Case No.

11

PVTA vs. CIR

G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975

FACTS:

Court of Industrial Relations - In which the private respondent filed with, a

petition to recuperate overtime pay for services provided in excess of eight hours
a day which includes overtime services from December 23, 1963 up to March
20, 1970, the date decision was rendered. It gave a decision directing petitioner
to pay compensation to private respondent’s claim, excluding what has already
been paid.

Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration - After a motion for

reconsideration has been denied, petitioners filed a request for certiorari on the
ground that the respondent court is without jurisdiction since it exercises
legislative functions not covered by the Eight-Hour Labor Law.

Commonwealth Act No. 444 - “The Eight-Hour Labor Law, applies to all
persons employed in any industry or occupation whether public or private.
Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision ruling that performance of
governmental function does not prejudice the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations.

HELD:

Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration - Established by RA2265 and

amendatory statute of RA 4155 wherein such Republic Acts put forward the
latter’s functions as government organization and not proprietary capacity. The
1935 Constitution rejected the the laissez faire doctrine as it entrusted the
government the responsibility of coping with social and economic problems with
the equal power of control over economic affairs.

Eight Hour Labor Law section 2 - Shall apply to all persons employed in any
public or private industry or occupation. Hence, private respondents are
excluded among the employees who are barred from enjoying the statutory
benefits. The appealed Order and Resolution of Respondent Court’s which denied
a motion for reconsideration are affirmed and asserted.
Case No. 12

Romualdez-Yap vs. CSC

G.R. No. 104226, Aug. 12, 1993. Dana Marie

FACTS:

Civil Service Commission Resolution - a Special civil action for certiorari was
filed questioning the Resolution which supported Petitioner’s separation from
Philippine National Bank as a result of abolition of Fund Transfer Department
pursuant to a reorganization under EO80 dated Dec. 3, 1986.

Conchita Romualdez-Yap -Senior Vice President of the Fund Transfer

Department and sister of Imelda Marcos. She was on leave from April 1, 1986 to
February 20, 1987 due to medical reasons.

EO80 - approved the reorganization and rehabilitation of the Philippine National

Bank which abrogated the Funds Transfer Department and turned over its
functions to the International Department. Romualdez-Yap was then notified of
her separation from the service dated Jan 30, 1987 but was received Feb 16,
1987. Nevertheless, the petitioner then appealed to the Civil Service Commission
questioning her separation but the validity of her separation was upheld in a letter
dated Aug 30, 1989. Afterwards, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but
CSC denied it for the reason that EO authorizes the reorganization and reduction
of PNB.

HELD:

The reorganization of PNB was done in good faith - the critical financial
situation and circumstances of the bank which prompted departments, positions,
and functions to be abolished or combined and therefore the FTD’s the abolition
was essential. In addition, universal or commercial banking is not governmental
but a private sector enterprise.

Romuladez-Yap - Whether there is a hidden political agenda as a result of her

consanguineal relation with Imelda Marcos does not show. On the off chance that
the petitioner wanted to remain with the bank, she would have showed
demonstrated verification on record that she positively expressed willingness to
be employed and attested for the management’s consideration.

Preferential right to appointment - it cannot be invoked on the grounds that

Sections 2 and 4 of RA6656 were violated by PNB since the law took effect after
the implementation of PNB’s reorganization.
Case No. 013

THE GOV. OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y

CAJA DE AHORRAS DE MANILA,

FACTS:

Earthquake of June 3, 1863: devastated and damaged the Philippines

inducing the occupants of the Spanish Dominions to give a relief of
$400,000 to be dispersed by a central relief board. Some portion of the
assets contributed were swung over to the central relief board, and some
was turned over to the Monte de Piedad.
Monte de Piedad : a bank that requested to the Governor-General of its
outright need for more working capital and petitioned that out of the sum of
100,000 USD held in the Treasury of the Philippine Islands there be
transferred to it the sum of $80,000 to be held under the same conditions
at the disposal of the central relief board.
Gov. of the Philippine Islands : because of different petitions of the
people and beneficiaries of other to whom the previously mentioned
distributions were made, the Philippine Islands filed a suit against the
Monte de Piedad through the Attorney-General, representing the
Government of the Philippine Islands, the $80,000 together with interest.

