BATCH 1: Concepts

7. Secretary of National Defense vs Manalo

Writ of habeas corpus Writ of amparo Writ of habeas data

a court order to a person or remedy available to any remedy available to any
agency holding someone in person whose right to life, person whose right to
custody (such as a warden) liberty and security is privacy in life, liberty or
to deliver the imprisoned violated or threatened with security is violated or
individual to the court violation by an unlawful act threatened by an unlawful
issuing the order and to or omission of a public act of any official or
show a valid reason for that official or employee, or of a employee, or of a private
person's detention private individual or entity individual or entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting
* Only the privilege of the or storing of data or
writ of habeas corpus can be information
suspended
Suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus: the prisoner is denied the right to
secure such a writ and therefore can be held without trial indefinitely

9. Marbury vs Madison

Power of Judicial Review process under which executive and legislative acts are subject to
review by the judiciary
Power to assess WON the law is in compliance with the Constitution
In this case, the Judiciary Act and Art III of the Constitution were in conflict (so
sinong mag-aadjust???). The SC, of course, upheld the Constitution.

10. Taada vs Cuenco

Political Question those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure
a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to
hear the case (Google)

13. In Re: Macasaet

Judicial Independence
1. The criticism will prevent judges from remaining insulated from personal and
political consequences of making an unpopular decision, placing juridical
independence
2. Unjust criticism of the judiciary will erode the public trust and confidence in the
judiciary

18. US vs Nixon
Executive Privilege the privilege, claimed by the president for the executive branch of the
US government, of withholding information in the public interest (Google)

GR: Presidential communications are privileged

EXCEPTION: Not governmental in nature and when public interest exists
When it can be invoked:
1. Military
2. Diplomacy
3. National Security
Without these, executive privilege cannot be invoked by the President
 BATCH 2: Cases

1. Lopez vs Roxas

Judicial Power the authority of the court to settle justiciable controversies or disputes
involving rights that are enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or redress
the wrongs for violations of such rights

2. Angara vs Electoral Commission

Separation of Powers each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of

matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme in their own sphere
The Constitution has provided an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government
Legislative checks on the Executive Commission on Appointments
Executive checks on Legislative Executives assent is required in the enactment of
all laws
Legislative on Judiciary power to determine what courts other than SC shall be
established
Judiciary checks on Legislative and Executive final arbiter and checks WON the
acts of L and E are violative of the Constitution

4. Carpio-Morales vs CA

Condonation Doctrine the administrative offenses of an elected official are already

deemed forgiven when the public decides to re-elect him or her for another term.

The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability
to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent
with the idea that an elective local officials administrative liability for a misconduct
committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second
term of office, or even another elective post.

BASIS: 1987 Consti and LGC

[SC struck down this doctrine in this case.]

That being said, this Court simply finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation
doctrine in this jurisdiction It was a doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings way
back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from and now rendered obsolete by the current legal
regime.

9. Film Development Council vs Colon Heritage

[In accordance with RA 9167, films that have obtained a Grade A or B are entitle to the
equivalent amusement tax incentive. All but Cebu City complied. The same provisions of the
law were declared unconstitutional, but Film Development Council does not have to return
what was paid to them due to the doctrine of operative fact.]
Doctrine of Operative Fact nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing
that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative
fact and may have consequences that cannot be ignored
It applies when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law.

13. Santiago III vs Enriquez

Judicial Immunity insulates a judge or justice from being held to account criminally,
civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision made in GF

[LAW AS A PROFESSION CASES]

17. Cojuangco vs Palma

You cannot separate being a lawyer and being a citizen
This is when Palma married Cojuangcos daughter in secret in HK
If he really loved her, the noblest thing that he could have done was to walk away.

18. Castaeda vs Ago

You cannot shop and shop until you obtain a favorable judgment
The parties are going back and forth the Court for more than a decade

21. Burbe vs Magulta

Lawyer-client relationship starts from the moment the client asks the lawyer for an advice and
the lawyer, in turn, gives the advice

22. Pacana vs Pascual-Lopez

Lawyer who represented both sides of the case (Conflict of Interest) DISBARRED

24. Roxas vs Zuzuareggui

Contingent fees shall be reasonable
Roxas et al wanted their fee to be like 44% of the total amount their clients was compensated
o Court said its unreasonable and reduced to like 12.87% (or something like that
hahaha)

27. Neri vs Senate

Executive Privilege the power of the Government to withhold information from the public,
the courts, and the Congress

