statcon_conejos, haulo, laylo _ atty.cristobal

7/28/2019 STATCON_conejos, Haulo, Laylo _ Atty.cristobal

1/101

STATCON CASE DIGEST AND DOCTRINES ATTY. CRISTOBAL

1 | P a g e Conejos Haulo Laylo

Chapter 1

Case Title Issue/Gist STATCON Concept

Joaquino v Reyes

Caltex v Palomar

If the Caltex Hooded Pump Contest

a lottery or gift enterprise

Set forth the meaning of Construction as the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning

and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to given case, where that intention is

rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for

in the law

Mun.of

Panganiban v

Shell Co.of the

Phil.,Ltd.,

Shell Company alleging the

constitutionality of Act to provide

Means for Increasing the Highway

Special Fund because the title

renders 2 subject matter

The bill shall embrace only one subject. To prohibit duplicity in legislation. The subject should clearly state

the nature, scope, and consequences of the laws or its operation (page 11- Agapalo)

Lidasan v

COMELEC,

The passage of An Act Creating the

municipality of Dianaton in the

Province of Lanao del Sur, wherein

9 provinces will come from lanao

and 12 provinces will be from

Cotabato. The capital will beTogaig, Cotabato

Title and subject matter of statute:

(1) Congress is refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogeneous subjects(2) Title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and

those concerned of the import of the single subject.

Purpose of the requirement:- The subject of the statute must be expressed in the title of the bill- Compliance is imperative (necessary) because the Congress is not obligated to read during its

deliberation the entire text of the bill.

- Does not require the congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such precision tomirror fully indexed or catalogued all the contents and the minute details therein.

- It suffices if the title should inform the legislators the persons interested in the subject of the bill, andthe public of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operation.

Test of sufficiency of the tile (Whether or not misleading)

- substance rather than its form- a title which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose

of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents,

- the title did not reflect the transfer of a portion of Cotobato to LanaoSeparability Clause (pg 15)

- When the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected- To warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole,- If all could not be carried into effect- parts of the statute that are so mutually dependent and connected the whole statute- should be declared null and void.

United BF Home Insurance and Guaranty - The power to promulgate rules in implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is


2/101



Homeowner's

Assn.v BF

Homes, Inc.

Corporation (HIGC) revised the

rules of procedure set forth in PD

902-A by adding jurisdiction

disputes between such association

and the state. The PD-902 A only

gave authority to HIGC jurisdiction

over intra-corporate disputes

HIGC went beyond the authority

provided by the law when it

promulgated the IRR

provided for in the legislative enactment.

- An administrative agency can not amend an Act of Congress(1) amend or expand statutory requirement, or(2) to embrace matters not covered by statute

- If discrepancy occurs between the basic law and the IRR, it is the basic law that prevails- Administrative agency cant go beyond its mandate or powers vested by the legislative department.- It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or

statute

China Banking

Corp. v Members

of Board of

Trustees, HDMF,

Home Development Mutual Fund

(HDMF) alleged of grave abuse of

discretion by requiring China Bank

to have BOTH a comprehensive

provident and an employee

housing plan. But PD No. 1752

required only and/or statement

And/or

- legal meaning of the words "and/or" should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., "either and or";e.g. butter and/or eggs means butter and eggs or butter or eggs

- intention of the legislature in using the term "and/or" is that word "and" and the word "or" are to beused interchangeably.

- one word or the other may be taken accordingly as one or the other will best effectuate the purposeintended by the legislature as gathered from the whole statute.

- law obviously contemplates that the existence of either plan is considered as sufficient basis for thegrant of an exemption; needless to state, the concurrence of both plans is more than sufficient.Summary:

- The power to promulgate rules in implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what isprovided for in the legislative enactment.

- Administrative agency cant go beyond its mandate or powers vested by the legislative department.- The board exceeded its rule making power by amending the law, rendering said rules null and void, for

the law obviously contemplates the existence of EITHER plans not BOTH plans to be superior than

that of HDMF)

Morfe v Mutuc,

The passage of RA 3019, Ant i-Graft

and Corrupt Act, which requires the

public officials to submit sworn

statement of assets and liabilities

- That only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken may be the basisfor declaring a statute invalid

- It is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and keep it within the bounds of proprietaryand common sense. That is primarily a legislative concern

Bayan,

Karapatan, KMP

v Ermita,

Tanada v

Tuvera,136 SCRA

27 [1985],

Court affirmed the necessity for the

publication to the Official Gazette

all unpublished presidential

issuances which are of general

application, and unless so

- the publication of laws before become effective can not be dispensed with (required) due process ofthe law

- Unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity other than 15 days from the date ofpublication on Official Gazette. Not the option to omit the requirement of publication

- There is a need for publication because omission would offend due process denying the public


3/101



published, they shall have no

binding force and effect.

knowledge of the laws

- The mere mention of the number of the presidential decree, the title of the decree and a meresupplement in official gazette CAN NOT satisfy the publication requirement.

- Publication must be in full otherwise deemed not published.- Interpretive regulations and those merely internal in nature (regulating personnel of the

administrative agency and not the public) need not be published

- Charter of a city must be published even though it only applies to only a portion of the nationalterritory and directly affects only the inhabitants

- Presidential Decree that only favored individuals or exempting a certain group of people must bepublished

- Instruction issued by an administrative agency no need to publish- Municipal ordinances governed by the local government code meaning not covered to this

requirement

- The publication must be made in Off icial Gazette and not elsewhere for the effectivity after 15 daysPhil.Veterans

Bank Employees

Union v Vega,

The liquidation of the Phil Veterans

bank but a subsequent of Cory

Aquino pursuant to RA 7169 which

was effective immediately.

- if the statute provides for effectivity upon approval, said law becomes effective on the date of itsapproval falls under unless otherwise provided

- the word effective immediately therefore the said law become effective on the said date

Phil.International

Trading Corp. v

COA,

There was a dimunition of salariesby removing the car loan plan

pursuant to a DBM-CCC No. 10 of

the Department of Budget and

Management

- The court rules that to be effective, the circular should first be published in OG because it was not justand interpretation or internal regulation, but one which deprived government officials theirallowances and additional compensation.

- Subsequent publication DID NOT cure the defect of lack of publication- Would the subsequent publication thereof cure the defect and retroact to the time that the above-

mentioned items were disallowed in audit?

negative, precisely, for the reason that publication is required as a condition precedentto theeffectivity of a law to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before

their rights and interests are affected by the same.

- Will not take the RETROACTIVE effect, but apply PROSPECTIVELY

Note: Civil Code Article 2

Effectivity of Laws (1990)

After a devastating storm causing widespread destruction in four Central Luzon

provinces, the executive and legislative branches of the government agreed to

enact a special law appropriating P1 billion for purposes of relief and rehabilitation

for the provinces. In view of the urgent nature of the legislative enactment, it is

provided in its effectivity clause that it shall take effect upon approval and after

completion of publication in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general

circulation in the Philippines. The law was passed by the Congress on July 1, 1990.

signed into law by the President on July 3, 1990, and published in such newspaper

of general circulation on July 7, 1990 and in the Official Gazette on July 10, 1990.

(a) As to the publication of said legislative enactment, is there sufficient

observance or compliance with the requirements for a valid publication? Explain

your answer.

(b) When did the law take effect? Explain your answer.

(c) Can the executive branch start releasing and disbursing funds appropriated

by the said law the day f ollowing its approval? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


4/101



(a) Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself prescribes the requisites of

publication for its effectivity, and all requisites have been complied with. (Article 2,

Civil Code)

(b) The law takes effect upon compliance with all the conditions for effectivity, and

the last condition was complied with on July 10, 1990. Hence, the" law became

effective on that date.

(c) No. It was not yet effective when it was approved by Congress on July 1, 1990

and approved by the President on July 3, 1990. The other requisites for its

effectivity were not yet complete at the time.

Chapter 2

Case Title Issue/Gist STATCON Concept

People v Mapa, 20

SCRA 1164

Accused was charged for illegal possession

of firearm and ammmunition in an

information dated 14 August 1962.

Accused admits to possession of firearm on

ground of being a secret agent.

Appeal involves a question of law, as that it

was taken to the Supreme Court.

NOT ACQUITTED: overruled People vs.

Macarandang

Law explicit, no provision made for secret agent The law is explicit that except as thereafter specially allowed, xxx Firearms and ammunition

regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines [of the AFP, the PC, guards in

the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant

governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of

provincial prisoners and jails, are not covered when such firearms are in possession of such

officials and public servants for use in the performance of their offic ial duties. No provision is

made for a secret agent.

Duty of the court to apply the law; Construction if application is impossible or inadequate Thefirst and fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation

come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without

them. It is not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a

statutory provision.

Silva v Cabrera, 88

Phil 381

Instead of the Commission conducting the

corresponding hearing in order to receive

the evidence to be presented by applicant

and oppositors, Commissioner Feliciano

Ocampo by order dated July 14, 1949,

commissioned Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera,

Chief of the Legal Division "to take thetestimony of witnesses"

The delegation made by the Commission to

Attorney Aspillera to take the testimony of

witnesses was illegal and contrary

Where the law is clear, compliance is essential Neither this court nor the commission may on grounds of convenience, expediency or prompt

dispatch of cases, disregard the law or circumvent the same.

The remedy lies with the Legislature if it could be convinced of the necessity of amending thelaw, and persuaded to approve a suitable amendment.

Quijano v DBP, 35

SCRA 270

Prohibition of DBP to use Back pay

certificate to cover the outstanding balance

of the loan availed by Quijano

Thus, even before the amendment of the

No room for interpretation or construction in the clear and unambiguous language of theprovision of law.

The doctrine that itsfirst and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to itsexpress terms,

Interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible


5/101



Back Pay Law, when said law limited the

applicability of back pay certificates to

"obligations subsisting at the time of the

approval of this Act," this Court has ruled

that obligations contracted after its

enactment on June 18, 1948 cannot come

within its purview.

Commissioner of

Internal Revenue v.

Lim-Pan

Investment

The Limpan Investment Corporation filedincome tax returns for the years 1959 and

1960, which became the bases of two

deficiency tax assessments flowing from

deduction disallowed after investigation and

verification by the Bureau on Internal

Revenue

Sole issue of when payment by the Limpan

Investment Corporation of the 5% monthly

interest for delinquency did legally accrue.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the terms of the statute are clear andunambigous, no interpretation is called for, and the law is applied as written, for application is

the first duty of courts, and interpretation, only where literal application is impossible or

inadequate.

HELD: In L-28571, interest shall be computed from September 7, 1962, the date of notice anddemand, at 1% per month, for 3 years, no payment having been made within thirty days from

such notice and demand. The surcharge of 5% accrued on failure to pay the deficiency tax due

within thirty days from notice and demand. In L-28644, interest shall be computed from April 4,

1963, the date of notice and demand. The surcharge of 5% accrued on failure to pay the

deficiency tax due within thirty days from notice and demand.

People v. Nazario

In the Municipality of Pagbilao, Province of

Quezon, Philippines, Nazario refuse and fail

to pay the municipal taxes required of him

as fishpond operator as provided for under

Ordinance No. 4, series of 1955.

HELD: In no way may the ordinances be said

to be tainted with the vice of vagueness.

Nazario falls within its coverage. As the

actual operator of the fishponds, he comes

within the term " manager." He financed the

construction of the fishponds, introduced

fish fries into the fishponds, and had

employed laborers to maintain them. The

National Government never shared in the

profits they had generated. It is therefore

only logical that he shoulders the burden of

tax under the said ordinances.

What are vague statutes?

A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men "ofcommon intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." It

is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord

persons, especially the parties targetted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it

leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary

flexing of the Government muscle.

When can a vague statute struck down?

It should be a perfectly vague statute

Utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it cannot be clarified by either a saving clause or byconstruction

If not perfectly vague then use Canons of Construction It is to be distinguished, however, from legislation couched in imprecise language but which

nonetheless specifies a standard though defectively phrased in which case, it may be "saved"

by proper construction.

Doctrine of void for vagueness

Ursua v. CA

Cesario Ursua in getting some documents

from the Ombudsman, used the name of his

Attorneys Messenger, Oscar Perez. The

Statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes to be achieved and the evils sought tobe remedied.

In construing a statute the reason for its enactment should be kept in mind and the statute


6/101



Ombudsman charged of illegal use of Alias should be construed with reference to the intended scope and purpose.

The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would leadto absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.

Chartered Bank

Employees v. Ople

The Chartered Bank Employees Association,

complained against Chartered Bank, for the

nonpayment of 10 unworked legal holidays,

as well as for premium and overtime

differentials for worked legal holidays from 1November 1974.

Minister of Labor dismissed the petitioners

claim basing its decision on Section 2, Rule

IV, Book III of the Integrated Rules and Policy

Instruction 9, claiming the rule that If the

monthly paid employee is receiving not less

than P240, the maximum monthly minimum

wage, and his monthly pay is uniform from

January to December, he is presumed to be

already paid the 10 paid legal holidays.However, if deductions are made from his

monthly salary on account of holidays in

months where they occur, then he is still

entitled to the 10 paid legal holidays.

When the language is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean what is saysWhen the language of the law is clear and unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly

what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the

benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit, it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion

from the benefit. In Policy Instruction 9, the Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically

state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees, when the law clearly

states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay.

Executive construction given weight by court except when erroneous, thereby being null andvoid

While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive

officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts, still if such

construction is so erroneous, the same must be declared as null and void. An administrative

interpretation, which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or

withholds, is obviously ultra vires.

All doubts construed resolved in favor of labor; Intent of legislature towards most beneficialeffectAny slight doubts must be resolved in favor of the workers. This is in keeping with the

constitutional mandate of promoting social justice and affording protection to labor (Sections 6

and 9, Article II, Constitution). Article 4 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides all doubts in the

implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing

rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. Moreover, it shall always be presumed

that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most

beneficial effect that its language permits. Any remaining doubts which may arise from the

conflicting or different divisors used in the computation of overtime pay and employees

absences are resolved by the manner in which work actually rendered on holidays is paid.