HELD:
Doctrine of Parens Patriae - the inherent power and authority of the state
to provide protection of the person and property of a person not having full
legal capacity to act or not subject to the authority of another.
State may interfere by virtue of parents patriae - the
ground upon which the
right of the Government to maintain the action rests on the fact that the
money, being given to a charity became a public property, only applicable
to the specific purposes to which it was intended to be devoted. To deny
the government’s right to maintain this action would be contrary to public
policy.
MELCHORA CABANAS, plaintiff Vs. FRANCISCO PILAPIL, defendant

FACTS:

Florentino Pilapil - provided insurance for himself and advised in his insurance
plan that his beneficiary will be his child, Milan Pilapil . He likewise indicated
that if on his death the child is still a minor, the receipts of his benefits shall be
administered by his brother, Francisco Pilapil. Consequently, Milan was only ten
years old when Florentino died and so Francisco Pilapil then took charge.

Melchora Cabanas - the mother of the child peitioned a complaint requesting

for the conveyance of the insurance proceeds in favor and for her to be declared
as the child’s trustee. However, Francisco asserted that as a private contract, its
terms and obligations must be binding only to the parties and planned recipients.

HELD:

State may interfere by virtue of parens patriae - The application of parens

patriae here is in accordance with the country’s tradition of assisting conflicts in
favor of the family in which the preference to the parent is respected. Moreover,
the Constitution accommodates for the strengthening of the family as the
fundamental social unit that at whatever point any member would be prejudiced
and his interest is affected shall be settled in proportion to that individual’s best
interests.

Melchora Cabanas - should be the administrator and not the uncle since she was
the immediate and closest relative of the child. Likewise, it is also presumed that
the mother will give more care towards the child.

Case No. 015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff vs. GUILLERMO CASIPIT y
RADAM, accused
FACTS:
Guillermo Casipit - On September19, 1986, the 22 year old invited Myra, 14
years old to go to the town proper of Alaminos to purchase rice and
bananas. Upon reaching the town, he recommended that they should buy
in Dagupan rather because the prices were cheaper. Upon arriving,
Guillermo invited Myra to watch a movie and ate dinner in Alaminos before
proceeding home to Barangay Victoria. It rained hard on their way home
that they had to stop in a hut in the open field of Barangay Talbang. Inside
Myra sat on the floor while Guillermo laid down. Afterwards, he advised her
to lie and rest. Thereafter, he went near her and removed her underwear,
pointed a knife at her neck, and threatened her not to shout.
Myra - resisted the appellant and kicked him twice yet she was
defenseless. Subsequently, her legs were opened by him, went on top of
her, and had sexual intercourse with her. Myra could not stop him because
he was much bigger and stronger than she was. The next day, on her way
home, Rogelio Casipit, her cousin-in-law, observed that she was walking
bull-legged. Myra then told what happened to her aunt and so she was
joined by her uncle to report the rape incident to the police station as well
as to Western Pangasinan Gen. Hospital where she was examined by Dr.
Ochave. The medical findings demonstrated no external wounds as well as
spermatozoa yet there was presence of first degree healing laceration of
the hymen.
Guillermo Casipit’s defense - he and Myra were lovers and that there
was no resistance that happened when he tried to have sexual intercourse
with her. Nevertheless, the RTC convicted Guillermo Casipit of RAPE BY
MEANS OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION.
HELD:

The court can act as parens patriae - In testimonies and declarations of victims who are
minors, the Court is obliged to curtail the danger of mischief to those
individuals are not yet able to fully protect themselves as a result of their
minority whether it was rape, seduction or mutual affection with consent.

