution.

E6ual "rotection sim"ly re6uires that all"ersons or things similarly situated should be treatedali)e, both as to rights conferred and res"onsibilitiesm"osed. +t re6uires "ublic bodies and institutions toreat similarly situated indi#iduals in a similar

manner. The "ur"ose of the e6ual "rotection clauses to secure e#ery "erson within a stateOs %urisdictionagainst intentional and arbitrary discrimination,whether occasioned by the e1"ress terms of a statueor by its im"ro"er e1ecution through the stateOs dulyonstituted authorities. +n other words, the conce"t

of e6ual %ustice under the law re6uires the state togo#ern im"artially, and it may not draw distinctions

between indi#iduals solely on differences that arerrele#ant to a legitimate go#ernmental ob%ecti#e.

The e6ual "rotection clause is aimed at all officialtate actions, not %ust those of the legislature. +tsnhibitions co#er all the de"artments of thego#ernment including the "olitical and e1ecuti#ede"artments, and e1tend to all actions of a statedenying e6ual "rotection of the laws, throughwhate#er agency or whate#er guise is ta)en.

t, howe#er, does not re6uire the uni#ersala""lication of the laws to all "ersons or things

without distinction. 9hat it sim"ly re6uires ise6uality among e6uals as determined according to a#alid classification. +ndeed, the e6ual "rotectionlause "ermits classification. Such classification,

howe#er, to be #alid must "ass the testofreasonableness. The test has four re6uisites /70The classification rests on substantial distinctions4 /80t is germane to the "ur"ose of the law4 /


25/48

ensure that the full measure of %ustice shall beer#ed without fear or fa#or.

SECT+B 8. Powers and *unctions. Z The Commission,which shall ha#e all the "owers of an in#estigati#ebody under Section


26/48

Su"reme Court, and the Court of -""eals as well asmembers of the Constitutional Commission.

SSUE:9hether or not the #eto of the President onhat "ortion of the 2eneral -""ro"riations bill isonstitutional.

HELD:The Justices of the Court ha#e #ested rights tohe accrued "ension that is due to them in

accordance to e"ublic -ct 7;F;. The "resident hasno "ower to set aside and o#erride the decision of

he Su"reme Court neither does the "resident ha#ehe "ower to enact or amend statutes "romulgated

by her "redecessors much less to the re"eal ofe1isting laws. The #eto is unconstitutional since the"ower of the "resident to disa""ro#e any item ortems in the a""ro"riations bill does not grant theauthority to #eto "art of an item and to a""ro#e theemaining "ortion of said item.

SECTION 4

24. LIMETAI SONS MILLING INC. V. COURT OFAPPEALS

FACTS: n June 8>, Pedro e#illa, Jr., acensed real estatebro)er was gi#en formal authority

by 5P+ to sell the lot for P7,HHH.HH "er s6uare meter.The owners of the Phili""ine emnants concurredhis arrangement. 5ro)er e#illa contacted -lfonso

'im of "etitioner com"any who agreed to buy theand. n July F, 7F>>, e#illa formally informed 5P+hat he had "rocured a buyer, herein "etitioner. nuly 77, 7F>>, "etitionerMs officials, -lfonso 'im and-lbino 'im)et)ai, went to 5P+ to confirm the sale.3ice$President &erlin -lbano and -sst. 3ice$President-romin entertained them. The "arties agreed that

he lot would be sold at P7,HHH.HH "ers6uare metero be "aid in cash. The authority to sell was on a firstome, first ser#ed and non$e1clusi#e basis4 there is

no dis"ute o#er "etitionerMs being the first comer andhe buyer to be first ser#ed. -lfonso 'im then as)ed ift was "ossible to "ay on terms. The ban) officialstated that there was no harm in trying to as) for

"ayment on terms because in "re#ious transactions,he same had been allowed. +t was the

understanding, howe#er, that should the term"ayment be disa""ro#ed, then the "rice shall be "aidn cash. Two or three days later, "etitioner learnedhat its offer to "ay on terms had been fro?en.

-lfonso 'im went to 5P+ on July 7>, 7F>> andendered the full "ayment of PF.

ISSUE:9hether or not such contract is co#eredthe statute of frauds.

HELD:+n the case at bench, the allegation that thwas no concurrence of the offer and the acce"tau"on the cause of the contract is belied by testimony of the #ery 5P+ official with whom contract was "erfected. -romin and -lbconcluded the sale for 5P+. The fact that the deesale still had to be signed and notari?ed does mean that no contract had already been "erfecte

sale of land is #alid regardless of the form it mha#e been entered into. The re6uisite form un-rticle 7=G> of the Ci#il Code is merely for greefficacy or con#enience and the failure to comdoes not affect the #alidity and binding effect ofact between "arties. Therefore, such contract was made constituted fraud and is co#ered by statute of frauds. 5P+ should be held liable and be sued for damages

SECTION

24. DRILON V. LIM

FACTS:Pursuant to Section 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernmCode, the Secretary of Justice had, on a""eal to of four oil com"anies and a ta1"ayer, declardinance Bo. ;;F=, otherwise )nown as the &ae#enue Code, null and #oid for non$com"liance the "rescribed "rocedure in the enactment of ordinances and for containing certain "ro#iscontrary to law and "ublic "olicy.+n a "etition for certiorari filed by the City of &anthe egional Trial Court of &anila re#o)ed SecretaryOs resolution and sustained the ordina

holding inter alia that the "rocedural re6uiremehad been obser#ed. &ore im"ortantly, it declaSection 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Codeunconstitutional because of its #esture in Secretary of Justice of the "ower of control o#er lgo#ernments in #iolation of the "olicy of lautonomy mandated in the Constitution and of s"ecific "ro#ision therein conferring on the Presidof the Phili""ines only the "ower of su"er#ision olocal go#ernments. The court cited the famdistinction between control and su"er#ision, the being @the "ower of an officer to alter or modifset aside what a subordinate officer had done in

"erformance of his duties and to substitute %udgment of the former for the latter,A while second is @the "ower of a su"erior officer to see that lower officers "erform their functionsaccordance with law.A

ISSUES:The issues in this case are/70 whether or not Section 7>; of the '2o#ernment Code is unconstitutional4 and/80 whether or not the Secretary of Justice e1ercise control, rather than su"er#ision, o#er local go#ernment


27/48

HELD:The %udgment of the lower court is re#ersed in so faras its declaration that Section 7>; of the 'ocal2o#ernment Code is unconstitutional but affirmedhe said lower courtOs finding that the "rocedurale6uirements in the enactment of the &anila

e#enue Code ha#e been obser#ed.

Section 7>; authori?es the Secretary of Justice toe#iew only the constitutionality or legality of the ta1

ordinance and, if warranted, to re#o)e it on either or

both of these grounds. 9hen he alters or modifies orets aside a ta1 ordinance, he is not also "ermittedo substitute his own %udgment for the %udgment ofhe local go#ernment that enacted the measure.

Secretary rilon did set aside the &anila e#enueCode, but he did not re"lace it with his own #ersionof what the Code should be.

-n officer in control lays down the rules in the doingof an act. +t they are not followed, he may, in hisdiscretion, order the act undone or re$done by hisubordinate or he may e#en decide to do it himself.

Su"er#ision does not co#er such authority. The

u"er#isor or su"erintendent merely sees to it thathe rules are followed, but he himself does not laydown such rules, nor does he ha#e the discretion tomodify or re"lace them. +n the o"inion of the Court,Secretary rilon did "recisely this, and no more noress than this, and so "erformed an act not of controlbut of mere su"er#ision.

egarding the issue on the non$com"liance with the"rescribed "rocedure in the enactment of the &anilae#enue Code, the Court carefully e1amined e#erye1hibit and agree with the trial court that the"rocedural re6uirements ha#e indeed been

obser#ed. The only e1ce"tions are the "osting of theordinance as a""ro#ed but this omission does notaffect its #alidity, considering that its "ublication inhree successi#e issues of a news"a"er of generalirculation will satisfy due "rocess.

2. LARRANAGA V. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Petitioner 'arranaga was charged with twoounts of )idna""ing and serious illegal detention

before the TC of Cebu City. !e was arrested andwas detained without the filing of the necessarynformation and warrant of arrest. The "etitioner

alleged that he must be released and be sub%ect to a"reliminary in#estigation. !owe#er "ending theesolution of the Court for the "etition for certiorari,

"rohibition and mandamus with writs of "reliminary"rohibitory and mandatory in%unction filed by the"etitioner, TC %udge issued a warrant of arrestdirected to the "etitioner.

SSUE:

7. 9hether "etitioner is entitled to a regular"reliminary in#estigation.8.9hether "etitioner should be released fromdetention "ending the in#estigation.

HELD:7.Res. ur ruling is not altered by the fact "etitioner has been arraigned on ctober 7=, 7F

The rule is that the right to "reliminary in#estigais wai#ed when the accused fails to in#o)e it beor at the time of entering a "lea at arraignmPetitioner, in this case, has been acti#ely consistently demanding a regular "reliminin#estigation e#en before he was charged in co-lso, "etitioner refused to enter a "lea during

arraignment because there was a "ending casthis Court regarding his right to a#ail of a reg"reliminary in#estigation. Clearly, the acts"etitioner and his counsel are inconsistent witwai#er. Preliminary in#estigation is "art of "roceddue "rocess. +t cannot be wai#ed unless the waa""ears to be clear and informed.

8.Bo. The filing of charges and the issuance of warrant of arrest against a "erson in#alidly detawill cure the defect of that detention or at least dhim the right to be released because of such def

The original warrantless arrest of the "etitioner

doubtless illegal. Be#ertheless, the egional TCourt lawfully ac6uired %urisdiction o#er the "ersothe "etitioner by #irtue of the warrant of arresissued on -ugust 8:, 7FF80 and a circular, 7$F7 issby the Su"reme Court which deals with %urisdiction of courts for a""eal of cases decided6uasi$%udicial agencies such as the 5oard+n#estments /5+0.

8. 5+ granted "etitioner *irst 'e"anto Ceram+nc.Ms a""lication to amend its 5+ certificateregistration by changing the sco"e of its registe"roduct from Qgla?ed floor tilesQ to Qceramic til""ositor &ariwasa filed a motion for reconsideraof the said 5+ decision while o""ositor *il$!is"Ceramics, +nc. did not mo#e to reconsider the sa

nor a""eal therefrom. Soon rebuffed in its bidreconsideration, &ariwasa filed a "etition for re#with C-.

=. C- tem"orarily restrained the 5+ fim"lementing its decision. The T la"sed by its terms twenty /8H0 days after its issuance, withres"ondent court issuing any "reliminary in%unctio

G. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to liftrestraining order contending that C- does not h

%urisdiction o#er the 5+ case, since the same1clusi#ely #ested with the Su"reme Court "ursu


28/48

o -rticle >8 of the mnibus +n#estments Code of7F>;.

:. Petitioner argued that the Judiciaryeorgani?ation -ct of 7F>H or 5.P. 78F and Circular7$F7, QPrescribing the ules 2o#erning -""eals tohe Court of -""eals from a *inal rder or ecision ofhe Court of Ta1 -""eals and \uasi$Judicial -genciesQannot be the basis of &ariwasaMs a""eal toes"ondent court because the "rocedure for a""ealaid down therein runs contrary to -rticle >8 of E..

88:, which "ro#ides that a""eals from decisions ororders of the 5+ shall be filed directly with theSu"reme Court.

;. 9hile &ariwasa maintains that whate#ernconsistency there may ha#e been between 5.P. 78Fand -rticle >8 of E.. 88: on the 6uestion of #enueor a""eal, has already been resol#ed by Circular 7$

F7 of the Su"reme Court, which was "romulgated onebruary 8;, 7FF7 or four /=0 years after E.. 88:

was enacted.

SSUE: 9hether or not the Court of -""eals has

urisdiction o#er the case

HELD:RES. Circular 7$F7 effecti#ely re"ealed or su"erseded-rticle >8 of E.. 88: insofar as the manner andmethod of enforcing the right to a""eal fromdecisions of the 5+ are concerned. -""eals fromdecisions of the 5+, which by statute was "re#iouslyallowed to be filed directly with the Su"reme Court,hould now be brought to the Court of -""eals.

2#. ARUELO V. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

-ruelo claims that in election contests, theC&E'EC ules of Procedure gi#es the res"ondentherein only fi#e days from recei"t of summons

within which to file his answer to the "etition /Part 3+,ule and of Section ;, "aragra"h b, Bo. 8 of e"u-ct Bo. :;7


29/48

HELD:PetitionerMs contention that Section FH of the 'ocal2o#ernment Code of 7FF7 and '2&emorandumCircular Bo. FH$>7 #iolate -rticle 3+++, Section G of theConstitution iscom"letely off tangent. Beither thetatute nor the circular trenches u"on the Su"reme

CourtMs "ower and authority to "rescribe rules on the"ractice of law. The 'ocal 2o#ernment Code and'2&emorandum Circular Bo. FH$>7 sim"ly "rescribeules of conduct for "ublic officials toa#oid conflicts

of interest between the discharge of their "ublic

duties and the "ri#ate "ractice of their "rofession, inhose instances where the law allows it.Section FH ofhe 'ocal 2o#ernment Code does not discriminate

against lawyers anddoctors. +t a""lies to all "ro#incialand munici"al officials in the "rofessions or engagedn anyoccu"ation. Section FH e1"licitly "ro#ides thatanggunian members Qmay "ractice their

"rofessions, engage in any occu"ation, or teach inchools e1"ect during session hours.Q +f thereareome "rohibitions that a""ly "articularly to lawyers,t is because of all the "rofessions, the "ractice of laws more li)ely than others to relate to, or affect, thearea of "ublic ser#ice.

2&. PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THEEEMPTION OF THE GSIS FROM PAYMENT OFLEGAL FEES$ AM NO. '%525'15'

&ay the legislature e1em"t the 2o#ernment Ser#icensurance System /2S+S0 from legal fees im"osed byhe Court on go#ernment$owned and controlledor"orations and local go#ernment unitsK This is theentral issue in this administrati#e matter.

The 2S+S see)s e1em"tion from the "ayment of legalees im"osed on go#ernment$owned or controlledor"orations under Section 88,X7Y ule 7=7 /'egal

ees0 of the ules of Court. The said "ro#ision states

SEC. 88. 2o#ernment e1em"t. Z The e"ublic of thePhili""ines, its agencies and instrumentalities aree1em"t from "aying the legal fees "ro#ided in thisule. 'ocal go#ernment cor"orationsandgo#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orationswith or without inde"endent charter are not e1em"trom "aying such fees.

!owe#er, all court actions, criminal or ci#il, institutedat the instance of the "ro#incial, city or munici"alreasurer or assessor under Sec. 8>H of the 'ocal

2o#ernment Code of 7FF7 shall be e1em"t from the"ayment of court and sheriffOs fees. /em"hasisu""lied0

The 2S+S anchors its "etition on Section 8F7 /The 2S+S -ct of 7FF;0

SEC. 8F7 as low as "ossible. 'i)e the terms @ta1@assessments,A @charges,A and @duties,A the t@feesA is used in the law in its generic and ordinsense as any form of go#ernment im"osition. word @fees,A defined as @chargeXsY fi1ed by lawser#ices of "ublic officers or for the use of a "ri#iunder control of go#ernment,A is 6ualified by "hrase @of all )inds.AX


30/48

ees "rescribed by this Court under ule 7=7.&oreo#er, no distinction should be made based onhe )ind of fees im"osed on the 2S+S or the 2S+SO

ability to "ay because the law itself does notdistinguish based on those matters.

The 2S+S argues that its e1em"tion from the"ayment of legal fees would not mean that - >8F7s su"erior to the ules of Court. +t would merelyhow @deferenceA by the Court to the legislature as ao$e6ual branch.X=Y This deference will recogni?e the

com"elling and o#erridingA State interest in the"reser#ation of the actuarial sol#ency of the 2S+S forhe benefit of its members.XGY

The 2S+S further contends that the right ofgo#ernment wor)ers to social security is an as"ect ofocial %ustice. The right to social security is also

guaranteed under -rticle 88 of the ni#ersaleclaration of !uman ights and -rticle F of thenternational Co#enant on Economic, Social and

Cultural ights. The Court has the "ower to"romulgate rules concerning the "rotection andenforcement of constitutional rights, including the

ight to social security, but the 2S+S is not com"ellinghe Court to "romulgate such rules. The 2S+S ismerely as)ing the Court to recogni?e and allow thee1ercise of the right of the 2S+S @to see) relief fromhe courts of %ustice sans "ayment of legal fees.AX:Y

e6uired to comment on the 2S+SO "etition,X;Y theffice of the Solicitor 2eneral /S20 maintains thathe "etition should be denied.X>Y -ccording to the

S2, the issue of the 2S+SO e1em"tion from legalees has been resol#ed by the issuance by then Court

-dministrator Presbitero J. 3elasco, Jr.XFY of C-X7HYCircular Bo. F


31/48

and local go#ernment units which as)ed fore1em"tion from "aying legal fees citing "ro#isions inheir res"ecti#e charters that are similar to Section

8F7.X7GY Thus, the C-T recommends thathe "etition of 2S+S be denied and the issue beettled once and for all for the guidance of theoncerned "arties.aced with the differing o"inions of the 2S+S, the

S2 and the C-T, we now "roceed to "robe intohe heart of this matter may Congress e1em"t the

2S+S from the "ayment of legal feesK Bo.

