MANOLO FULE VS CA
FACTS: Manolo Fule was convicted of the violation of BP 22 or
the Bouncing Check Law. Fule waived his right to present
evidence and submitted a memorandum confirming the
stipulation of facts. However, the stipulation of facts was not
signed by the petitioner nor his counsel. Despite of this, the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the
stipulation of facts and sentenced Fule.
ISSUE: WON the stipulation of facts should be signed?
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court pointed out the Rules of Court
provided that the stipulation of facts must be signed. The
Rules of Court stated that no agreement or admission during
the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence unless
reduced to writing and signed by the petitioner or counsel.
Negative words are used by the Rules of Court and according
to the rules of statutory construction, the use of negative
words should be regarded as mandatory. Thus, the stipulation
of facts must be signed to be admissible.
PURITA BERSABAL VS HON JUDGE SERFIN SALVADOR
FACTS: An ejectment case was filed and ruled against the
petitioner. Thus, she decided to appeal the case in the
respondent’s court. The respondent court ordered the
originating court to transmit a copy of the stenographic notes
within 15 days and the parties to file their respective
memoranda within 30 days. The petitioner filed a motion that
her party would file their memorandum within 30 days upon
receipt of the stenographic notes. The respondent court
granted the motion. However, the respondent court
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed
to submit her memorandum within the period provided by
the respondent court. Petitioner argued that she had not yet
received a copy of the stenographic notes. Thus, she filed the
instant petition.
ISSUE: WON the respondent court can dismiss the case on
the mere failure of the petitioner to file her memorandum
HELD: NO. RA 296 states that the parties may submit
memoranda if requested. With the use of the word “may”,
the party has an option not to submit the needed
memorandum since the word is not mandatory but rather,
discretionary. However, the Court pointed out that the
respondent court should not dismiss the appeal due to the
failure of the petitioner to submit a memorandum but dismiss
the petition based on facts available to it. Thus, the Court set
aside the decision of the respondent court and ordered it to
decide the case base on the merits of the case.
OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VS DE SAHAGUN
FACTS: The respondents are members of the Bids and Awards
Committee of the marketing support services for Intramuros.
An anonymous complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the
said committee entered contracts with Brand Asia Ltd without
undergoing the proper process of bidding. The Fact-Finding
Intelligence Bureau filed criminal and administrative charges
against them but the Graft Investigating Officer
recommended to drop the charges. However, the
Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation since there
was substantial evidence. The respondents argued that the
action already prescribed and that the Ombudsman has
recommendatory powers only.
ISSUES:
1. WON RA 6770 prohibits the investigations in cases
filed more than one year after commission
2. WON the power of the Ombudsman is
recommendatory only
HELD:
1. NO. The Court pointed out that administrative
offenses do not prescribe. Although the law uses the
phrase “may not”, it is not mandatory because it is
not supported by jurisprudence on statutory
construction.
2. NO. The Constitution vested on the Ombudsman to
directly remove from government service an erring
public official except those who are in the Congress
and the Judiciary.
LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS (SOUTH)
ASSOCIATION, INC. VS COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: Loyola Grand Villas Homeowners Association (LGVHAI)
was organized and was registered with the Home Financing
Corporation (HFC) as the sole homeowners’ organization in
the subdivision. However, it failed to file its corporate by-
laws. HFC, previously HIGC, informed LGVHAI that the
association is automatically dissolved for failure to file its by-
laws during the period allowed by law and for not using their
corporate charter as HFC did not receive any report on
LGVHAI’s activities. As a result, two new associations were
created, North and South. LGVHAI filed an action questioning
the revocation of their certificate and arguing that these two
associations should be dissolved. After a hearing in HIGC,
LGVHAI received favorable decision. As a result, the South
Association filed an appeal on the ground that law uses the
word “must” making the filing of by-laws mandatory. With
the failure of LGVHAI to file their by-laws, the South
Association contends that LGVHAI failed to exist.
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of LGVHAI to file its by-laws
should result to its dissolution.
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the word “must” is not
always mandatory. When the law is interpreted in its entirety
and it is shown that the intent of the framers that the word
must is discretionary, it should be given that meaning. In this
case, the Corporation Code when interpreted as a whole
would suggest that the framers did not intend the filing of by-
laws mandatory. Thus, when LGVHAI failed to file its by-laws,
it should not necessarily result to the association’s
dissolution.
ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS NLRC
FACTS: Jose Martillos filed a complaint against Roos Industrial
with money claims because of illegal dismissal. The Labor
Arbiter ruled in favor of Martillos. The Labor Arbiter found
that Martillos had gained a regular position in the company
when he was hired with little interruption as a driver for some
of the company’s project. Roos Industrial then filed an appeal.
However, instead of posting a cash or surety bond, it asked
for an extension for such posting because their signatories
were on leave as it was during the holidays. The NLRC
dismissed the appeal since Roos failed to perfect it by not
posting the said bond. Thus, this led Roos to bring the matters
before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not posting a cash or surety bond is
necessary to perfect an appeal
HELD: YES. The Labor Code provides that an appeal may only
be perfected when a cash or surety bond is posted. The Court
pointed out that the use of the word “only” by the Labor
Code suggests that posting such bond is needed to perfect
the appeal.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: The private respondent mortgaged two lots to
Philippine National Bank (PNB). For failure of the respondent
to pay its obligation, the bank foreclosed and sold the
properties through an auction. The Notice of Sale was
published on March 28, April 11, and April 12, 1969 when
section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires the publication once a
week for three consecutive weeks.