Case No. 18

Lawyers’ League vs. Aquino

G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986

RULING:

The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not justiciable - it has a place with the realm
of legislative issues where just the general population of the Philippines are the judge. Along
these lines, the court reasoned that the 1) the people have made the judgment and have
acknowledged the administration of President Corazon C. Aquino, which is in viable control of
the whole nation; 2) that is it not only a de facto government but rather a de jure government,
and 3) community in the worldwide domain has perceived the external authenticity of the
present government. Likewise, the eleven members the court, as revamped, vowed to
maintain the central law of the Republic under her legislature.

Case No. 20

Laurel v. Misa G.R. No. L-409 January 30,, 1947 By Wendy’s Bakeshop

FACTS:

Art. 114. Treason. — “Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of
the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving
them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal
to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.”

Anastacio Laurel - Requested for the writ of habeas corpus which the Supreme court acted in a
resolution, in view that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy by giving aid and solace during the
Japanese occupation cannot be arraigned for the crime of treason and be penalized by article 114 of
the Revised Penal Code for the reason that (a) the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the
Philippines and consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens was then suspended and (b)
that there was a change of sovereignty over these islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine
republic.

HELD:

Treason -Just as it may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government,
correspondingly, treason may have been conferred in the midst the Japanese occupation against theUS as well as
PH Commonwealth’s sovereignty.

There was no change of sovereignty over the Philippine islands - Upon the proclamation of the
Philippine republic, the change of our type of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not
affect nor influence the prosecution of those charged and accused with treason committed during the
Commonwealth because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people.
Considering that treason against the PH government of the Commonwealth in 1935, upon the final
withdrawal of the US sovereignty and the proclamation of the independence, “the PH Commonwealth
shall henceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines”.

Case No. 21

People v. Perfecto

G.R. No. L-18463 October 4, 1922

Mr. Gregorio Perfecto : an editor, who published an article regarding the
disappearance of certain official documents such as testimony given by
witnesses in the investigation of oil companies in the office of the Secretary of
the Philippine Senate in the La Nacion newspaper wherein the article ascribed
the trouble of finding said archived due to the willful acts of the Senate to
conceal such.

Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code "Any person who, by … writing, shall
defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in
authority…” A libel case was instituted by the Philippine Government, the same
law being considered in force and effect at that time. Gregorio Perfecto was
found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Likewise,he was found guilty in a judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Manila and again on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue :

Article 256 of the Spanish Civil Code has no force and effect - the
change from Spanish to American sovereignty, a general rule of the public
law, that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated

Sovereignty - Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to

protect Spanish officials. With the change of sovereignty, a new
legislature, and a new theory of government, as set up in the Philippines.
Hence, It was in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely for
convenience certain of the existing institutions and laws were continued.

Case No. 3
Planas v complex
G.R. No. L-35925 January 22, 1973

FACTS:
Proclamation No. 1081 - issued by President Ferdinand Marcos while the 1971 Constitution
Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, which placed the Philippines under
martial law.
November 29, 1972 - the Convention approved its proposed constitution. The next day the
president issued PD No. 73 submitting to the people for ratification or rejection the proposed
constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification.

Charito Planas - filed a petition on December 7, 1972 to enjoin respondents from

implemented PD No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among others is lodged
exclusively in the Congress.

December 17, 1972 - President Marcos issued an order temporarily suspending the effects
of PD 1081 for the purpose of the free and open debate on the proposed constitution and
on December 23, President Marcos announced the postponement of the plebiscite, as such,
the Court refrained from deciding the cases. The petitioners then filed for an “urgent motion”
praying that the case be decided “as soon as possible.

HELD:

Validity of PD No. 73 is justiciable - not only because of a long list of cases decided by
the Court but also of subdivision of Section 2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution which
expressly provides for the authority of the Court to review cases revolving such issue.

Validity of PD Mo. 73 - declared moot and academic by the court because the plebiscite
ordained has been postponed

Constitutional Convention - Court held that they are legally free to postulate nay amendment it
may deem fit to propose for as long as they adhere to Sec 1 of aRTICLE 24 OF THE 1935 CONSTI