Acop v. Guingona

Admission of SP02 de los Reyes and SP02 dela Cruz into the Witness Protection Program

was assailed because not allowed under

Section 3(d) and Section 4 of RA NO. 6981

Petitioners' main contention is that Section

3 of R.A. No. 6981 lays down the basic

qualifications a person must possess in order

to be admitted into the Program and that

Section 4 of the same statute is not an

exception to Section 3 but, it simply adds

requirements for witnesses before they may

Where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguishThe operation of a proviso is usually and properly confined to the clause or distinct portion of the

enactment which immediately precedes it or to which it pertains, and does not extend to or

qualify other sections or portions of the statute, unless the legislative intent that it shall so

operate is clearly disclosed.[6]

HELD: A careful reading of Sections 3 and 4 readily shows that these are distinct and independent

provisions. It is true that the proviso in Section 3(d) disqualifies law enforcement officers from being

admitted into the Program when they "testify bef ore any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any

investigating authority." This is the general rule. However, Section 4 provides for a specific and

separate situation where a witness testifies before a legislative investigation. An investigation by a

legislative committee does not fall under the category of "any investigating authority" referred to in


7/101



become eligible for admission into the

Program in case of legislative investigations.

Section 3.

Melendres v.

Comelec

Melendres running for Barangay Chairman

filed a petition/protest in the court but

failed to pay a docket fee invoking that it is

only a administrative requirement rather

than an important jurisdiction implication

The power of administrative agencies to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute isnecessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment.

The interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to implement astatute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts.

Rationale: (Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals)

The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a

modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for

addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and

growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a

particular statute. In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs[19] the Court

stressed that executive officials are presumed to have familiarized themselves with all the

considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of the law, and to have formed an

independent, conscientious and competent expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight

to the government agency or officials charged with the implementation of the law, their

competence, expertness, experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they frequently

are drafters of the law they interpret.

Courts will not hesitate to disregard executive interpretation when it is clearly erroneous, orwhen there is no ambiguity in the rule, or when the language or words used are clear and plain

or readily understandable to any ordinary reader.

When an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merelyinterprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is

the courts that finally determine what the law means. Thus an action by an administrative

agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power,

lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the

law

DAR v. Sutton

In the case at bar, we find that theimpugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes

the Constitution. The A.O. sought to

regulate livestock farms by including them in

the coverage of agrarian reform and

prescribing a maximum retention limit for

their ownership. However, the

deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional

Commission show a clear intent to exclude,

inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to

livestock, swine and poultry- raising.

Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e., the power to makerules and regulations. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern

governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions. However, while

administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law, they are not immune from

judicial review.

The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules andregulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the provisions of the

Constitution.

In sum, it is doctrinal that rules ofadministrative bodies must be in harmony with theprovisions of the Constitution. In case of conflict between an administrative order and the

provisions of the Constitution, the latter prevails.

Fundamental rule of statutory construction that the reenactment of a statute by Congress


8/101



without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and adoption of the previous law.

On the other hand, by making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one.

the new law changed the definition of the terms agricultural activity and commercialfarming by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock,

poultry and swine-raising.With this significant modification, Congress clearly sought to align

the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to

exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.

Deliberation of Constitutional Commission maybe sought for to see the legislative intent

Columbia Pictures

v. CA

The validity of the search warrant when the

master copy for pirated is not presented in

the lower court which was done in a later

case in 20th

century fox

It is consequently clear that a judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date thatlaw was originally passed, subject only to the qualification that when a doctrine of this Court is

overruled and a different view is adopted, and more so when there is a reversal thereof, the new

doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who relied on the old

doctrine and acted in good faith.

To hold otherwise would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justiceHeld: it is our considered view that the 20th Century Fox ruling cannot be retroactively applied to the

instant case to justify the quashal of Search Warrant No. 87-053.

People v. Licera

In 1961, accused was granted an

appointment as secret agent of GovernorLeviste. In 1965, accused was charged with

illegal possession of firearms. The SC held

that where at the time of his appointment,

People v. Macarandang (1959) was

applicable, which held that secret agents

were exempt from the license requirement,

and later People v. Mapa (1967) was

decided, the earlier case should be held

applicable.

Art. 8 of the Civil Code decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or theConstitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system.

The application or interpretation placed by the courts upon a law is part of the law as of thedate of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely

establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into

effect.

A new doctrine abrogating an old rule operates prospectively and should not adversely affectthose favored by the old rule.

Perfecto v. Meer

Article VIII, section 9 of the Constitution

provides that the members of the SupremeCourt and all judges of inferior courts shall

receive such compensation as may be fixed

by law, which shall not be diminished during

their continuance in office.

Salaries of judicial officers cannot be diminishedThe Constitution of the United States, like ours, forbids the diminution of the compensation ofJudges of the Supreme Court and of inferior courts. Various states, except Wisconsin and

Missouri, provide the rule where the Constitution of a state provides that the salaries of its

judicial officers shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, it has been held that

the state legislature cannot impose a tax upon the compensation paid to the judges of its court.

Independence of the judiciary; prohibition against diminutionThus, the primary purpose of the prohibition against diminution was not to benefit the judges,

but, like the clause in respect of tenure, to attract good and competent men to the bench, and

to promote that independence of action and judgment which is essential to the maintenance

of the guaranties, limitations, and pervading principles of the Constitution, and to the

administration of justice without respect to persons, and with equal concern for the poor and

the rich.


9/101



The exemption of the judicial salary from reduction by taxation not a gratuity or privilegeThe undiminishable character of judicial salaries is not a mere privilege of judges, personal and

therefore waivable, but a basic limitation upon leg islative or executive action imposed in the

public interest (Evans vs. Gore).

Endencia v David

RA590 was enacted by Congress after the

promulgation of the Courts decision in

Perfecto v. Meer. Section 13 of said act

provided that no salary wherever received

by any public officer of the Republic of the

Philippines shall be considered as exempt

from the income tax, payment of which is

hereby declared not to be a diminution of

his compensation fixed by the Constitution

or by law.

Interpretation and application of Constitution and statutes belong to JudiciaryThe interpretation and application of the Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive

province and jurisdiction of the judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature

may interpret in such a way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying thehands of the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute, specially when the

interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation

already given in a case by the highest court of the land.

Legislature can not override judicial construction

People v. Canton

stare decisis et non quieta movere invokes adherence to precedents and mandates not to unsettle

things which are established. When the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a

certain state of facts, it must adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts

are substantially the same.

Floresca v Philex,

135 SCRA 142

Several miners were killed in a cave-in atone of Philex Mining Corporations mine

sites. The heirs of the miners were able to

recover under the Workmans

Compensation Act (WCA). Thereafter, a

special committee report indicated that the

company failed to provide the miners with

adequate safety protection. The heirs

decided to file a complaint for damages

before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of

Manila.

Judicial Legislation The Court argues that the Court can legislate, pursuant to Article 9 of the New Civil Code, which

provides that No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,

obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Thus, even the legislator himself recognizes that in certain instances, the court do and mustlegislate to fill in the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings, is

finite and therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply.

CHAPTER 5CASE FACTS RULING

Amadoravs CA

G.R. 47745

15 Apr 1988

Pr: Certiorari

PablitoDaffon fired a gun that mortally hit

Alfredo Amadora while they were at the

auditorium of their school, Colegio de San Jose-

Recoletos.

Art 2180 of the Civil Code should apply to all schools, academic as well as

non-academic.

Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except

where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head


10/101



CASE FACTS RULING

P: Cruz

Statcon:reddendosingulasingulis

Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless

imprudence and the victims parents filed a civil

action for damages under Art 2180 of the Civil

Code.