ISSUE: Whether or not PNB failed to publish the Notice of
Sale once a week for three consecutive weeks
HELD: YES. The Court pointed out that a week is composed of
seven consecutive days. The reckoning point also is the first
day the notice was published. Thus, the first week is from
March 28 to April 3, 1969. The second week should then be
from April 4 to April 10, 1969. Therefore, the second
publication should be within April 4 to April 10 and not April
11. Hence, PNB failed to publish the Notice of Sale once for
three consecutive weeks.
ALU-TUCP VS NLRC
FACTS: The petitioners were hired by ALU-TUCP as project
employees for their Five-Year Expansion Program project.
However, the petitioners filed an action against ALU-TUCP
and argued that they should be regarded as they have already
exceeded the needed amount of time to be considered as
regular employees. The Labor Arbiter ruled that they were
project employees but should receive the benefits of regular
employees. Upon appeal of both parties, the NLRC ruled that
the petitioners were project employees only and should not
be given benefits of regular employees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are project employees
HELD: YES. The Court pointed out that the petitioners were
hired for the completion of the project only and thus, hired
for a specific time only. Furthermore, the work assigned to
them are not directly related to the business of steel
manufacturing. The Court also emphasized that the provision,
which states that an employee who worked in a company for
a year shall be considered as a regular employee, relates to
casual employees and not to regular employees.
ARIS (PHIL.) INC. VS NLRC
FACTS: Due to the inaction of the management of Aris Inc. on
the complaints of the private respondents on their work
environment, the respondents marched to the management’s
office. Aris found this action inappropriate and thus,
terminated the respondents. As a result, the respondents
field an action and the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in
favor of them. Both ordered the reinstatement of the
respondents pending the appeal of Aris pursuant to RA 6175.
Aris, arguing that RA 6175 is unconstitutional, brought the
matters before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6175 is unconstitutional
HELD: NO. The Court finds that the arguments of Aris are
baseless. To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. In this case,
there is no breach of the Constitution. In fact, RA 6175 fulfills
the mandate of the Constitution on labor.
LIM VS PACQUING
FACTS: The Charter of the City of Manila was enacted by the
Congress allowing the city to regulate betting. A few tears
after, EO 392 was issued to transfer the authority to regulate
jai-alais from the local government to the Games and
Amusements Board (GAB). Nonetheless, the City of Manila
passed an ordinance allowing Associated Development Corp.
(ADC) to operate jai-alai in Manila. Subsequently, President
Marcos issued PD 77 revoking all powers of local government
to grant permit to operators of wagers such as jai-alai.
Invoking PD 771, GAB intervened the operations of ACD. ACD,
then, assails the constitutionality of PD 771 on the ground
that it violates the equal protection clause.
ISSUE: Whether or not PD 771 is unconstitutional
HELD: NO. The presumption is that a law is constitutional
unless otherwise ruled by the Supreme Court. Article XVIII,
Section 3 of the Constitution also provides that a law
consistent with the Constitution remains operative until
amended, repealed, or revoked. In this case, there is nothing
on record to show that PD 771 has been repealed, altered, or
amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance.
Thus, it remains valid and operative.
LIM AND LIM VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: The spouses Lim issued two checks. The first check
was dishonored because it was drawn from an insufficient
account. The second check was never presented upon
request of the petitioners who promised to replace the
dishonored check. However, petitioners reneged on their
promise causing the private respondent to file a complaint
against them. The spouses were charged and found guilty of
estafa by means of bouncing check. The spouses found the
penalties provided by PD 818 which increased the penalties
for estafa committed by means of bouncing check cruel and
inhuman. Thus, they argue that PD 818 is unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether or not PD 818 is unconstitutional
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that to declare a statute
unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution. Furthermore, the burden of
proving the invalidity of a law rests on those who challenge it.
In this case, the petitioners failed to present clear and
convincing proof that PD 818 is unconstitutional.
SALVACION VS CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Greg Bartelli lured Karen Salvacion in his apartment in
Makati where she detained and raped the girl for four years.
Karen was able to escape and filed a criminal and civil action
against Bartelli. Bartelli was able to post bail and escaped.
The RTC ruled in favor of Karen and thus, the deputy sheriff
served a Notice of Garnishment to Chinabank where Bartelli
has an account. However, Chinabank invoked a circular of the
Central Bank which exempts foreign currency deposits from
garnishment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the circular of the Central Bank is
applicable to Bartelli who is guilty of illegal detention and
rape
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the application of a law
depends on the extent of its justice. Furthermore, Article 10
of the Civil Code also provides that in case of doubt, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice
to prevail. In this case, applying the law to Bartelli would
produce injustice. Thus, the circular is not applicable to
Bartelli.
