Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v Social Security Commission

Facts:
The petitioner wants to be exempt from the Social Security Law or R.A. no. 1161 by
reason that they are not a business or an organization formed for profit but it was denied, they
asserted the same claim added with the claim of unconstitutionality as it deprives them from
distributing their public funds for the support of the priests as well as their right to disseminate
religious information on appeal.
Issue: Whether or not the religious institutions and charities are covered by the Social Security
Law.
Decision:
The Act does not exempt religious institutions. It is a policy of the Philippines to establish
a social security system that can help protect the security of all people economically, and
religious institutions are not one to be against that as their aim is to help alleviate the lives of its
followers. It is not unconstitutional as it doesnt deprive these institutions of rights and simply
provides for employees in case of hazards of disability, sickness, old age and death, thus it favors
the appellee.

China Bank v. Ortega

Facts: After the client of China Bank, B & B Forest Development Corporation lost a case, with
the resulting punishment as a collection of a sum of money which they later on failed to pay on
time. China Bank, with notice of garnishment to the former issued by the Deputy Sheriff,
accused the Deputy Sheriff of violating R.A. no. 1405 for the disclosure of the B & B Forest
Development Corporations public funds. However, the bank was later on ordered by the court to
keep the funds of the B & B in tact which the bank attested, was against R.A. no. 1405.
Issue: Whether or not a banking institution may validly refuse to comply with a court process
garnishing the bank deposit of a judgment debtor, by invoking the provisions of Republic Act.
No. 1405.
Decision: China Bank failed to understand the law, because first of all, there was no disclosure of
the amounts deposited in the bank or any other confidential information, what the court simply
required of them was for the bank to keep the funds intact and freeze withdrawal from the same.
According to the Senate Bill and House Bill that formulated the Act which China Bank
contended, the Act allows that deposit may be attached to an existing liability of the owner in
order for the respective creditor to claim the same, and does not intend divulge the contents of
the deposit.

Republic of the Philippines v. CA and Molina

Facts: Roridel Molina, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to her
husband Reynaldo claiming that it was because of his bad habits, which later led them to part
ways, with Reynaldo abandoning her and their child showing that he was psychologically
incapable to comply with marital obligations. Reynaldo claimed that his wife have failed in
acting as a spouse as well. The spouse have parted for more than 3 years. In line with the
following events Roridel asks not only for nullity of her marriage but also support for her child
whose custody shall remain with her.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners marriage is void ab initio by claim of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Decision:
The claim of psychological incapacity does not exist in this case as it is insufficient
enough to prove such and what the spouses had were irreconciliable differences and conflicting
personalities. Psychological incapacity cannot be claimed simply because one failed to do
commit and do such responsibilities, but because one is incapable of doing so as even the
psychiatrist have attested that no such illness exist which is a requirement by the law. Also, that
marital obligations in this case should be those mentioned in the Family Code and stated in this
petition. Thus, the marriage remains valid.
Board of Administrators v. Bautista
Facts: Calixto Gasilao was a veteran of the WWII denied of his first claim for disability pention.
After several amendments of R.A. 65 in the law increasing the pension, Gasilaos claim was
reconsidered and paid in accordance with law; he requested that his pension be made retroactive
but no action was made. After a few more months, the Act was further amended, Philippine
Veterans Administration paid below the said amount due to insufficient funds. Gasilao claims
that he was not only deprived of his right of pension when he was denied to claim the same, but
also denied of the difference the law requires to be given him. While the board of administrators
of the PVA had justified that retroactivity was not applied due to lack of documents when he first
applied, and failure to pay difference for insufficient funds, the courts still held them liable,
which they filed for motion for reconsideration.
Issue: Whether or not the pension granted to Gasilao would have a retroactive effect despite his
failure to complete his supporting papers.
Decision: Despite his failure to submit all of his supporting papers he was still a veteran in good
standing, and the petitioners claim that R.A. 65 means that the application must first be
approved is not in consonance with the law and should be in favor to the veterans considering

that these veterans have suffered for their service. No delays should be done for the speedy
disposition and honest fulfillment.
Floresca v. Philex Mining
Facts: The heirs of the employees of Philex claimed that the corporation failed to take
precautions required by law for the protection of their employees who were trapped after being
buried in the tunnels of the mine, and while 5 were able to escape, and 22 rescued, the rest who
were still alive and may still be alive under the tunnels were abandoned due to Philex decision to
forgo the rescue operations. It was dismissed because it should have been filed with the
Workmens Compensation Commission, but the petitioners claimed that their complaint was not
under the WCC but on damages which is under Article 2176, 2178, 1173, 2201 and 2231 because
it was because of gross negligence of Philex for failure to protect their employees, and thus is not
a matter of claiming for accident or disease acquired from working in those tunnels.
Issue: Whether or not the Workmens Compensation Commission has jurisdiction for the case of
negligence filed by the heirs of the Philex employees against Philex.
Decision: The case filed was not for compensation, but for actual, exemplary and moral damages
because it does not speak of the accident from the course of the employment in Philex, but the
negligence of Philex to protect its workers. Considering that the employees and Philex had a
contractual relationship the case falls under the provisions of the Civil Code mentioned by the
heirs. While the WCC speaks of compensation for the difficulty of the job of the employees and
what they have suffered, while the Civil Code covers the direct correlation between the
negligence of Philex, such as lack of facilities and the like, to the accident to which it resulted.
However, in accordance to the ruling of the Supreme Court, it should be followed that the heirs
can only claim either the compensation from WCC or file for an ordinary civil case for damages.
The judgment is in favor of the petitioners, the dismissal of the lower court is reversed and the
compensation the heirs have already received from WCC shall be deducted from the claim of
damages.