28. David vs Arroyo

You cannot sue the President criminally or civilly, but she can still be held
accountable through impeachment
PP 1017 has factual bases
o Alliance between military, NPA, leftist and opposition
o Magdalo vowed to avoid capture at all costs
o Plan to assassinate GMA
o Bombings and killings
President cannot just sit there and do nothing while lawlessness happens = CALL
OUT AFP
 o Its constitutional in the sense that the calling out power of the President is
within her powers in accordance to the Consitution

29-30. Estrada vs Desierto

Conviction for impeachment not necessary for Estrada to be criminally prosecuted
o Not covered by the Presidential immunity Criminal acts of the President
(aka its not acts of the State)
o Impeachment was in the process but he resigned, so there is no more person to
impeach
o Since hes not the President anymore, hes not immune immunity only
during the tenure
Congress is the only one who can decide WON President is incapable to act as
President
o Congress recognized Arroyo as President meaning, Estradas inability is no
longer temporary

31. Araneta vs Gatmaitan

President may delegate his powers to his alter-egos (aka the Cabinet Members)

35. Fermin vs People

36. Chinese Young Mens Christian Association of the Philippine Islands vs Remington Steel
Corporation
37. Pepsi-Cola Products PH vs Pagdanganan

Stare Decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents; requires courts to follow the rule
established in a decision of the Supreme Court (Art 8 CC, Fermin vs People)

Google: to stand by the things decided; the legal principle of determining points in
litigation according to precedent

Fermin vs People: Stare Decisis only applies to cases decided by the SUPREME COURT, in
other words, SC cannot subscribe to the rulings of the lower courts
[Fermin wants to adopt the ruling in People vs Beltran and Soliven. SC said no because such
case was decided by the CA.]

Chinese Young Mens Christian Association of the Philippine Islands vs Remington Steel
Corporation: to adhere to the precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established
When the SC has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to future cases, where the facts are
substantially the same.
Vs res judicata: Stare Decisis is based upon a principle or rule involved not upon a
judgment which results therefrom.
[Same facts, different units lang]

39. Republic vs Yu

Res Judicata a final judgment on the merits rendered by the court of competent
jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes and
absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.
Republic vs Yu: a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or
matter settled by final judgment

Elements of Res Judicata

(1) The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final
(2) The decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties
(3) The disposition of the case must be a judgment on merits
(4) There must be identity of the parties, subject matter and causes of action

40. Lim vs Vera Cruz

Lis Pendens pending suit; it is filed for the purpose of warning all persons that the title to
a certain property is in litigation and that if they purchase the same, they are in danger of
being bound by an adverse judgment
The notice is a warning to the whole world that the one who buys the property does so
at his own risk.

41. Atlantic Erectors Inc vs Herbal Cove Realty Corporation

GR in which a notice of lis pendens may be availed:

(1) An action to recover possession of real estate
(2) An action for partition
(3) Any other court proceedings that directly affect the title to the land or the building
thereon or the use or occupation thereof

42. Villa vs Sandiganbayan

Law of the Case principle under which determinations of questions of law will generally
be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has
already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort

Google: if the highest appellate court has determined a legal question and returned the case to
the court below for addition proceedings, the question will not be determined differently on a
subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same

44. People vs Derillo

Prospectivity of Laws no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission (Art 21, RPC)
No act or omission shall be held to be a crime, nor its author punished, except by
virtue of a law in force at the time the act was committed
A penal law may be retroactive ONLY when it is favorable to the accused.

46. Santos vs CA
The very first case where the SC discussed the term psychological incapacity

Landmark Case case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The
most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain
law, of concerning individual rights and liberties (Google)
Psychological incapacity is characterized by
a. Gravity
b. Juridical antecendence
c. Incurability

48. Ting vs Velez-Ting

Leading case A decided case which demands more than usual attention from the judges,
and from circumstance are frequently looked upon all points involved in such cases, and as
guides for subsequent decisions, and from the importance they thus acquire

In Carpio-Morales, although the leading case term was not discussed, the case in itself was
a leading case because previous decisions regarding the condonation doctrine have been
based on US decisions. But, in present time, US decisions have already overruled or made
exceptions to the doctrine; whilst Philippine jurisprudence applied only its primitive
definition under the Pascual case.

As a leading case, it prospectively abandons previous application of the doctrine but more
importantly acts as a guide to subsequent decisions while also accepting the general rule and
its new exceptions.

49. Corpuz vs People

Dura Lex, Sed Lex the law is harsh, but it is the law
The court cannot suspend the execution of a sentence on the ground that strict
enforcement of the law constitutes a harsh penalty
All the court can do is to enforce the punishment and report the matter to the Chief
Executive with reasons why the punishment is harsh
It is the duty of the Court to apply the law and not to revise or amend such law