The 2S+S urges the Court to show deference toCongress by recogni?ing the e1em"tion of the 2S+Sunder Section 8F7 from legal fees im"osedunder ule 7=7. Effecti#ely, the 2S+S wants thisCourt to recogni?e a "ower of Congress to re"eal,amend or modify a rule of "rocedure "romulgated byhe Court. !owe#er, the Constitution anduris"rudence do not sanction such #iew.

ule 7=7 /on 'egal *ees0 of the ules of Court was"romulgated by this Court in the e1ercise of its rule$ma)ing "owers under Section G/G0, -rticle 3+++ of the

Constitution

Sec. G. The Su"reme Court shall ha#e the following"owers1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1G0 Promulgate rules concerning the "rotection

and enforcement of constitutional rights, "leading,"ractice, and "rocedure in all courts, the admissiono the "ractice of law, the +ntegrated 5ar, and legal

assistance to the under"ri#ileged. Such rules shall"ro#ide a sim"lified and ine1"ensi#e "rocedure forhe s"eedy dis"osition of cases, shall be uniform for

all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,

ncrease, or modify substanti#e rights. ules of"rocedure of s"ecial courts and 6uasi$%udicial bodieshall remain effecti#e unless disa""ro#ed by the

Su"reme Court.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /em"hasis

u""lied0The "ower to "romulgate rules concerning "leading,"ractice and "rocedure in all courts is a traditional"ower of this Court.X7:Y +t necessarily includes the"ower to address all 6uestions arising from oronnected to the im"lementation of the said rules.

The ules of Court was "romulgated in the e1ercise

of the CourtOs rule$ma)ing "ower. +t is essentially"rocedural in nature as it does not create, diminish,ncrease or modify substanti#e rights. Corollarily,ule 7=7 is basically "rocedural. +t does not create ora)e away a right but sim"ly o"erates as a means tom"lement an e1isting right. +n "articular, it functionso regulate the "rocedure of e1ercising a right of

action and enforcing a cause of action.X7;Y +n"articular, it "ertains to the "rocedural re6uirementof "aying the "rescribed legal fees in the filing of a"leading or any a""lication that initiates an action or"roceeding.X7>Y

Clearly, therefore, the "ayment of legal fees unule 7=7 of the ules of Court is an integral "arthe rules "romulgated by this Court "ursuant torule$ma)ing "ower under Section G/G0, -rticle 3+the Constitution. +n "articular, it is "art of the rconcerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedurecourts. +ndeed, "ayment of legal /or doc)et0 fees

%urisdictional re6uirement.X7FY +t is not sim"ly filing of the com"laint or a""ro"riate initia"leading but the "ayment of the "rescribed docfee that #ests a trial court with %urisdiction o#er

sub%ect$matter or nature of the action.X8HY -""eldoc)et and other lawful fees are re6uired to be "within the same "eriod for ta)ing an a""eal.Payment of doc)et fees in full within the "rescri"eriod is mandatory for the "erfection of an a""X88Y 9ithout such "ayment, the a""ellate court dnot ac6uire %urisdiction o#er the sub%ect matter ofaction and the decision sought to be a""ealed fbecomes final and e1ecutory.X8;amended by - F=H:.X8:Y This was not an abdicaby the Court of its rule$ma)ing "ower but sim"recognition of the limits of that "ower. +n "articula

reflected a )een awareness that, in the e1ercise orule$ma)ing "ower, the Court may not dilutedefeat the right of access to %ustice of indiglitigants.

The 2S+S cannot successfully in#o)e the righsocial security of go#ernment em"loyees in su"of its "etition. +t is a cor"orate entity wh"ersonality is se"arate and distinct from that oindi#idual members. The rights of its members not its rights4 its rights, "owers and functions "erto it solely and are not shared by its membersca"acity to sue and bring actions under Section =

of - >8F7, the s"ecific "ower which in#ol#es e1em"tion that it claims in this case,

Documents

Judicial Case 1-10 (Digested) (1)