ALONZO AND ALONZO VS IAC AND PADUA
FACTS: Padua siblings inherited a land and partitioned it
among themselves. Then, two of them sold their respective
portion of the land to the Alonzo spouses. The said spouses
put a fence and started to build a house for their son on the
portion they bought. However, the other siblings were
reclaiming the land on the ground that they were not given a
notice of the sale. The RTC denied the argument of the other
siblings because evidence presented showed that they have
knowledge of the sale even though there was not written
notice. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC because of
the need of a written notice.
ISSUE: WON a written notice of sale is needed in this case
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the other siblings
already knew about the sale based on the established facts.
Furthermore, the period for them to reclaim the two portions
of land have already prescribed within the 13 years of not
questioning the sale.
ALMADOVAR VS PULIDO-TAN, COA
FACTS: Almadovar was a general manager of Isabela Water
District. The audit team of the water district found out the
increase in salary of Almadovar has no legal basis. Almadovar
argues that the increase was based on RA 9286 which
repealed the Standard Salary Law (SSL)
ISSUE: WON SSL was repealed by RA 9286
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that RA 9268 neither
expressly or impliedly repealed the SSL. There were no
irreconcilable inconsistencies. As such, the salary of
Almadovar should follow the SSL which provides the amount
of salary for government employees.
MECANO VS COA
FACTS: Mecano was a director of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized for cholecystitis. On
the ground that his hospitalization was service-connected,
Mecano was claiming the amount he incurred for his medical
treatment from COA. However, COA denied the claim
because the section of the Administrative Code of 1917 that
allowed such compensation was not restated and reenacted
in the Administrative Code of 1987. Thus, COA was arguing
that the subsequent administrative code repealed the prior
code.
ISSUE: WON the subsequent administrative code repealed
the prior code
HELD: NO. By comparing the two codes, the subsequent code
did not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject of the
old code. Thus, there is no repeal that happened with the
enactment of the subsequent code. Mecano should be
allowed to receive his claims.
PARAS VS COMELEC
FACTS: Paras was an incumbent barangay chairman who won
in the last regular barangay elections. However, 29.3% of the
registered voters in his barangay moved for a recall for
election which the Comelec approved. Due to the opposition
of Paras, the recall elections was moved and rescheduled to a
later date. Paras then contends that the rescheduled date
would violate the Local Government Code which provides
that there shall be no recall election 1 year from the date of
assumption of officer or 1 year prior to a regular election. For
him, this would be violated since there would be an SK
election within 1 year from the scheduled recall election.
ISSUE: WON the SK election should be considered as a regular
election as provided by the Local Government Code
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the intent of the
framers in the said provision is to only have one recall
election within the term of the elected position. Thus, the
regular election should include the election of the contested
position. Thus, the SK election does not constitute a regular
election since it does not include the election of the barangay
chairman. The Court noted that the interpretation of Para
would lead to absurdity.
CIR VS ESSO
FACTS: Esso Standard Eastern Inc. overpaid its tax payment
and the Commissioner granted that the excess payment be a
tax credit. On the subsequent year, there was a deficiency in
the tax payment of ESSO. The Commissioner sent Esso a letter
demanding the latter to pay the all of the deficiency and its
corresponding interest. Esso paid but asked for a refund. Esso
contends that the interest should only be charged on the
difference between their excess payment and the deficiency.
The CIR denied the refund claimed by Esso.
ISSUE: WON the refund Esso is entitled for a refund
HELD: YES. Since the overpayment belong to Esso was already
in the hands of the Government, it was neither legally nor
logically possible for Esso to be considered a debtor of the
Government. Thus, whatever other obligation Esso might
incur in favor of the Government should be reduced by the
overpayment. Courts are not give words a meaning which
would lead to absurd consequences.
URSUA VS CA
FACTS: Ursua was a community and natural resources officer
and was complained of bribery together with other officials of
DENR. His counsel wrote a letter to the Ombudsman and
asked Ursua to take his letter-request because the messenger
was not available. The messenger advised Ursua that Ursua
could just use his name and Ursua did used the name when
he introduced himself in the office. The person who received
the letter found out about it and raised the matter to the
Deputy Ombudsman. Ursua then became accused of violating
CA 192. Later, he was found guilty by the RTC and the CA.
ISSUE: WON Ursua was guilty of violating CA 192
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that a literal interpretation
of the law would lead to absurdity. Thus, it decided to look at
the intent of the framers. The intent of the framers of CA 192
is to limit the aliases gave by Chinses businessman before.
Thus, the law does not apply to Ursua.
SANTIAGO VS COMELEC
FACTS: The private respondent, Delfin, filed with the
COMELEC a petition to amend the Constitution by people’s
initiative pursuant to RA 6735. The COMELEC granted the
petition. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that
RA 6735 does not cover initiative on amendments to the
Constitution and thus, the decision of the COMELEC is void.
ISSUE: WON RA 6735 covers initiative on amendments to the
Constitution
HELD: NO. Using the subtitle of the act as an intrinsic aid, the
Court finds RA 6735 is silent about introducing amendment to
the Constitution. What it covers is initiative and referendum
on national and local laws. Thus, the resolution issued by the
Comelec is void.
EUGENIO VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
FACTS: Porspero Palmiano, the private respondent,
purchased on installment basis two lots in E & S Delta Village.
E & S Village is owned and being developed by the petitioner,
Florencio Eugenio. The petitioner received complaints filed by
the homeowners’ association for non-development of the
said village and so the National Housing Authority ordered
the petitioner to cease from making further sales of lots
within the village. On one hand, while the cases were
pending, Eugenio sold one of the lots bought by Palmiano
since the latter stopped making payments. Upon discovery of
the sale, the Palmiano filed a petition for the annulment of
the sale and for reconveyance of the lot to him. He argued
that he stopped paying because of the NHA’s order and that
Eigenio failed to develop the village. When the case reached
the Executive Secretary, he ruled in favor of the private
respondent pursuant to PD 957. In its appeal, the petitioner
argues that PD 957 was not applicable to the case because
the purchase happened before the issuance of PD 958.
ISSUE: WON PD 958 has retroactive effect
HELD: YES. A reading of the decree’s preamble provides that
the intent of the framers is to remedy the taking advantage of
helpless citizens by the subdivision sellers or developers that
included already existing contract at the time of its
enactment. A careful reading of its provisions as well suggest
that PD 957 has retroactive effect.
PEOPLE VS ECHAVES
FACTS: Fiscal Ello filed an information in the RTC that alleged
16 persons are squatting on different agricultural lands
pursuant to PD No. 772. Judge Echavez dismissed the
information because PD No. 772 penalizes squatting on
agricultural lands only by applying the principle of ejusdem
generis.
ISSUE: WON, PD No. 772 which penalizes squatting applies to
agricultural lands only
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the
RTC that PD No. 772 penalizes squatting on agricultural lands
only. However, the SC pointed out that it can be clearly
inferred that the intention of PD No. 772 is only to penalize
squatting in agricultural lands as provided by its preamble.
The RTC does not need to apply ejusdem generis because it is
only a tool of statutory construction and applicable only when
the intention is not clear.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS ESSO
FACTS: Esso is an operator of a petroleum refining plant and a
holder of a concession issued by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources. Pursuant to Act No. 387, Esso is
claiming that they may import free of customs duty during
five years after the grant of concession. However, the
Customs charged them with special import tax affirmed by
the Commissioner pursuant to the enactment of RA 1394. The
Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision of the
Commissioner.
ISSUE: WON the exemption provided by Act No. 387 includes
special import tax
HELD: YES. From the subtitle of RA 1394, it repealed 6 prior
law and Act No. 387 is not included therein. The Court
pointed out that when a law is ambiguous, the courts may
turn to extrinsic aids such as the the history of the enactment
of the law. An assessment of the history of the enactment of
Act No. 387, the purpose of the legislature is to promote
exploration of petroleum.
VERA VS CUEVAS
FACTS: The private respondents in this case manufactures,
sells, and distributes filled milk products in the Philippines. On
the other hand, the Commissioner on Internal Revenue
required that the respondents to withdraw their filled milk
products in the market because they do not bear the
inscription required by the Tax Code. The inscription is “This
milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one
year of age.”
ISSUE: WON the filled milk products of the respondents are
included in the Tax Code to bear such inscription
HELD: NO. The headnote and the provision of the section of
the Tax Code which prescribes the inscription specifically for
skimmed milk products. Unlike skimmed milk, filled milk
products substitutes the fatty part removed with coconut or
corn oil. Furthermore, the Board of Food Inspection rendered
an opinion that filled milk does not come within the purview
of Section 169 of the Tax Code. This opinion bolsters the
decision of the Court.
PAFLU VS BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS
FACTS: The Philippine Blooming Mills held an election on who
would be the exclusive bargaining agent of all its employees.
With 429 vote, the National Federation of Free Labor Unions
(NAFLU) won as opposed to Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions (PAFLU) with 419 votes. Since the Labor Code
only requires majority of votes, the Director of Bureau of
Labor Relations declared NAFLU as the winner. However,
PAFLU invoked the decision in Allied Workers Association of
the Philippines vs Court of Industrial Relations in which
spoiled ballots should be counted as well. As there were 17
spoiled ballots, PAFLU argues that there was a grave abuse of
discretion by Director of Bureau of Labor Relations for
certifying NAFLU.
ISSUE: WON the decision on Allied Workers is applicable in
this case
HELD: NO. The decision on Allied Workers was promulgated
under Industrial Peace Act and the Labor Code superseded
the said act. Furthermore, implementing the rules and
regulations for the Labor Code, the construction of the
executive officials should be given controlling weight, unless
such interpretation is clearly erroneous.
DE VILLA VS CA
FACTS: De Villa issued a bouncing check in Makati and
therefore violated BP Blg. 22. He argued that his check would
be withdrawn from a foreign account in a foreign bank and
thus, not included in the scope of BP Blg. 22.
ISSUE: WON foreign checks when withdrawn from foreign
banks in the Philippines are included in BP Blg. 22
HELD: Yes. BP Blg. 22 does not distinguish the currency
involved. Hence, foreign currencies are also included in the
scope of BP Blg. 22. To support this conclusion, the Court
provided a record of the deliberation on the law by the
Batasang Pambansa.
