1.

Ermita-Malate Vs City Mayor of Manila

Facts:
A case involving a police power ordinance of Manila which provided regulation for the registration of guest in hotels. The
ordinance required that hotel guest should be duly registered and that it shall be open for spot inspection of authorities. The ordinance
also raised taxes by classifying hotel as first class and second class. The requirement and provision are intended to court the
immorality in which hotels have become their den of prostitution.
Petitioner contends that there is violation of due process because of the imposition of annual fee which they consider as
unreasonable.
Lower court stated with the petitioners and declared as the ordinance as violative of dues and therefore unconstitutional, hence the
case.
Issue: Whether the ordinance violated due process and therefore null and void.
Ruling:
No, because it is a valid exercise of police power in order to count immorality in which hotels are being implicated. Court
explained that there was no violation of due process because the petitioners failed to prove the unreasonableness of the ordinance.
Court reminded the lower court to be very careful in declaring ordinance null and void as actions of the legislative bodies enjoys the
presumption of regularity. Absent any compelling reason, police power pressure should not be brushed as the legality. However, the
court explained if ever there exist unreasonable in the police measure, it is not immune from the correction of the court
Court ruled that there was unreasonableness then the ordinance as a police power measure is valid.
Therefore, the decision of the lower court is reversed and set aside and injunction lifted.

2. Phil-phosphate vs. Torres

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of the decision of Secretary of Labor Ruben Torres in affirming the decision of a labor-arbiter which
certified the election of union officials composed of supervisors and technical employees.
Petitioner contends that they were not heard adequately due to the denial of their motion for consideration decided only
through the position papers submitted. They further contend that the union of supervisor are violative of the Labor Code and that
action of DOLE is violative of due process.
Respondent countered that, supervisors do not belong to management and therefore way form their own union. It also granted
that there was no violation of due process as the petition was given opportunity to be heard.
Issue: Whether the decision of DOLE based on position papers is violative of due process and whether union of supervisor and
technical employees is allowed in the Labor Code.
Ruling:
No, because in administrative proceedings, submission of position papers is already sufficient to comply with due process. Court
defined that due process is essentially as opportunity to be head such has been satisfactory complied with the respondent when it
declared using as basis the position papers submitted by both parties.
No, the union of supervisor and technical employees is not allowed because it would be inimical to the interest of the
employer. What is provided in the Labor Code is that union may be formed distinctly for supervisors alone and separate from
professional and Technical employees.

3. Secretary of Justice vs Lation

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of a lower court decision to compel the Secretary of Justice to produce furnish copy of extradition
document to Mr. Mark Jimenez. Mr. Jimenez is subject for extradition for alleged crimes committed in the U.S.
Petitioner contends that the extradition documents are confidential and that the request is still premature.
Mark Jimenez who cited by Judge Ralph Lation, contends that he has the right to access of said documents as a requirement
of due process which is notice. Notice to mean that he should be aware of the charges labeled against him and so it is important early
on that he should have copies of the aforementioned documents.
Issue: Whether lower court is correct in granting Mark Jimenez access/copies of the extradition document.
Ruling:
Yes, because the given requirement of due process are notice and hearing. The given requirements of due process should and
must be complied with even if such action would violate extradition treaty.
Court explain that access to the documents constitutes motive and the determination by a judge whether a person can be
extradition constitute hearing.
Furthermore it said that whenever there is conflict between treaty and constitutional law the latter prevails. The latter prevails
because it provided that requirement of due process must be complied with. No one should be deprive of liberty and property without
due process.
Parethecally, Mark Jimenez should be given copies of the extradition in order for him to properly prepare him for his defense.
Petition dismissed, the petitioner is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition Documents.

4. Villegas vs Hiu Chiong

Facts:
A case assailing the decision of lower court declaring null and void the ordinance of the City of Manila. The ordinance prohibits
aliens from working in the city without permit costing P50.
Respondent contends that said ordinance is violative of due process and equal protection. He said that is unreasonable and
oppressive, because it deprives them of life, liberty, and property and that it was applied exclusively to aliens.
Petitioner countered the ordinance is a valid police power measure and the permit is a taxation which incidental to it.
Issue: Whether the lower court is correct in ruling shall null and void the ordinance as a police power measure because it violated
due process.
Ruling:
No, because police power measures are beyond the review if the courts except in the instance that is would breach due process
and equal protection.
The court explained that even aliens, once admitted also enjoy due process of law and they should not be deprived of their
life, liberty and Property.
Court said that the permits is tax excessive, and that there was no criterion well-defined that would lend the mayor or how to
properly implement said ordinance, in short, it gave him a lot of discretion.
The Court is Correct.
 5. Tanada vs Tuvera
Facts:
A case centered on the proper interpretation of Article 2 provision, “Unless otherwise stated”. The article speaks about the 15
days publication in the official gazette for any of general application to be effective.
Petitioner contends that a law should be published for it to be binding and effective otherwise it would be a violation of due
process. He considered it to be a violation because a law should be published in order to apprise the people it is supposed to govern.
Respondent, previous administration, countered that there is no need to publish it if congress provides for its effectivity
period, even shorter than 15 days. They bank their argument on the clause “otherwise provided”, to mean that the 15 day publication
period can be dispensed with.
The case was overcome with the 1986 EDSA Revolution and again it was refilled, hence this case.
Issue: Whether or not the 15-day publication period can be dispensed with and that it would vice the due-process requirement of
notice.
Ruling:
Yes because the 15 day requirement of publication is essential in order to properly apprise the people of the law it was
supposed to govern. Dispension the 15-day publication requirement would be a vice to the due process requirement.
The court explained that laws of general application must comply with the 15-day publication requirement in the Official
Gazette. This is compliance with the clear language in Art. 2 of the New Civil Code. While it may be true that newspapers can do the
job better, but the law must be complied with. The court cannot by way of interpretation put words where it is none. It is the job of our
lawmakers.
Corollary, the court said that the reason for not omitting the publication requirement is because it would deny public
knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it.
SC declared that laws must be published in the Official Gazette to become effective only after 15 days of publication or
another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with the Art. 2 of the NCC.

6. Sandoval vs HRET
Facts:
A case involving the decision of HRET declaring Alvin Sandoval unseated by virtue of the result of the recount in which
Josephine Lacson Noel came out as winner for representative seat in the District of Malabon.
Petitioner opposed the decision citing grave abuse of discretion on the part of HRET by not allowing him to offer formal
evidence.
HRET however, has given many opportunities to Sandoval despite numerous warnings, he kept on postponing and even to
the point of delaying the proceeding.
Dismayed by the decision of HRET, petitioner filed a case in SC, citing grave abuse of discretion.
Issue: Whether or not HRET acted with rave abuse in discretion, tantamount to violation of due process, when it rendered its decision
inspite postponement caused by petitioner, favoring the other candidate.
Ruling:
No because enough opportunity has been given to the petitioner for him to offer evidence and yet kept on postponing it. The
action of the HRET is not denial of due process because the essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and
submit one’s defense. To be heard, the court said, it does not only mean verbal evidence, it can also mean pleadings. Where either
through oral arguments or pleadings, opportunity is accorded, then there is no denial of due process.
Court explained that election tribunals must resolve disputes speedily, test the will of the electorate will be frustrated. The
postponement done by the petitioner spelled the doom for his chance to due process.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

7. Banco Espanol Filipino vs Vicente Palanea

Facts:
A case involving a mortgage of land that has matured. This mortgaged was entered into by the petitioner and Chinese citizen died
in this homeland.
Lower court decided to apply as attachment in payment the said mortgaged land although the notice of hearing found later, has
not been served properly.
After seven years, Vicente Palanca the administrator of the subject land appealed before the court to nullify the decision of the
lower court, citing breach of due process requirement because the Chinese fellow has not been serve summon and therefore the lower
has not acquired jurisdiction.
Issue: whether the non service of summon constitute a breach of due process, and that the lower court erred in its decision because it
has not acquired jurisdiction.
Ruling:
No, because non-service of summon will not affect the jurisdiction of court in cases where the subject is property. Although it
might be considered an irregularity, but the same cannot overtuned the decision of the lower court.
Court explained, that publication in news papers and the failed attempt by the clerk of court to send the summon constitutes
sufficient requirement to comply with due process.
Court elucidated mere procedural technicality is not an available defense to that the end of justice. Court cited American
jurisprudence that due process is incapable of rigid definition because it defines according to the situation where it is applied. Simply
stated that it is applied definition depends on case to case basis. Court finally said, it is enough that notice has been served.
Court added that laches has application on this case because of the delay of the petitioner in defense of his rights.
Court said, in action of property due process is not so strict but action against persons, service, of summon is a major requirement.

