Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Sanidad vs Comelec - A case Digest

PABLITO V. SANIDAD - petitioner; newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras

COMELEC - respondent; through its Solicitor- General

Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

ISSUE:
Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is constitutional or not.


FACTS:

COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23, 1989, which paved for a call of a plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule was reset from December 27, 1989 to January 30, 1990.

Allegations of Sanidad:

1.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press

2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal provsions in case of violation

Responses of COMELEC

-Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press but only a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of RA 6646

-Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the province)


HELD:

Petiton is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional . TRO made permanent due to the follwing reasons:
1. It has no statutory basis
2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason
3. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised.


By: Shiela Marie Tanguin

Read more...

Ynot vs IAC - A case Digest

Ynot vs IAC - A case Digest

RESTITUTO YNOT -petitioner; an owner of carabaos

Station Commander, Integrated National Police, Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo & the Regional Director, Bureau of Animal Industry, Region IV- respondents

Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI


ISSUE:

Whether Executive Order No. 626-A is constitutional or not.


FACTS:

Petitioner was charged of violation of EO 626 when he transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. 1 The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00.


Petitioner raised the issue of EO’s constituitonality and filed case in the lower court. However, the court sustained the the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raised by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner appealed the decsion to IAC with the following contentions:

1. EO is unconstitutional as confiscation is outright

2. Penalty is invalid as it is imposed without the owner's right to be heard before a competent and impartial court.

3. Measure should have not been presumed

4. Raises a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative power by the former President.


HELD:

Petiton is GRANTED with the following justifications:

1. Right of the petitioner to question for constitutionality is valid as there’s no exigency showing to justify the exercise of this extraordinary power of the President
2. Properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destrcution
3. Case involved ‘roving commission’ and invalid delegation of powers and invalid exercise of police power
4. Due process is violated because the owner is denied the right to be heard in his defense and was immedeiately condemned and punish


By:
Shiela Marie Tanguin

Read more...

Aglipay v. Ruiz Case Digest

Aglipay v. Ruiz - A case digest
GR 45459, 13 March 1937 (64 Phil 201)

Facts:

In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioner’s attorney, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage for printing. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of the postage stamps was in violation of the Constitution.

Held / Ruling:

There has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, discretion to misuse postage stamps with new designs. Even if we were to assume that these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps in question still, the case of the petitioner would fail to take in weight. Between the exercise of a poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a gap exists which is yet to be filled to justify the court in setting aside the official act assailed as coming within a constitutional inhibition.
The court resolved that petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied, without pronouncement as to costs.

By:

Maricarl Botin


Read more...

Case Digest Assignment for Legal Profession

These are not the digest of cases but are links to the original manuscript from either Lawphil, SC Judiciary Site or Chanrobles. Digested cases will be posted as soon as I have permission from the authors or if I did it personally.

Most of these cases are disbarment cases and are mostly a couple of pages long only, so don't fret! Read on...

1. A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1993
ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. vs. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA
223 SCRA 425


2. A.C. No. 2029 December 7, 1993
LUIS G. CONSTANTINO vs. PRUDENCIO G. SALUDARES
228 SCRA 133


3. A.C. No. 1512 January 29, 1993
VICTORIA BARRIENTOS vs. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL
218 SCRA 30


4. A.M. No. 2349 July 3, 1992
DOROTHY B. TERRE vs. JORDAN TERRE
211 SCRA 6


5. A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FE T. TUANDA
181 SCRA 692


6. G.R. No. 2019 June 3, 1991
SHIRLEY CUYUGAN LIZASO vs. ATTY. SERGIO AMANTE
198 SCRA 1


7. A.M. No. 2385 March 8, 1989
JOSE TOLOSA vs. ALFREDO CARGO
171 SCRA 21


8. A.C. No. 4431 June 19, 1997
PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES vs. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ
274 SCRA 1

9. A.C. No. 4369 November 28, 1997
PIKE P. ARRIETA vs. JOEL A. LLOSA
282 SCRA 248


10. A.C. No. 4349 December 22, 1997
LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS vs. FRANCISCO RICAFORT
283 SCRA 407


11. Tan Tek Beng Vs David


12. G.R. No. L-32994 October 29, 1971
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GAUDENCIO INGCO
42 SCRA 170


13. March 23, 1929
IN RE: LUIS B. TAGORDA
53 Phil 37


14. A.C. No. L-1117 March 20, 1944
DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS vs. ESTANISLAO R. BAYOT
74 Phil 579