Imputed in the complaint were the rector, HSprincipal, dean for the boys, and physics teacher.

CFI of Cebu granted petition but later reversed

on appeal.

Issue: Is Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos included

in Art 2180 of the Civil Code, it not being a school

of arts and trades but an academic institution?

thereof who shall be answerable.

Following the canon of reddendosingulasingulis, teachers should apply

to the words pupils and students and heads of establishments of arts

and trades to the word apprentices.

The provision must be interpreted by the Court according to its clear and

original mandate.

Agpalo: reddendosingulasingulis referring each to each; referring each

phrase or expression to its appropriate object, or let each be put in its

proper place i.e. the words should be taken distributively. It requires that

the antecedents and consequences should be read distributively to the

effect that each word is to be applied to the subject to which it appears

by context most appropriately related and to which it is most applicable.

Cadayonavs CA

G.R. 128771

3 Feb 2000

Pr: Review

P: Gonzaga-Reyes

Statcon: doctrine of last

antecedent

Ricardo Cadayona filed a Petition for review with

the CA to annul CSC Resolution affirming his

preventive suspension.

CA dismissed the petition outright due to: 1)

certificate of non-forum shopping was executed

by the counsel, not the petitioner himself; 2)

three annexes were mere photocopies and not

certified true copies

Issue: Does the Administrative Circular 1-95 also

require annexes to be certified true copies?

Application of the doctrine of last antecedent is misleading for the proper

application of the doctrine shows that the phrase certified true copies

qualifies the words nearest to it i.e. such material portion of the record

as are referred to therein and other supporting papers.

Sec. 6, Rule 1: Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their

objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every

action and proceeding.

The Court does not construe Sec. 6 of Rule 43 as imposing the

requirement that all supporting papers accompanying the petition should

be certified true copies. Only the judgments or final orders need becertified true copies.

Agpalo: doctrine of last antecedent a qualifying word or phrase should

be understood as referring to the nearest antecedent. Relative words

refer to the nearest antecedents, unless the context otherwise requires.

Carandangvs Santiago and

Valenton

G.R. 8238

25 May 1995

Tomas Valenton was convicted of frustrated

homicide committed against Cesar Carandang.

Carandang filed a civil action to recover damages

Physical injuries should be understood to mean bodily injury, not the

crime of physical injuries, because the terms used with the latter are

general terms.


11/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Pr: Certiorari

P: Labrador

Statcon: Words with technicalor legal meaning

for the bodily injuries. Valenton presented a

motion to suspend the trial of the civil case

pending the resolution of the criminal case. CA

ruled that the trial must await the result of the

criminal case on appeal.

Issue: Does the term physical injuries in Art 33

mean physical injuries in the RPC or any physical

injury or bodily injury?

Respondents argued that the term physical injuries is used to define a

specific crime defined in the RPC and should be understood in its peculiar

and technical sense. Wrong. Defamation and fraud in Art. 33 are used in

their ordinary (generic) sense because there are no specific provisions in

the RPC using these terms as means of offenses.

It is difficult to believe that the Code Commission would have used terms

in the same article-some in their general and another in its technical

sense.

Agpalo: words that have been used in a technical sense or those that have

been judicially construed to have a certain meaning should be interpreted

according to the sense in which they have been previously used.

AdasavsAbalos

G.R. 168617

19 Feb 2007

Pr: Review

P: Chico-Nazario

Statcon:Word or phrase

construed in relation to other

provisions

CecilleAbalos filed two complaints of estafa

against Bernadette Adasa.

Iligan Prosecutor found probable cause and filed

criminal cases. RTC ordered reinvestigation,

same findings.

After being arraigned, Adasa filed a Petition for

Review with DOJ which it granted and ordered

the withdrawal of the cases.

CA reverses DOJ ruling.

Issue: Did the DOJ err in entertaining the petitionof Adasa for reinvestigation?

DOJ has no other course of action but to deny or dismiss a petition before

him when arraignment of an accused had already taken place.

When a statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, interpretation need not

be resorted to. Sec 7 of the circular clearly and categorically directs the

DOJ to dismiss outright an appeal or petition for review filed after

arraignment, no resort to interpretation is necessary.

Sec 7 is neither contradictory nor irreconcilable with Sec 12. Sec 7

pertains to the action on the petition that the DOJ must take while Sec 12

enumerates the options the DOJ has with regard to the disposition of a

petition for review or of an appeal.

Florentino and Zanduetavs PNB

G.R. 7872

28 Apr 1956

Pr: Appeal

P: Jugo

Florentino and Zandueta filed a petition for

mandamus against PNB to compel it to accept

the backpay certificate to pay an indebtedness.

PNB refuses to accept.

Issue: Does the clause who may be willing to

accept the same for settlement refer to al l

antecedents the Government, etc or only the

Qualifying cause refers only to the last antecedent any citizen of the

Philippines. To make the acceptance of backpay certificates obligatory

upon any citizen would render Sec 2 of RA 897 unconstitutional.

Secretary of Justice held the phrase who may be wil ling to accept the

same for settlement qualifies only its immediate antecedent and does

not apply to the Government or its agencies.


12/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Statcon: doctrine of last

antecedent

last antecedent any citizen of the Philippines?

People vsDelantar

G.R. 169143

2 Feb 2007

Pr: Appeal

P: Tinga

Statcon: noscitur a sociis

SimplicioDelantar was convicted of violations of

Sec 5, Art 3 of RA 7610 (child prostitution) and

was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Is Delantar considered the victims

guardian which would warrant the imposition of

the maximum penalty?

No, guardian is associated in the provision denotes a legal relationship.

Noscitur a sociis: the correct construction of a word or phrase susceptible

of various meanings may be made clear and specific by considering thecompany of words in which it is found or with which it is associated.

Sec. 31c of Ra 7610 contains a listing of the circumstances of relationship

between the perpetrator and the victim which will justify the maximum

penalty. Guardian, as envisioned by the law, is a person who has a legal

relationship with a ward.

GachonvsDevera Jr.

G.R. 116695

20 Jun 1997

Pr: Review

P: Panganiban

Statcon: words construed in

their ordinary sense

Susana Guevara filed a complaint for forcible

entry against Victoria Gachon and Alex Guevara.

Gachon failed to file an Answer promptly which

led the MTCC to rule motupropio. RTC, on

certiorari, affirmed MTCC ruling.

Issue: May the Rule on Summary Procedure be

interpreted liberally?

The word shall ordinarily connotes an imperative and indicates the

mandatory character of a statue. The import of the word ultimately

depends upon a consideration of the entire provision, its nature, object

and the consequences that would follow from construing it one way or

the other.

Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are

considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays

and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very

nature these rules are regarded as mandatory.

Agpalo: the words should be read and considered in their natural,

ordinary, commonly accepted and most obvious signification according to

good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle

construction.Malinias vs. COMELEC

Stat Con: Where a statute, by its

terms, is expressly limited to

certain matters, it may not by

construction, be extended to

other matters.

Petitioner: SarioMalianias

- Malinias a candidate for governor whilePilando a candidate for congressional

representative of Mountain Province in May

11, 1998 elections

- They filed complaint with COMELEC forviolation of Sec 25 of RA 6646 and Section

232 and 261 of BP 881 against the Provincial

Election Supervisor and members of the

- R.A. No. 6646 does not punish a violation of Section 25 of the law asa criminal election offense.