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION VS DE GUZMAN
FACTS: RA 6975 was implemented and it provided for a
uniform retirement system for the member of PNP. Upon
reaching the age of 56, PNP members are prescribed to retire.
As such, the NPC sent notices to the private respondents who
already reached the age of 56 years and members of the
Philippine Constabulary (PC). The private respondents
averred that they were covered by the provision on the
retirement of Integrated National Police (INP) whose
retirement age is later than those of the members of the PNP.
ISSUE: WON the private respondents are covered under the
provision for members of the INP
HELD: NO. The Court finds that the INP is not synonymous to
PC. The law itself distinguishes the members of the PC from
the members of the INP. Furthermore, based on the
deliberations of the Congress, the Congress intended to
exclude the members of the PC from those covered under the
provision for the members of the INP.
CASCO PHILIPPINES VS GIENEZ
FACTS: Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. mainly uses urea
and formaldehyde to manufacture resin glues. Pursuant to a
Central Bank Circular, the company paid the required margin
fee for the importation of urea and formaldehyde. However,
Casco was claiming for a refund relying on a previous
resolution of the Central Bank which exempts the importation
of urea and formaldehyde from tax. The Auditor General,
however, denied Casco’s claim pursuant to RA 2609 which
exempts urea formaldehyde from tax. The Auditor General
argues that urea formaldehyde is already a finished product
while urea and formaldehyde are different components.
ISSUE: WON “urea and formaldehyde” are exempt from
margin fees
HELD: NO. The law clearly states that urea formaldehyde
which is a finished product is exempted and not “urea and
formaldehyde” which are different components. The Court
does not sustain the argument of the petitioner that the
intention of the Congress was to exempt urea and
formaldehyde as different products based on the deliberation
of the Congress on the said bill. However, the Court pointed
out that individual statements by members of Congress do
not necessarily reflect legislative intent and what is conclusive
upon the courts is the enrolled bill.
NUEVA ERA VS MARCOS
FACTS: Municipality of Marcos was claiming a portion of the
territory of Municipality of Nueva Era based on the law
creating the Municipality of Marcos. The Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte denied the claim of the
Municipality of Marcos because it is cleary stated that only
previous barangays of Dingras formed part of the
Municipality of Marcos. RTC affirmed SP but CA partly
reversed the decision and granted Municipality of Marcos one
of the portions claimed by Municipality of Marcos.
ISSUE: WON Municipality of Marcos can claim a part of Nueva
Era as part of its territory pursuant to the law that created the
Municipality of Marcos
HELD: No. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of
Sangguniang Panlalawigan invoking the principle, expression
unius est expression alterius, which means the express
mention of a thing implies the exclusion of another thing not
mentioned. The law creating Municipality of Marcos provides
that only the previous barangays of Dingras forms part of the
Municipalit of Marcos and hence, it cannot claim a portion of
Nueva Era.
CENTENO VS VILLALON-PERNILLOS
FACTS: Centeno and Yco launched a fund drive to renovate
their chapel in Bulacan. As such, they solicited money from
Judge Angeles. The solicitation was made without a permit
from Department of Social Welfare and Development. As
such, Judge Angeles filed a complaint against the petitioner
for violating PD 1564. Under PD1564, solicitation for
charitable or public purposes is now allowed without a permit
from the DSWD.
ISSUE: WON charitable or public purposes include religious
purposes
HELD: NO. The Constitution and other statutes treat the
words “charitable” and “religious” separately and
independently of each other. As such, PD 1564 does not
prohibit solicitation for religious purposes without permit
from DSWD. Furthermore, penal statues should be construed
liberally in favor of the accused.
PEOPLE VS WALPAN LAD-JAALAM Y MIHAJIL
FACTS: Ladjaalam was charged of the crime of Direct Assault
with Multiple Attempted Homicide for firing at several
policemen who were serving him a search warrant. He was
also charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition because the gun he used was unlicensed
pursuant to RA 8294.
ISSUE: WON the accused can be convicted of both crimes
HELD: NO. RA 8294 provides that any person who illegally
possesses firearms shall be penalized unless no other crime
was committed. In this case, since there is another crime
committed with the use of the unlicensed gun, Ladjaalam
cannot be convicted under 8249. His use of unlicensed gun
should serve only as an aggravating circumstance. Penal laws
should be construed in favor of the accused.
CIR VS LA TONDENA DISTILLERS
FACTS: La Tondena and 3 other companies entered into a
merger and changed their name to Ginebra San Migue Inc.
Then, the BIR issued a ruling that the transfer of assets shall
be subjected to documentary stamp tax (DST). On one hand,
the company claims that it is exempted from paying DST. The
CTA ruled in favor of the company citing that DST does not
apply in mergers because there is no purchaser or buyer.
ISSUE: WON the company is exempted from paying DST
HELD: YES. The Court finds that the National Internal Revenue
Code does not charge DST when there is a transfer of
properties pursuant to a merger. The Court emphasizes that
tax must not be imposed beyond what the law expressly and
clearly declares as tax laws are construed strictly against the
government and liberally in favor of tax payer.