15. A.C. No. L-553 June 17, 1993
MAURICIO C. ULEP vs. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
223 SCRA 378


16. A.C. No. 4646 April 6, 2000
ROSITA S. TORRES vs. AMADO D. ORDEN
330 SCRA 1


17. G.R. No. 116049 March 20, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., ET AL.
242 SCRA 514


18. G.R. No. 577 May 28, 1991
REMEDIOS DY vs. RAMON M. MIRANDA, ET AL.


19. A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES vs. VICENTE C. RENOMERON


20. A.M. No. 1048 July 14, 1995
WELLINGTON REYES vs. SALVADOR M. GAA
246 SCRA 64


21. A.C. No. 2409 January 29, 1988
MANUEL Y. MACIAS vs. BENJAMIN B. MALIG
157 SCRA 762


22. G.R. No. 106818 May 27, 1994
PATROCINIO YU vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
232 SCRA 594


23. A.C. No. 4807 March 22, 2000
MANUEL N. CAMACHO vs. LUIS MEINRADO C. PANGULAYAN, ET AL.
328 SCRA 631

24. G.R. No. 139 March 28, 1983
BELTRAN, JR. vs. ELMO S. ABAD

121 SCRA 217


25. A.C. CBD No. 167. March 9, 1999.
ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES vs. PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ
304 SCRA 281


26. A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001
DOROTEO IGOY vs. ATTY. GILBERT SORIANO
367 SCRA 70


27. A.C. No. 2505 February 21, 1992
EVANGELINE LEDA vs. TREBONIAN TABANG
206 SCRA 395


28. A.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995
IN RE: MATTER OF BAR ADMISSION AL C. ARGOSINO


B.M. No. 712 March 19, 1997
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO


29. A.C. No. 3910 June 28, 2001
JOSE S. DUCAT, JR. vs. ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR., ET AL.
337 SCRA 622


30. B.M. No. 44 February 24, 1992
EUFROSINA Y. TAN vs. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL


A.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983
EUFROSINA Y. TAN vs. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL


31. G.R. No. 109149 December 21, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LEONCIO S. SANTOCILDES, JR.
321 SCRA 310


32. G.R. No. L-59621 February 23, 1988
MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS
158 SCRA 57


Read more...

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Vera vs Avelino Case Digest

FACTS:

Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congress of the Philippines a report regarding the national elections held the previous month. It stated that by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will.

During the session, when the senate convened on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved referring to the report ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero – who had been included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes, proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections – shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending the termination of the of the protest lodged against their election.

Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues responsible for the resolution, praying for an order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to exercise their senatorial prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum resolution.

ISSUES:

1.Whether the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the said provinces are valid.

2.Whether administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero should be deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections.

RULING:

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the case was not a “contest”, and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its membership.

Case dismissed.


By:

Frances Kaye Miraflor - C1

Read more...

Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest

FACTS:

On December 29, 1961, Carlos P. Garcia, who was still President that time, made last minute appointments while the Commission on Appointments was not in session. Said last minute appointment included Dominador R. Aytona, who was appointed as ad interim Governor of Central Bank. The latter took oath on the same day.

At noon on December 30, 1961, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office. He issued Administrative Order No. 2 on December 31, 1961 recalling, withdrawing and canceling all ad interim appointments made by President Garcia after December 13, 1961, which was the date when Macapagal was proclaimed President by the Congress. He then appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank and the latter qualified immediately.

On January 2, 1962, both exercised the powers of their office. However, Aytona was prevented from holding office the following day and thus instituted a quo warranto proceeding, challenging Castillo’s right to exercise the powers of the Governor of the Central Bank. Aytona claims that he was validly appointed and had qualified for the post, therefore making Castillo’s appointment void. Castillo then contended that Aytona’s appointment had already been revoked by Administrative Order No. 2 issued by President Macapagal.

ISSUE:

Whether President Diosdado Macapagal had power to issue the order of cancellation of the ad interim appointments made by President Carlos P. Garcia even after the appointees had already qualified.

RULING:

Upon the ground of separation of powers, the court resolved that it must decline and refuse jurisdiction in disregarding the Presidential Administrative Order No. 2, canceling such “midnight” or “last-minute” appointments.

Case dismissed.

by:
Frances Katherine G. Miraflor- C1

Read more...

Alih vs Castro - A case Digest

Alih vs Castro
GL. 69401

This case was in explaining Sec 3 of Art 2 of the 1987 Constitution regarding the supremacy of the civilians.


Facts;

Zona was conducted by the men of Maj. Gen Castro in a compoud where petioners reside and conducted illegal search and thereafter seized guns from them. The order was carried on by his Castro's men with the contention that the petitioners are involved in the latest killing of the town's mayor Cesar Climaco.

Issue;

Is the warrantless search and seizure legal?

Held;

The Supreme Court declared those seized in custodia legis and declared that the operation conducted by Maj. Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. The respondents have all the time to obtain a search warrant granted that they have about 10 trial courts. The SC also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as stated in Art IV Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of innocence of the petitioners should be observed and that they cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like paraffin tests, photographing and finger printing.

As penned by J. Cruz in this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

Read more...

Friday, June 26, 2009

Case Digest - Assignment 3

These are mere links to Lawphil or other sources, for actual case digests available, check on the label on the side bar.


1. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines
vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 343
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989


2. Aglipay vs Perez
G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, 1937
64 Phils 201


3. JOSE A. ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
64 Phils 201


4. DANTE O. CASIBANG vs. HON. NARCISO A. AQUINO
G.R. No. L-38025 August 20, 1979
63 Phil 139


5. LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ET AL. vs. MARIANO JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957
100 Phil 1101

6. PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976
73 SCRA 333
*****Updated*****

7. DOMINADOR R. AYTONA vs. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962
4 SCRA 1


8. JOSE O. VERA, ET AL. vs. JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-543 August 31, 1946
77 Phil 191


9. UNITED STATES vs. ANG TANG HO
G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922
43 Phil 1


10. MAURICIO CRUZ vs. STANTON YOUNGBERG
G.R. No. L-34674 October 26, 1931
56 Phil 234


11. Hirabayashi v. United States
320 U.S. 81 (1943) (take note it's not 99 but 81)


12. GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA vs. MANUEL ALBA
G.R. No. L-57883 March 12, 1982
112 SCRA 294


13. RESTITUTO YNOT vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987

Read more...

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Villavicencio vs Lukban - A case digest

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.

Issue:

The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to Davao. Liberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as Mayor.

Facts:

Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25 beyond the latters consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao instead.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;

For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ; or (2) they could have shown by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought before the court; or (3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.

Held:

The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400 pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court. Reasoning further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded.

Read more...

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

PNB vs. Pabalan - Case Digest

G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978
PHIL. NATIONAL BANK vs. JAVIER PABALAN


Issue;

The petitioner is requesting for certiorari against the writ of execution authorized by the Hon Judge Pabalan regarding the transfer of funds amounting to P12,724.66 belonging to Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration.


Facts;

Philippine National Bank invoked the doctrine of non-suability in behalf of PVTA. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." In addition, the amount held by said bank is subject to garnishment.


Held;

The certiorari was dismissed without cost by the Supreme Court saying that the funds held by PNB is subject for garnishment, thus, the writ of execution be imposed immediately. The non-suability clause raised by PVTA being a government owned corporation was also denied citing previous decisions held by the Supreme Court specifically citing that of Manila Hotel Employees Association vs Manila Hotel Company and to quote 'it is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.'

Read more...

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Legal Profession and Legal Research

Both subjects under Atty Quintos with combined total units of 3. Books prescribed authored by 'kahitsi' or kahit sino.

The last subject for the week. Whew! Now on to research...

Read more...

Friday, June 5, 2009

Case Digest - Phil Political Law

Atty Marifosque's combined wit and and mastery of the subject matter will most likely lighten up the load of this subject. But not until he gave his very first assignment of cases to be digested starting with Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary.

These are mere links to the original from Lawphil or other sources. For available case digests, please click on the label located on the side bar.

1. Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary
G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973


2. Aquino vs. Enrile
G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974


3. Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945


4. Lawyers League for a Better Philippines, etc. vs. President Corazon C. Aquino
G.R. Nos. 73748, May 22, 1986


5. Ramon Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-533 August 20, 1946

6. Mariano Garcia vs Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-20213 January 31, 1966


7. The Holy See vs Hon Eriberto Rosario Jr
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994

8. Republic of the Philippines vs Purisima
G.R. No. L-36084 August 31, 1977


9. Victoria Amigable vs Cuenca
G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972


10. Republic of the Philippines vs Sandiganbayan
182 SCRA 911


11. PVTA vs CIR
65 SCRA 416


Updated! Now it's a matter of digesting them. Goodluck!

Sources;

www.lawphil.net
www.chanrobles.com

Read more...

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Classes start June 1

All were ecstatic, about 90 of us in the class, yet to be classified as C-1 and C-2 of 2009. First class was with Ret. Judge Medina for Criminal Law 1. I've been out of the academe for about 5 years now, and some of my friends taking law says it's a little different, and it was indeed during the first class. No more 'introduce-yourself' soliloquy, Judge Medina, began introducing the subject and articles to be discussed. Now the class for JRU's Freshmen Law students officially started for 2009.

Pending the completion of the master list, as perJudge Medina, our main reference would be the Revised Penal Code with annotations by Luis B Reyes.

Day 2 with Atty. Carroll U. Tang, now officially C-1's instructor for Civil Code, he prefers the book of Paras among other references. A graduate of Mapua with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, his 'never-too-old-for-law' attitude is what he wants inculcated to us. Taking up law at age 46, is already an inspiring feat.

Day 3 with the unknown professor for Statutory Construction. Atty/Judge/Ret.Judge. Unknown entered the room at exactly 6:00 pm, then started reading the not so final master list of the C-1 class. After reading the whole list, he stood up, dismissing the class right away as he does not want to start his lessons without the final master list. On or about 6:15, the class was over. Meanwhile, C-2 class is in the other room with another unknown professor.

Day 4, another day with Atty. Tang, now's the time for a little bit of introduce yourself. Exciting, 3 police officers, one jail guard under BJMP, an ophthalmologist, three or four full time students, 2 senior citizens and several other professionals in their own right. The class of C-1 finally introduced to each other. No Computer Class, I heard the Dean will be handling the subject. - Class dismissed.

Read more...
Custom Search

Classmates

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP