1.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas

and Elizabeth Dimaano

FACTS:
Former Pres. Corazon Aquino issued EO 1 or the Presidential Commission on
Good Governance (PCGG) mandated to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
Pres. Marcos, his family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates.

ISSUES:
(1)Whether or not the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights
of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and
effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government;
(2)Whether or not the protection accorded to individuals under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (Declaration) remained in effect during the interregnum.

RULING:
(1)and (2) The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during
the interregnum. However, the rule that protection accorded to individuals
under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the
interregnum.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:
During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary
government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and
scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution
by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives
and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person
could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was
neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum.
2.
Mijares vs. Ranada

FACTS:
The US Court ruled in favor of the petitioners when they filed a complaint against
the estate of former Pres. Marcos, claiming that they suffered human rights abuses.
Petitioners then filed a Complaint in the Makati RTC for the enforcement of the US
judgment, but was opposed by the respondents alleging that the petitioners did not
file the correct amount of filing fees (petitioners only filed P410 as docket and filing
fees). In response, petitioners contended that the enforcement of a foreign
judgment is not capable of pecuniary estimation hence a filing fee of only P410.00
was proper, pursuant to the Rules of Court [Sec. 7(c) of Rule 141].

In 1998, respondent Judge Ranada of the Makati RTC issued the subject Order
dismissing the complaint without prejudice, and opined that the complaint was
capable of pecuniary estimation as it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign
court ordering the payment of definite sums of money.

Petitioners thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but such was denied.
Thus, the present petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for Certiorari should be granted.

RULING:
Petition granted.

DOCTRINE:
The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage
among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain
conditions that may vary in different countries.

Petitioners’ complaint may have been lodged against an estate, but it is clearly
based ona judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District Court.
3.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine Blooming Mills
Co., Inc.

FACTS:
Respondent company alleged petitioners violated the CBA by proceeding with the
mass demonstration.

DOCTRINE:
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the
preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions.
4.
Tupas vs. CA

FACTS:
The petitioners’ counsel failed to file the petition for review within the remaining
period, neither did he move for an extension that would have been granted as a
matter of course.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition, filed late, can be treated as a petition for certiorari.

RULING:
No, cannot be treated as a petition for certiorari.

This remedy cannot be employed as a substitute for a lost appeal. It follows that for
having themselves forfeited the right to appeal, the petitioners cannot now
plaintively claim that they have been denied due process.

DOCTRINE:
Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and
the protection of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. It is a
mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to each
other or, as has often been suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should
never be permitted it if it will result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the
litigants.
5.
Asilo vs. People

FACTS:
Mayor Commendador of Nagcarlan, Laguna directed private respondent Visitacion
to demolish her leased property despite the existence of a valid lease contract. The
demolition was pushed through which drove the private respondents to file a case
against the petitioners for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the right of the respondents was violated.

RULING:
Yes, the Court is in one with the prosecution that there was a violation of the right
to private property of the Spouses Bombasi.

The accused public officials should have accorded the spouses the due process of
law guaranteed by the Constitution and New Civil Code. The Sangguniang Bayan
Resolutions as asserted by the defense will not, as already shown, justify demolition
of the store without court order.

This Court in a number of decisions held that even if there already is a writ of
execution, there must still be a need for a special order for the purpose of
demolition issued by the court before the officer in charge can destroy, demolish or
remove improvements over the contested property.
6.
Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia

FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail;
that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential
extradite has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

RULING:
Instant petition was dismissed, but the case is remanded to the trial court to
determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of “clear and
convincing evidence.”

DOCTRINE:
While the Court in the case of Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to
criminal proceedings, however, in light of the various international treaties giving
recognition and protection to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty,
a reexamination of the Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order.
7.
8.
Stonehill vs. Diokno

FACTS: Petitioners alleged that search warrants issued by respondents are null and
void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court because, inter alia:
1. they do not describe with particularity the documents, books, and things to be
seized. . .

DOCTRINES:
1. Seizure of assets belonging to the corporation may be questioned only by the
corporation as it is its right that has been violated.
“It is clear that a question of the lawfulness of a seizure can be raised
only by one whose rights have been invaded. Certainly, such a seizure, if
unlawful, could not affect the constitutional rights of the defendants
whose property had not been seized or the privacy of whose homes had
not been disturbed.”

2. Search warrants as regards things seized in the residences of the petitioners:

Requisites of a valid search warrant –
a. That no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by
the judge in the manner set forth in the Constitution; and,
b. That the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.

In this case, the offense was not specified, thus it was impossible for the judges
to issue warrants with probable case.

Moreover, the things to be seized were not particularly described.

9.
Ermita-Malate Hotel vs City of Manila

Principal Issue:
WON Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process
clause.

FACTS:
Petitioners alleged that Ordinance No. 4760 is beyond the powers of the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila insofar as it regulates motels despite the
revised chapter of the City of Manila making no reference to motels.
That Sec. 1 of the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional and void for
being unreasonable and violative of the due process clause insofar as it would
impose P6,000 fee per annum for the first class motels, and P4,000 for second
class motels.
That the requirement that certain personnel refrain from entertaining
guests without filling up the required form asking for personal information, is
unconstitutional and void on due process grounds, not only for being arbitrary,
unreasonable, or oppressive but also for being vague, indefinite, and
uncertain, and likewise for alleged invasion of the right to privacy and guaranty
against self-incrimination.

RULING:
In this case, the Manila Ordinance is held to be a valid exercise of police
power.

DOCTRINE:
An ordinance, having been enacted by councilors who must, in the very
nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular
municipality or city with all the facts and circumstances which surround the
subject and necessitate action, must be presumed to be valid and should not
be set aside unless there is a clear invasion of personal or property rights under
the guise of police regulation.
10.
People vs. Marti

FACTS:
Appellant was charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act upon
discovery by an employee of the Bureau of Customs that his shipment
contained marijuana.
Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had
been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure and privacy of communication.

DOCTRINE:
In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

NOTE:
The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought
to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person,
acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of
State authorities.
11.
People vs. Wong Chuen Ming

FACTS:
Certain foreign individuals were found carrying shabu inside Alpen
Cereals boxes. (They were asked by a certain Ah Hong to bring with them the
boxes of cereals to the Philippines which they did with confidence that the
boxes just contained cereals).
On appeal, the contentions of the accused-appellants circled on these
premises:
1. That the lower court erred when it failed to realize that the joint
representation by previous counsel of appellants with the group of
nine Malaysian accused not only prejudiced the former but also
amounted to the deprivation of their constitutional right to effective
counsel and due process;
2. That their Miranda rights were violated.
Note: Miranda rights – right to remain silent and to counsel and that
any statement they might make could be used against them

RULING:
1. It does not appear from the records that the effectiveness of accused-
appellants’ counsels was diminished by the fact that they also jointly
represented the other accused.
2. Accused-appellants were not informed of their Miranda rights when they were
made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were
at NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody
at Camp Crame.
“These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounseled extra-
judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Sec. 12 (1) (3),
Art. III, 1987 Constitution).

DOCTRINE:
Evidence collected without informing the person of his fundamental
rights (specifically the Miranda rights in this case) are inadmissible as evidence.
12.
Ynot vs. IAC

FACTS:
The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from
Masbate to Iloilo when they were confiscated by the police station
commander of Barotac, Nuevo, Iloilo for violation of EO 626.

RULING:
Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is
denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and
punished.

DOCTRINE:
There are cases wherein the requisites of due process (notice and
hearing) may be dismissed, but only when there is urgency of the need to
protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger (which is not
present in this case).
13.
Philippine Phosphate vs. Torres

FACTS:
Phil. Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS) assails the decision of
the Secretary of Labor affirming the order of the Mediator-Arbitrer which
directed the immediate conduct of a certification on election among the
supervisory, professional or technical, and confidential employees of
petitioner corporation.
PHILPHOS claimed that it was denied due process when respondent
Mediator-Arbitrer granted the amended petition of respondent PMPI without
according PHILPHOS a new opportunity to be heard.

RULING:
Due process not denied.
Petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its position paper with Mediator-
Arbitrer and to consider the case submitted for decision on the basis of the
position papers filed by the parties. There was sufficient compliance with the
requirement of due process, as petitioner was afforded reasonable
opportunity to present its side.
Moreover, petitioner could have, if it so desired, insisted on a hearing to
confront and examine the witnesses of the other party, but it did not.

DOCTRINE:
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as
applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
14.
Banco-Español vs. Palanca

DOCTRINE:
As applied to judicial proceedings, due process of law implies that there
must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the
matter before it, that jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired, that the
defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard, and that judgment shall be
rendered upon lawful hearing.
15.
State Prosecutors vs. Muro

FACTS:
In a letter-complaint, respondent judge of RTC manila was charged by
certain State prosecutors with gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct,
and violations of certain rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly
because the Judge issued an Order dismissing 11 cases filed by said
prosecutors solely on the basis of newspaper reports.

DOCTRINE:
A law which is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of
common knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration,
which is one of the requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a
fact.