- Section 25 merely highlights one of the recognized rights of apolitical partyor candidate during elections, aimed at providing an

effective safeguard against fraud or irregularities in the canvassing of

election returns.

- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6646, which specifies the election offenses


13/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Respondent: COMELEC

Ponente: J. Carpio

Provincial Board of Canvassers

- Allegations:- (1) prevented them from attending the

provincial canvassing,

- (2) padlocked the canvassing area, and- (3) threatened the people who wanted toenter the canvassing room.

- (4)They likewise alleged that the ProvincialBoard of Canvassers never allowed the

canvassing to be made public and consented

to the exclusion of the public or

representatives of other candidates except

those of Dominguez

Issue: Can the petitioner file a criminal case

against the Provincial Election Supervisor and

members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers

under RA 6646 and BP 881?

Held: No. Does not impose criminal offenses

punishable under this law, does not include Section 25.

- Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not one of the election offensesexplicitly enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881 .

- While Section 232 categorically states that it is unlawful for thepersons referred therein to enter the canvassing room, this act is notone of the election offenses criminally punishable under Sections 261

and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881.

- Thus, the act involved in Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not punishableas a criminal election offense.

- Section 264 of B.P. Blg. 881 provides that the penalty for an electionoffense under Sections 261 and 262 is imprisonment of not less than

one year but not more than six years.

Concept

- Under the rule of statutory construction ofexpressiouniusestexclusioalterius, there is no ground to order the

COMELEC to prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of

Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 precisely because this is a non-criminal

act.

- It is a settled rule of sta tutory construction that the express mentionof one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all

others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim,expressiouniusestexclusioalterius.

- The rule of expressiouniusestexclusioalterius is formulated in anumber of ways. One variation of the rule is theprinciple that what

is expressed puts an end to that which is implied.

Expressiumfacitcessaretacitum.

- Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters,it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other


14/101



CASE FACTS RULING

matters.

- The rule of expressiouniusestexclusioalterius and its variations arecanons ofrestrictive interpretation.

- They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of thehuman mind. They are predicated uponones own voluntary act andnot upon that of others. They proceed from thepremise that the

legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute

had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and confine its

terms to those expressly mentioned.

People vs. Lopez

Respondent: EusebioLopex,

Associate Judhe of Second

Diviison of Peoples Court

Ponente: J. Perfecto

Writ of Prohibition

- Petitions to disqualify respondent judge fromsitting and participating in any manner in the

hearing and decision of the criminal cases

against Benigno S. Aquino and Antonio de las

Alas and other treason cases of the same

nature pending before the Second Division of

the People's Court.

- It is alleged that the petitions were filedunder section 7 of Commonwealth Act No.

682, otherwise known as the People's Court

Act, in relation to section 1 Rule 124.

- Reason: respondent judge "again manifestedhis bias and prejudice in favor of political

collaborators"

- Respondent judge did not appeal from theresolution of the majority of his division and

expressed his determination to maintain his

minority view and to disregard entirely the

majority opinion

- The authors of the judicial rules, in enacting section 1 Rule 124, didnot have in mind the idea of disqualifications of judges, is shown by

two conclusive evidences, one negative and the other affirmative.

o Title of Rule 124 which says: "Powers and Duties of Courts andJudicial Officers." Each and everyone of the nine sections of the

rule do not include nor hint the idea of disqualification

o Rule 126 which is entitled: "Disqualification of Judicial officers."This rule is composed of only two sections. The disqualification

case does not fall into the enumerations set forth in Rule 126

Section 1.

- The fact that a judge may not administer justice impartially, whetherhis partiality may be considered as a serious misbehavior or is a

condition which may incapacitate him to discharge the duties of hisoffice, to preclude him from causing any harm to the administration

of justice, the proper procedure is not to disqualify him, but to file

the complaint contemplated by Rule 129, and the procedure will

certainly be more speedy and effective.

- Section 8 of the Civil Procedureo The Court declared that the law admits of two constructions:

(1) The magistrate decides for himself the question of hiscompetency; his decision is conclusive, and the other


15/101



CASE FACTS RULING

- The specific provision upon which JudgeLopez is intended to be disqualified is the

one expressed in the following words:

"Justice shall be impartially administered."

Issue: Can Judge Lopez be disqualified underSection 1 of Rule 124 under the second provision

Justice shall be impartially administered?

Held: No.

- If there is no law, rule or legal principle uponwhich Judge Lopez may disqualify himself or

be disqualified, it stands to logic that his

colleagues in the Second Division of the

People's Court, notwithstanding the fact that

they constitute the majority, have no power,

jurisdiction, or authority to disqualify Judge

Lopez and, therefore, their decision or

resolution granting the motion to disqualify

the respondent judge is null and void per se.

members of the Court have no voice in it

(2) The magistrate challenged sits with the Court and thequestion is decided by it as a body.

o The first interpretation was accepted.o The intervention of the court is merely advisory in nature. Thechallenged Justice may or may not submit the question to the

court. It all depends on his discretion. If he submits the question

to the court, he is free to follow or not to follow the opinion of

said body. The final result will be the same whether or not he

submits the question to the court, as the last word will be his.

- Judge could not be disqualified under section 8 of the Code of Civi lProcedure, the provisions of which are reproduced in Rule 126.

- If it appears to this court that the appellant was not given a fair andimpartial trial because of the trial judge's bias or prejudice, this court

will order a new trial, if it deems it necessary, in the interest of

justice.

Concept

- Blacks Law: inclusiouniusestexclusioalterius is synonymous withexpressiouniusestexclusioalteriusA canon of construction holdingthat to express or include something implies the exclusion of others

or of the alternatives.

- The grounds thus enumerated in the Rules of Court must be deemedto exclude others under the principle we have cited and under the

well-known canon of statutory construction,

inclusiouniusestexclusioalterius. (J. Tuason)

- Although there exist a virtual unanimity of opinions that Judge Lopezin the instances under consideration acted with bias and prejudice

and in favor of the political collaborators, at least, and that he has

openly announced his determination to vote in favor of the latter in

all future cases in which he may have to intervene, it is adduced,


16/101



CASE FACTS RULING

nevertheless, that said bias and prejudice are not grounds for

disqualification in this jurisdiction, inasmuch as the enumeration in

Rule 126, section 1, Rules of Court, is exclusive.

Inclusiouniusexclusioestalterius . This proposition finds no basis either

in law or in judicial precedents. (J. Lim)

People vs. Santiago

Stat Con- Nonsicitur a sociis

Respondent: Isauro Santiago

Ponente: J. Concepcion

- Isauro Santiago has committed the crime of"libel"

- October 5, 1959, in Manila, the accused, forthe purpose of injuring the name and

reputation of Arsenio H. Lacson,

- publicly call said Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson, inthe course of a political speech delivered at

Quiapo, thru the medium of an amplifier

system and before a crowd of around a

hundred persons, the following, to wit:

- "ArsenioHayopLacson,pinakawalanghiyangAlkalde, Mayor Lacson

raped a woman at the Aroma Cafe and

another City Hall employee in Shellborne

Hotel"

Issue: Whether defamatory statements through

the medium of an amplifier system constitutesoral defamation (Article 358 of RPC) or libel

(Article 355 of RPC)?