8. Ang Tibay vs CIR

Facts:
A case involving a shoe company, Ang Tibay where it illegally laid-off its employees. And Tibay averred that it laid-off
employees because of the supposed lack of materials (leather) for its shoe production. It reasoned also that its bond from the
Philippine Army should not be forfeited because of the lack of supplies of leather sole from the US.
Respondent Labor Union Inc. refuted all the reasons put forward by the petitioner because it was all false and doubt of
evidence. Respondent cited that the records of the Bureau of Customs would prove otherwise the claim of petitioner.
 Respondent prayed through motion for reconsideration that the case be remanded back to the Court of Industrial Relation,
citing more evidence to be offered.
Issue: Whether or not the court should grant the respondent the opportunity for retrial with reason that it can present evidences to
rebut the petitioners’ claims of truthfulness.
Ruling:
Yes because the Court of Industrial Relations eventhough administrative in nature should still abide with the rudiments of
fairplay and it should adapt the fundamental and essential requirements of due process.
Court stated that primary rights must be respected even in hearing which is administrative in character. Among them are the
right of hearing, the right to adduce evidence and the right to explanation pertinent to the decision itself of the administrative body.
Motion for new trial is granted and the case is remanded.

9. Lao Gi vs CA
Facts:
A case involving the deportation of Lao Gi who failed to register as alien.
Previously, Lao Gi was declared an Filipino citizen by virtue of an opinion of the Secretary of Justice, citing that he was born
of a Filipino Mother. Later, the opinion was cancelled by another secretary, and so Commission or Immigration and Deportation
ordered them to register as aliens. Failing to obey the order, a deportation proceeding issued.
Issue: whether the action if the CID is a breach of due process where it based its deportation proceeding on the failure of Lao Gi to
register as alien pending the determination of his citizenship.
Ruling:
Yes, because deportation proceeding although not criminal in nature, still requires hearing. Deportation constitutes
deprivation of liberty so it is clothed with the mantle of protection of the Constitution Right of due process. Rules of Court are
deportation proceeding must be followed.
Order of the CID is set aside, and it is ordered to continue hearing the Deportation.

10. Agabon VS NLRC

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of CA decision citing that the Agabon couple was not dismissed illegally by Riviera Home
Improvements.
Petitioner contends that they were illegally dismissed because they refused to work or “pakyaw” basis. He then accepting the
“pakyaw” basis of work would forfeit their SSS benefits.
On the other hand Reviera Home Improvement countered that the dismissal was illegal because the couple did not report to
work despite many notices and it was discovered that they work in other companies as cornice and gypouna bound installers.
NLRC decision was far to set aside the action of the Labor Arbiter was sided with the CA, hence the petition for certiorari.
Issue: whether CA decision is correct, voiding the dismissal of the Agabon couple as legal.
Ruling:
Yes but with modification. The Court explained that to dismiss an employee, Labor Law requires not only the existence of a
just and value cause but also an opportunity to be heard.
Court cited Labor Rules that in dismissing employee standard due process must be observed. It requires notice. Court liken
due process in the labor code as that of constitutional one. Where it requires substantive and procedural.
In this case substantive requirement was complied with because there was valid ground for dismissal but procedural
requirement was waiting because the dismissal did not undergo due process where employees dismissed should have been given an
opportunity to be heard.
Court ruled that if there is reason for dismissal but talking in due process the dismissal is not illegal but the employer will be
penalized.
PETITION DISMISSED.

11. Estrada vs Sanidganbayan

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of the ANTI-PLUNDER LAW void-for vagueness rule. Estrada contends that ANTI-PLUNDER
LAW is vague and is therefore violative of due process. He considered it vague because the terms used in the law are not so well-
defined. Terms such as, “services” combination of acts that should lead to the massing of ill-gotten wealth (minimum of 50 million),
to properly constitute plunder. He contends that if it is a series or combination of acts, failure of one act may no longer constitute
plunder. He said that every act should be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the act should have wren real (intent). Since the
terms are ambiguous and vague the law is unconstitutional under the void-for vagueness rule.
Issue: where the ANTI-PLUNDER LAW is unconstitutional for being vague in the definition of some of its provision and is therefore
violative of the due process rule.
Ruling:
No, because law is clear in its words it should and must received a plain meaning contrition. Court said that there is no
substantial proof that the law is vague because judging from the congress deliberation, that it clarified what constitute plunder nor is it
a requirement that every act is a combination or series thereof be proven beyond reasonable doubt for it to constitute plunder. What is
important is that there is an act leading to the massing of ill-gotten wealth amounting to 50 million or more.
Court reminded that statute act may be considered vague if it lacks the capability of comprehension by men of common
intelligence to which act is punishable and how it can be punished. Lacking these elements, the act cannot be said to be vague. Statute
acts are violative of due process if it fails to accord persons with reasonable notice, especially targeted by it and it leaves the enforcers
discretion in carrying its enforcement.
Missing vagueness, the Anti-Plunder law is constitutional. Petition dismissed of lack of merit.