RP VS IAC AND SPS PASTOR
FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines instituted an action
against the spouses Pastor to collect deficiency income taxes
from them. On the other hand, the spouses argued that they
had availed of the tax amnesty and had paid the
corresponding amnesty taxes. The trial court ruled in favor of
the spouses because by accepting the payment of the
amnesty income taxes, the Government waived its right to
recover deficiency. The IAC affirmed the trial’s court decision.
ISSUE: WON the Government is estopped from collecting
deficiency from the spouses for accepting their amnesty
income taxes
HELD: YES. The Court stressed that tax amnesty is a pardon to
persons guilty of evasion or violation of a revenue or tax law.
It partakes of an absolute forgiveness of waiver by the
Government of its right to collect what is due. Thus, the
Government is estopped from further collecting tax
deficiency from the spouses. The Court emphasized that tax
laws are construed strictly against the government and
liberally in favor of tax payer
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS MERALCO
FACTS: Meralco alleged that it is exempted from special
import tax pursuant to RA 1934 which exempts from tax
equipment and spare parts use in industries. Furthermore, its
franchise also provides that its insulators are also exempted
from all taxes of whatever kind and nature. The Acting
Commissioner of Customs argued otherwise.
ISSUE: WON Meralco is exempted from special import tax
HELD: YES. The first and fundamental duty of the Court is to
apply the law. In this case, it is clear equipment of Meralco
belongs those covered by tax exemption. However, the Court
still emphasized that tax exemptions should be construed
strictly against those who claim exemptions.
MISAMIS ORIENTAL ASSOCIATION OF COOC TRADERS VS
DOF SECRETARY
FACTS: The petitioner is engaged in buying and selling of
copra and enjoyed tax exemption. Later, copra was
reclassified into an agricultural nonfood product and
exempted from VAT only if the sale is made by the primary
producer pursuant to the Tax Code.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to tax exemption for
buying and selling copra
HELD: NO. The law is clear that tax exemption is only
applicable to those who sell copra that are primary
producers. In this case, the petitioner only buys and sells and
therefore, the tax exemption is not applicable to it. The Court
emphasized that tax exemption should be construed strictly
against the taxpayer claiming exemption.
RESINS VS AUDITOR GENERAL
FACTS: Resins Inc. was claiming a refund from Central Bank in
from importation of urea and formaldehyde, as separate
units, to produce synthetic glue. The basis of their refund is
that pursuant to RA 2609, importation of urea formaldehyde
was exempt from margin fee.
ISSUE: WON Resins Inc.’s importation of urea and
formaldehyde is exempted from margin fee
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that RA 2609 exempts urea
formaldehyde which is clearly a finished product and different
from urea “and” formaldehyde that are separate products.
Furthermore, an exemption from taxation is not favored,
never presumed and must be strictly construed against the
taxpayer.
ROHM APOLLO VS CIR
FACTS: Rohm Apollo prior the commencement of its
operation engaged with Shimizu Philippines for the
construction of a factory. Rohm treated the payment to
Shimizu as capital goods and filed with the BIR an
administrative claim for refund or credit. The 120-day period
for the CIR to act on the claim lapsed without action on the
part of the CIR. Rohm also did not file for a judicial claim
within 30 days from the lapse of 120-day period but filed a
petition for review with the CTA after the 30-day period. The
CTA denied Rohm’s claim.
ISSUE: WON Rohm is entitled for a refund or credit
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that Rohm filed a judicial
claim beyond the 30-day period prescribed for filing a judicial
claim. The Court highlighted that tax exemptions should be
construed strictly against the taxpayer claiming for an
exemption and thus, strict compliance to the 120+30 day
period is necessary is necessary for such a claim to prosper.
ONG CHIA VS RP
FACTS: Ong Chia was born in China and at the age of nine
arrived in the Philippines. From then on, he stayed in the
Philippines, found and employment and married a Filipina.
When he was 66 years old, he filed for his naturalization as a
Filipino. As he presented that he has all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications, the trial court ruled in favor Ong
Chia. However, the OSG appealed arguing that Ong Chia did
not disclose all the names he had been known, his previous
residences and that Ong Chia failed to support his petition
with appropriate evidence. The CA reversed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: WON Ong Chia’s petition for naturalization should be
granted
HELD: NO. Ong Chia argued that the OSG’s appeal should
have failed because its evidence was not formally presented
and thus violated the rules on evidence. The Court pointed
out that such is not applicable to naturalization cases.
Furthermore, naturalization laws are construed strictly
against the applicant and later, the State can still revoke the
naturalized citizenship when evidence of disqualifications will
be found.
FINMAN VS CA
FACTS: Carlie Surposa went to Bacolod Maskara Festival.
When he was on his way home, he was stabled and
eventually, he died because of the complications caused by
the stab wounds. His spouse went to Finaman to claim the
benefits from the insurance policy Surposa entered into with
Finman. However, Finman refused to give the benefits
because Surposa’s cause of death is not included in the
insurance policy.
ISSUE: WON the benefits from the insurance policy can be
claimed by Surposa’s wife
HELD: YES. The Court held that the cause of death of Surposa
constitutes an accident as Surposa has no foresight that
someone would kill him if he passed by the street where he
was stabbed. If he is knowledgeable of what would happen to
him, he would have avoided passing by the said street.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that insurance laws are
liberally construed in favor of the insured and strictly against
the insurer.