Held: Crime of Oral Defamation.

- A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,

cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means

- Is the "amplifier system" mean "similar" to "radio"? NoFirst:

o Radio as a means of publication is "the transmission andreception of electromagnetic waves without conducting wires

intervening between transmitter and receiver"while

o transmission of words by means of an amplifier system, "is notthru "electromagnetic waves" and is with the use of "conducting

wires" intervening between the transmitter . . . and the receiver . .

. .

Second:

o The word "radio" used in said Article 355, should be consideredin relation to the terms with which it is associated "writing,

printing, lithography, engraving . . . phonograph, painting,

theatrical exhibition or cinematographical exhibition" all of

which have a common characteristic, namely, their permanentnature as a means of publication

o It has been held that slanderous statements forming part of amanuscript read by a speaker over the radio constitute libel,

Concept

- Noscitur a Sociis ( It is known by its associates)- The meaning of an unclear words or phrase should be determined by

words immediately surrounding it.


17/101



CASE FACTS RULING

- Agpalo page 302.Pimentel III vs. COMELEC

Petitioner: Aquilino Pimentel III

Respondent: COMELEC

Ponente: J. Chico Nazario

Petition for Certiorari and

Mandamus

- 14 May 2007 national elections for 12senatorial posts.

- At the time of filing of the Petition, aroundtwo months after the said elections, the 11candidates with the highest number of votes

had already been officially proclaimed and

had taken their oaths of office as Senators.

- Only remaining contenders for the twelfthand final senatorial post were Pimentel and

private respondent Juan Miguel F. Zubiri

(Zubiri).

- Public respondent Commission on Elections(COMELEC) en banc, acting as the National

Board of Canvassers (NBC), continued to

conduct canvass proceedings.

- Pimentel assailed the proceedings before theNBC and its constituted Special Provincial

Board of Canvassers for Maguindanao

(SPBOC-Maguindanao) in which the

Provincial and Municipal Certificates of

Canvass (PCOC and MCOCs) from theprovince of Maguindanao were respectively

canvassed.

o Candidates legal counsels were notallowed to ask any questions during the

canvass proceedings

o PCOC did not reflect the true results ofthe elections because it was based on

the manufactured Maguindanao

MCOCs, the authenticity and due

- A pre-proclamation controversy has been defined by BatasPambansaBlg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of

the Philippines

- General Rule: Elections for President, Vice-President, Senators, andMembers of the House of Representatives, pre-proclamation cases

are prohibited.

o As Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 was then worded, itwould appear that any pre-proclamation case relating to the

preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation

of election returns or certificates of canvass, was prohibited

in elections for President, Vice-President, Senators and

Members of the House of Representatives.

o The prohibition aims to avoid delay in the proclamation of thewinner in the election, which delay might result in a vacuum in

these sensitive posts.

- Exception: Indeed, this Court recognizes that by virtue of theamendments introduced by Republic Act No. 9369 to Sections 15 and

30 of Republic Act No. 7166 , pre-proclamation cases involving the

authenticity and due execution of certif icates of canvass are now

allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators.

(1) correction of manifest errors;(2) Questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board

of canvassers; and

(3) Determination of the authenticity and due execution ofcertificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of Republic Act

No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369.

- Who are in responsible? Congress and the Commission en banc- Undeniably, the SPBOC-Maguindanao is not Congress nor COMELEC

en banc


18/101



CASE FACTS RULING

execution of which had not been duly

established.

o Using of a copy 2- 14 July 2007, Zubiri got the twelfth positionIssue: Can the pre-proclamation case of Pimentel

be given due course by the SPBOC- Maguindanao

board of canvassers?

Held. No

- A pre-proclamation case under Section 30 is allowed only as anexception to the prohibition under Section 15 of Republic Act No.

7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369.

-

According to the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as ageneral rule, are strictly, but reasonably construed; they extend only

so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be

resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the

exception.

- Where a general rule is established by statute with exceptions, thecourt will not curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication.

- A maxim of recognized practicality is the rule that the expressedexception or exemption excludes others. Exceptiofirmatregulim in

casibus non exceptis. The express mention of exceptions operates to

exclude other exceptions; conversely, those which are not within the

enumerated exceptions are deemed included in the general rule.

- In this case, the exception applies only to Congress or the COMELECen banc acting as the NBC, and not to local boards of canvassers who

must still be deemed covered by the prohibition on pre-proclamation

controversies.

12. Primero vs. CA

Stat Con: Expression unius estexclusion alterius

[enumeration of specified

matters in a statute is construed

as an exclusion of matters not

enumerated unless a different

intention appears.

- The accused , armed with a deadly weapon,by means of force and intimidation

performed acts of lasciviousness on a person.- Accused claims that the accusation is

unfounded and that it was motivated by

revenge because he married someone else.

- Offender believes that the court wasincorrect to include a bayonette to be

punishable under Sec 3. Of P.D. No. 9

- PD 9- Unlawful for the use of bladed Weapons- Alibi is worthless- Although not enumerated, a bayonette is indeed a bladed weapon

that is punishable under P.D no. 9 (See statcon maxim)

13. Ramirez Vs. CA

Statcon: Generalia verba sunt

- Civil case for damages alleging thatrespondned insulted and humiliated

respondent in a confrontation at an office.

RA 4200 Prohibiting and penalizing wire tapping and other violations

of private comm...


19/101



CASE FACTS RULING

generaliter intelligent

- Petitioner represents a tape recording ofwhat happened.

- Respondent filed a case against petitioner forher violating Ra 4200

- Petitioner claims that Ra 4200 only punishesa 3rd party but not the direct arguers.

- Petitioner also believes that it penalizesprivate communication and not private

conversations.

- Respondent is in the right.- It makes it ILLEGAL for ANYONE. The law makes no distinction about a

3rd party.

- Communication must be given its ordinary meaning (to share or toimpart) thus petition is bereft of merit.

14. Vera vs. Cuevas

Petition for certiorari with

preliminary injunction

Statcon: Ejusdem Generis

[general and unlimited terms

are restrained and limited by

particular terms they follow in

the statute.]

- Petition for certiorari with preliminaryinjunction against respondent judge for his

decision on two civil cases.

- The civil cases involve respondents who areengaged in the creation and selling of

FILLED MILK products

- Commissioner of Internal Revenue(1st case)required respondents to withdraw from the

market all of their filled milk products which

do not bear the inscription from Sec 169:

...This milk is not suitable for nourishmentfor infants less than one year of age...

- Fair Trade Board (2nd case) requiredpetitioner who produced evaporated milk

to place the same inscription. Petitioner

contends that it would be false advertising

on their part if they did.

- Appeal is granted.- Sec 169 of the Tax Code DOES not apply to whole milk products

because it is clear in the statute that it only refers to skimmed milk

and milk associated with the removal of its fat.

- Other milk manufacturers have not been approached with the sameproblem and so this is also violates the equal protection clause.

15. Villarosa vs Benito

Petition for certiorari for a

-petition for certiorari for a temporary

restraining order on the orders of respondent

judge.

-SC rules in the favour of petitioners:

-it is clear that Sec 11. Has revised Sec 13 and that the person who


20/101



CASE FACTS RULING

temporary restraining order

Statcon: Expresson unios est

exclusion alterius )

[express mention of one person

or thing implies the exclusion ofall others.]

-petitioner and another private respondent

executed a deed of sale, wherein the respondent

would agree to develop certain parcels of land

for the construction of low cost housing units.

-petitioners filed a complaint of breach of

contract against respondent for failure to comply

and a SUMMONS was served upon the

defendants Branch Manager Engineer.

-Defendant prayed to dismiss the case because

the court did not acquire jurisdiction because the

summons was improperly served to an employee

not under Sec 11, Rule 14.

-defendant claims that the new rules should be

construed strictly to general manager,

corporate secretary, and excluding agents and

directors.

received the summons was merely an agent of the company, thus not

qualified under Sec 11.

CHAPTER 6CASE FACTS RULING

1.

BellisvsBellis

G.R. 23678

6 Jun 1967

Pr: Appeal

P: Bengzon

Statcon:

Amos Bellis a US citizen in the State of Texas

- Mary Mallen first wife, divorcedChildren: Edward, George (), Henry, Alexander, Anna

- Violet Kennedy second wifeChildren: Edwin, Walter, Dorothy

- Illegitimate children in RP: Amos Jr., MariaCristina, Miriam Palma

5 Aug 1952 Bellis executed a will in the Philippines

- $240,000 to first wife

Texas law. Order of the probate court affirmed in toto.

Art 16 par 2 and Art 1039 of the Civil Code render applicable the national law if

the decedent in intestate or testamentary successions with regard to four

times: (a) order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the

intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; (d) the capacity to succeed.

Art 16, par 2, Civil Code: Intestate and testamentary successions shall be

regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under

consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless


21/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Special law to prevail

over general law

- P120,000 to illegitimate children i.e. P40,000each

- Remainder to seven surviving children8 Jul 1958 Bellis died in Texas

-

Upon death, Poples Bank and Trust Company,executor of the will, paid all bequests

8 Jan 1964executor submitted its Executors Final

Account, Report of Administration and Project of

Partition

17 Jan 1964 illegitimate children opposed on the

ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as

illegitimate children and therefore compulsory heirs

of the deceased

30 Apr 1964 CFI Manila overrules opposition and

upholds executors final account

11 Jun 1964 Motion for reconsideration denied,

thus this petition

Issue: Which law should apply Texas or Philippine

law?

of the country wherein said property may be found.

Art 1039, Civil Code: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the

nation of the decedent.

Congress has deleted the phrase notwithstanding the provisions of this andthe next prededing article when they incorporated Art 11 of the old Civil Code

as Art 17 of the new Civil Code, whule reproducing without substantial change

the second paragraph of Art 10 of the old Civil Code as Art 16 in the new.

Art 17, Civil Code: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or

property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy

and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments

promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign

country.

It must have been their purpose to make the 2nd paragraph of Art 16 a specific

provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate successions. As

further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new provision

under Art 1039 which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the

national law of the decedent.

Congress has specifically chosen to leave the amount of successional rights to

the decedents national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.

2.

FrivaldovsComelec

G.R. 120295

28 Jun 1996

Pr: Certiorari and

preliminary injunction

P: Panganiban

Juan Frivaldo obtained the highest number of votes

in three successive elections but was twice declared

to be disqualified due to his alien citizenship

Raul Lee second placer in the canvass, incumbent

governor

20 Mar 1995 Frivaldo files CoC for Governor of

Sorsogon

Frivaldo. The indomitable people of Sorsogon certainly deserve to be governed

by a leader of their overwhelming choice.

1. Frivaldos repatriation was valid and legal.

a. Lees argument that P.D. 725 had been effectively repealed

- Memo of Cory dated 27 Mar 1987 cannot by any stretch of legalhermeneutics be construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing a repeal of

PD 725. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and a repeal may be

express or implied.


22/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Statcon:

Election laws should

be reasonably and

liberally construed to

achieve theirpurpose.

23 Mar 1995 Lee files petition to disqualify on

citizenship grounds

1 May 1995 Comelec 2nd Division grants petition;

disqualifies Frivaldo

8 May 1995 election day and Frivaldo wins; motion

for reconsideration still unacted upon

- Frivaldo: 73,440 vs Lee: 53,30411 May 1995Comelec en banc affirms Frivaldo

disqualification

9 Jun 1995 Lee files petition for his proclamation

with the Comelec

21 Jun 1995 Comelec en banc orders proclamation

of Lee as winning governor

- 30 Jun 1995, 8:30 PM Lee proclaimed6 Jul 1995 Frivaldo files petition with the Comelec

to annul Lees proclamation and for his own

proclamation

- 30 Jun 1995, 2 PM Frivaldo takes oath ofallegiance as citizen of the Philippines after his

petition for repatriation was approved

19 Dec 1995 Comelec 1st Division rules that Lee

proclamation was illegal because Frivaldo has

reacquired his citizenship

23 Feb 1996 Comelec en banc upholds 1st

Division

ruling; denies Lees motion for reconsideration

26 Feb 1996 Lee files petition with SC

- No express repeal was made. It did not categorically or impliedly state thatPD 725 was being repealed. Repeals by implication are not favoured.

- Cory did not repeal PD 725 but left it to Congress to deal with the matter.b. Lee argues that serious congenital irregularities flawed the repatriation

proceedings when Frivaldos application was approved in just one day - Frivaldo filed on 17 Aug 1994 as confirmed by SolGen. Special Committeeonly reactivated on 8 Jun 1995. Frivaldo re-submitted the required form on

29 Jun 1995. It cannot be said that there was indecent haste in the

processing.

- Many others were processed, not only Lee. The mere fact that theproceedings were speeded up is by itself not a ground to conclude that

such proceedings were necessarily tainted.

- Any contest on the legality of Frivaldos repatriation should have beenpursued before the Committee itself or in the OP if it fails, pursuant to the

doctrine of exhaustion.

c. Lee contends that citizenship must exist on the day of his election

Sec 39 of Local Government Code: an elective local official must be a citizen of

the Philippines, a registered voter in the province where he intends to be

elected

- The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidatemust possess citizenship unlike that for residence and age.

- An official begins to govern or to discharge his functions only upon hisproclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin.

Frivaldo was therefor qualified when he re-assumed citizenship on 30 Jun

1995.- This is the liberal interpretation that should give spirit, life, and meaning to

the law on qualifications consistent with the purpose for which it was

enacted. Sec 39 speaks of qualifications of elective officials, not of

candidates.

- Vasquez vsGiap: the purpose of the citizenship requirement is to ensurethat our people and country do not end up being governed by aliens, that

aim or purpose would not be thwarted but instead achieved by construing

the citizenship qualification as applying to the time of proclamation of the

elected official and at the start of his term.


23/101



CASE FACTS RULING

27 Feb 1996 SC issues TRO

Issue: Who should be the rightful governor of

Sorsogon?

1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal?2. Is the lack of citizenship a continuing

disqualification?

3. Did the Comelec have jurisdiction over the

petition?

4. Was the proclamation of Lee valid?

5. Is Sec 78 of Omnibus Election Code mandatory?

- The law intended the citizenship qualification to be a qualification distinctfrom being a voter. LGC requires an elective official to be a registered

voter. Registration is the core of this qualification. It is clear that Frivaldo is

a registered voter in the province.

d. Repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of filing his application on 17Aug 1994

- PD 725 is a curative statute it undertakes to cure errors and irregularities,thereby validating judicial or administrative proceedings, acts of public

officers, or private deeds and contracts which otherwise would not

produce their intended consequences by reason of some statutory

disability or failure to comply with some technical requirement.

- It was the legislative intent to give the statue retroactive application(allowing Filipino woman to who marries an alien to retain her Philippine

citizenship).

- Being a former Filipino who has served the people repeatedly, Frivaldodeserves a liberal interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever defects

there were in his nationality should now be mooted by his repatriation.

- Frivaldo became stateless having renounced his American citizenship. Incase of doubt, it is presumed that the law-making body intended right and

justice to prevail.Frivaldo consistently took oath of allegiance when he ran

in 1988, 1992, and 1995.

2. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a

persons future status with finality.

3. The Constitution has given the Comelec ample power to exercise exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and

qualifications of all elective provincial officials. Power to annul a proclamation

must be done within 10 days following proclamation. Frivaldo filed in 6.

4. Lee proclamation is not valid.

- LabovsComelec: the fact remains that Lee was not the choice of thesovereign will

- Aquino vsComelec: Lee is a second placer, just that, a second placer.- No sufficient evidence presented to show that the electorate of Sorsogon


24/101



CASE FACTS RULING

was fully aware in fact of Frivaldos alleged disqualification such that the

voters intentionally wasted their ballots in knowing that he was ineligible.

- Frivalod has seasonably re-acquired his citizenship and inasmuch as heobtained the highest number of votes in the elections, he should be

proclaimed.

5. It is merely directory as Sec 6 of RA 6646 authorizes the Comelec to try and

decide petitions for disqualifications even after the elections.

- Sec 78: Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacyshall be decided not later that fifteen days before the election.

- Sec 6, RA 6646: If for any reason a candidate is not declared by finaljudgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for, the

Comelec shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action and upon

motion during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the

proclamation.

This Court has time and again liberally and equitably construed the electorallaws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for

in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the

popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.

Frivaldo, at 81 years old, showed loyalty to and love of country as well as

nobility of purpose. He sought American citizenship only to escape the clutches

of the dictatorship. At first opportunity, he returned to this land, and sought to

serve his people once more. He demonstrated tenacity and sheer

determination to reacquire his nationality of birth despite several legal

setbacks. He therefore deserves every liberal interpretation of the law whichcan be applied in his favour.

3.

Izonvs People

G.R. 51370

31 Aug 1981

Pr: Review

Amado Izon, Jimmy Milla, and Pedro Divino were

charged with Robbery with Violence Against Person

in the Circuit Criminal Court, Third District, Olongapo

City.

8 Sep 1977 accused stabbed Reynaldo Togorio and

Yes.

Anti-Carnapping Act (R.A. 6539): Motor vehicle is any vehicle propelled by any

power than muscular power using the public highways.

Petitioners: the Information did not allege that the motorized tricycle stolen


25/101



CASE FACTS RULING

P: de Castro

Statcon:

Where the law does

not distinguish

stole the victims motorized tricycle

Accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the

penalty provided in the Anti-Carnapping Act.

Issue: Is a motorized tricycle a motor vehicle withinthe definition given to the term by the Anti-

Carnapping Act?

was using the public highway so as to make it a motor vehicle as defined in the

carnapping law. Thus, they werent informed that they were being charged with

carnapping, not simple robbery as stated in the Information. Additionally, they

contend that tricycles are not licensed to operate on public highways.

SolGen: It is clear that a street within a town is a public highway if it is used bythe public. To limit the words public highways to a national road connecting

various towns, as petitioners suggest, would create a distinction which the

statue itself does not make. Where the law does not distinguish, no distinction

should be made.

Highways are always public, free for the use of every person. There is nothing in

the law that requires a license to use a public highway to make the vehicle a

motor vehicle within the definition given the anti-carnapping law.

Any vehicle which is motorized using the streets which are public comes within

the concept of motor vehicle. A tricycle which is not included in the exception isthus deemed to be that kind of motor vehicle as defined in the law the stealing

of which comes within its penal sanction.

Petitioners complaint of not having been informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation against them and for which they were convicted upon their plea

of guilty is unfounded, legally and factually.

4.

Mobil Phil.

Exploration, Inc. v.

Customs Arrastre

Services

Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from

abroad on S.S. "Leoville" sometime in November of

1962, consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration,

Inc., Manila

- The Bureau of Customs is a bureau under the Department of Finance (Sec.81, Revised Administrative Code); and as stated, the Customs Arrastre

Service is a unit of the Bureau of Custom.

- The fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a function


26/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Ponente: J. Bengzon

The shipment arrived at the Port of Manila and was

discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre

Service, the unit of the Bureau of Customs then

handling arrastre operations.

The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered to thebroker of the consignee three cases only of the

shipment.

April 4, 1964 - Mobil filed suit in the Court of First

Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre

Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the

value of the undelivered case

Issue: Is Customs Arrastre Services immune against

suits?

Held. Yes even though a proprietary function, the

function is only incidental to a government function

of Bureau of Customs.

proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable.

- If said non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to itsgovernmental function, there is no waiver of the sovereign immunity from

suit extended to such government entity.

- Bureau of printing vs. bureau of printing employees association - Theadditional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its

function, and although such work may be deemed proprietary in character,

there is no showing that the employees performing said proprietary

function are separate and distinct from those emoloyed in its general

governmental functions.

- The Bureau of Customs is part of the Department of Financeo with no personality of its own apart from that of the national

government.

o Its primary function is governmental, that of assessing and collectinglawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs

duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties

o Arrastre service is a necessary incident.- Arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a necessary incident of

the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs, so that

engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit.

Concept

- It must be remembered that statutory provisions waiving State immunityfrom suit are strictly construed and that waiver of immunity, being inderogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred.

- Agpalo Chapter 7 page 430

5.

Moreno vs. COMELEC

Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to disqualify

Moreno from running for Punong Barangay on the

ground that Moreno was convicted by final judgment

of the crime of Arbitrary Detention

The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local

position:

(1) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moralturpitude or


27/101



CASE FACTS RULING

Justice Tinga o sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4)Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and

Four (4) Months by the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 28 of Catbalogan, Samar on August 27,

1998.

Moreno filed an answer stating thta he was al ready

granted probation.

Moreno also argued that under Sec. 16 of the

Probation Law of 1976 (Probation Law), the final

discharge of the probation shall operate to restore to

him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his

conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any

fine imposed.

Issue: Is Moreno disqualified under Section 40(a) ofthe Local Government Code?

Held. No

(2) for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment,within two (2) years after serving sentence;

- The phrase "service of sentence," understood in its general and commonsense, means the confinement of a convictedperson in a penal facility for

the period adjudged by the court.

- This seemingly clear and unambiguous provision, however, has spawned acontroversy worthy of this Courts attention because the Comelec, in the

assailed resolutions, is alleged to have broadened the coverage of the law

to include even those who did not serve a day of their sentence because

they were granted probation

- Baclayon vs. Mutia; grant of probation to petitioner suspended theimposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment, as well as the

accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from the right to

follow a profession or calling

- Sec. 16 of the Probation Law provides that "[t]he final discharge of theprobationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or

statcon_conejos, haulo, laylo _ atty.cristobal

Documents