GSIS VS VICENCIO
FACTS: Judge Vicencio died of a heart failure. His wife filed a
claim from GSIS of the death benefits of the Judge pursuant
to PD 6262. However, GSIS denied the claim. GSIS reasoned
that the cause of death of Judge Vicencio is not due to an
occupational disease and thus, there is no valid reason to
grant the claim.
ISSUE: WON the claim of Judge Vicencio’s wife be granted
HELD: YES. The Court pointed out the PD 626 is a social
legislation. Thus, it should be construed in favor of the
working class. Furthermore, the heart disease can be
classified as cardiovascular disease in the list on Employees
Compensation.
MANAHAN VS EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
FACTS: Nazario Manahan was a teacher and died of Enteric
Fever. His widow filed a claim with the GSIS under PD 626.
However, GSIS denied the claim because the ailment of
Manahan was not an occupational disease. His widow moved
for reconsideration arguing that Manahan was of perfect
health when he entered government service.
ISSUE: WON the death benefit claims of Manahan’s wife be
granted
HELD: YES. Medical records showed that Manahan has been
suffering from Epigastric pain which is symptom of ulcer and
ulcer is a common complication of typhoid fever. Thus, the
illness of Manahan had its onset before. Furthermore,
presumption of compensability is in favor of the claimant.
Thus, the claim should be granted.
LAZO VS EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
FACTS: Lazo is a security guard. When he’s reliever was late,
he has to overtime. When he was on his way home, the
jeepney Lazo was riding on turned turtle due to slippery road.
He incurred injuries due to the accident. He filed a claim for
disability benefits from GSIS but GSIS dismissed the claim
because the injuries were not incurred during work.
ISSUE: WON Lazo’s claim be granted
HELD: YES. The Court finds no reason why employees should
not be protected for a reasonable time prior or after work
and for a reasonable distance to and from work. Labor laws
should be construed in favor of the working man. The Court
also highlighted the fact that Lazo’s reliever did not arrive on
time.
VICENTE VS EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION
FACTS: Vicente was a nurse and has been in the service for 25
years. He applied for an optional retirement due to his
physical disability. He attached the physician’s certification
classified him under permanent total disability. However,
GSIS granted benefits claim for permanent partial disability
only.
ISSUE: WON Vicente’s claim be granted under permanent
total disability
HELD: YES. The Court finds that the permanent total disability
of Vicente was established beyond doubt by several factors
and circumstances. Also, the approval of his optional
retirement proves that he was no longer fit to continue in his
employment. Labor laws should also be construed in favor of
the working man. Thus, Vicente’s claim under permanent
total disability shall be granted.
TANTUICO VS DOMINGO
FACTS: Tantuico was the Chairman of Commission on Audit.
He applied for clearance for his accountabilities in
preparation of his retirement. He obtained the clearance.
Despite the respondent Chairman’s certification that
petitioner had been cleared of accountabilities, respondent
Chairman still refused to release the remaining half of
Tantuico’s retirement benefits.
ISSUE: WON the withholding of Tantuico’s retirement
benefits is valid
HELD: NO. The Court finds that whatever infirmities existed in
the clearances were cured when the Chairman favorably
recommended petitioner’s application for retirement. Thus,
the Chairman cannot withhold Tantuico’s benefits. The Court
stressed that retirement laws should be construed in favor if
the retiree.
ENGLE VS COMELEC
FACTS: Engle and Menzon were vying for the position of the
vice mayor. Initially, it was the husband of Engle who was
running in the said position but he died and so, Engle filed a
COC and became the substitute. Menzon averred that the
COC of Engle should be cancelled because Engle’s husband
was an independent candidate. Eventually, Engle won the
election. However, acting on the complaint by Menzon, the
COMELEC cancelled the COC of Engle and declared Menzon as
the winner.
ISSUE: WON Engle can be a substitute of her husband
HELD: YES. It was publicly known that the spouses Engle were
members of the Lakas-CMD. There was also no evidence on
record that Engle’s husband was an independent candidate.
Thus, Engle can substitute for her husband. The Court
stressed that election rules should be construed in a way that
the will of the people may not be defeated by mere technical
objections.
DSM CONSTRUCTION VS CA
FACTS: DSM Construction and Megaworld entered into
agreements for the construction of a condominium
apartment in Makati. During the construction, there were
differences to the billings prompting the petitioner to file a
complaint before the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC). The CIAC partially granted both the
petitioner and respondent’s claim in favor of the petitioner.
The decision of the CIAC was both affirmed by the CA and SC.
As the decision of SC is final and executory, the CIAC released
an order for the execution of SC judgment. However, the
respondent filed a petition before the CA to inhibit the
execution. The CA granted the petition.
ISSUE: WON CA erred when it issued a Resolution enjoining
the execution
HELD: YES. First, the Court relaxed the procedural rules as
Rules of Court shall be liberally construed. Second, the Court
finds that execution was already affirmed by Court in the first
place. Thus, the CA erred in taking cognizance of the case and
thwarted the execution of final judgment acts with grave
abuse of discretion.
CAROLINO VS SENGA
FACTS: Jeremias Carolino retired from AFP with the rank of
Colonel in 1976 pursuant to RA 340 and started to receive his
retirement benefits thereafter. However, in 2005, the AFP
withheld his retirement benefits pursuant to PD 1638 which
removed the name of Carolino from the retiree list because
he lost his Philippine citizenship. Carolino filed an action in
the RTC praying for the reinstatement of his name in the list
of retirees and the release of his benefits as vested in him by
RA 340. The RTC granted his petition. The CA reversed RTC’s
decision on the ground that PD1638 repealed RA 340. During
the pendency of this case, Jeremias died and so he was
substituted by his wife, Adoracion.
ISSUE: WON PD 1638 is applicable to Carolino
HELD: NO. At the time of Carolino’s retirement, the
controlling law was RA 340. PD 1638 became effective only 3
years after his retirement. Article 4 of the Civil Code provides
that law should not be given retroactive effect unless the
contrary is provided. In this case, PD 1638 did not expressly
provide that it should be given retroactive effect. Thus, RA
340 is the law should be applied and the benefits of Jeremias
should be released in favor of him.
GALLARDO VS BORROMEO
FACTS: Fernando Gallardo upon retirement from his
government work terminated the leasehold of Borromeo in
his land. Gallardo decided to till the land on his own.
However, Borromeo argued that Gallardo has no knowledge
of farming and that his only purpose is to eject Borromeo.
The trial court ruled in favor of Borromeo. The CA affirmed
the trial court’s decision pursuant to RA 6389 which provides
that the landowner’s desire to cultivate the land is not a valid
ground for dispossessing the tenant of the land.
ISSUE: WON the CA correctly applied RA 6389
HELD: NO. The applicable law when Gallardo filed his
complaint is RA 3844 although it was later amended by RA
6389. RA 6389 should not be given retroactive effect in the
absence of a statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear
implication of the law to that effect. Thus, Gallardo may
terminate the tenancy of Borromeo.
BALATBAT VS CA
FACTS: Pio Balatbat was an agricultural lessee of a land
owned by Daniel Garcia. When Garcia sold the land to
Domingo Paison, Paison claimed that he would personally
cultivate the land. He filed a complaint to eject Balatbat
because the latter did not want to vacate the land upon
Paison’s notification of his desire to cultivate the land. Both
the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Balatbat pursuant to RA 6389
which made personal cultivation not a valid ground for
dispossessing the tenant of the land.
ISSUE: WON RA 6389 is applicable in this case
HELD: NO. At the time of the complaint, the controlling law
was RA 3844 although it was later amended by RA 6389. RA
6389 should not be given a retroactive effect because there is
no express provision that should be given retroactive effect.
ERECTORS, INC VS NLRC
FACTS: Florencio Burgos was recruited by Erectors, Inc. as a
driver in Saudi Arabia and both agreed that Burgos be entitled
to a bonus if he extended his employment without availing of
his vacation leave. However, it was not implemented because
the position of a driver was no longer available. Later, Burgos
was again recruited by Erectors as a helper/laborer. Burgos
left the country and worked as a helper/laborer. Upon his
return, he filed a case with the Labor Arbiter against Erector
for nonpayment of his overtime pay and contractual bonus.
While the case was pending, EO 797 created Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration which is vested with
the jurisdiction over all cases involving OFWs. Both the Labor
Arbiter and NLRC ruled in favor of Burgos. Aggrieved, Erectors
brought the case before the Supreme Court arguing that the
case should have been filed with the POEA pursuant to EO
797.
ISSUE: WON POEA has jurisdiction over the case
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the law in force at the time
of the commencement of the action. In this case, POEA has
not been created by EO797 when the action commenced. EO
797 should not be given a retroactive without an express
provision or clear implication that it should be given a
retroactive effect.
ROTAIRO VS ALCANTARA
FACTS: The subject of this case is a land originally owned by
Alcantara and Ignacio. They mortgaged the land to Pilipinas
Bank. Meanwhile, the two parceled out the land and sold a
portion to Rotairo. However, Alcantara and Ignacio was not
able to settle their obligation to the bank. As a result, Pilipinas
Bank foreclosed the land and won the property in the action.
Pilipinas Bank then sold the lot to Rovira Alcantara, daughter
of one of the original owners. Then, Rovira filed an action to
recover possession of the property from Rotairo. The RTC
denied the Rovira as successor-in-interest because Rovira was
well aware of the condition of the property pursuant to PD
957. The CA set aside the decision of the RTC. Thus, the
petitioners brought the case before the SC.
ISSUE: WON PD 957 is applicable
HELD: YES. Even though the transactions were entered into
before the issuance of PD 957, the Court finds that PD 957
has a retroactive effect. It is the intent of the legislature to
have PD 957 operate retroactively as provided expressly in its
provision stating that it is applicable to sales “prior to the
effectivity of this decree.”
QUIROG and RELAMPAGOS VS AUMNENTADO
FACTS: The Personnel Selection Board of Bohol certified that
Liza Quirog was one of the qualified candidates for the
position of Department Head of Provincial Office of
Agriculture of Bohol. On the same day of the certification,
Bohol Governor appointed Quirog. The Director of CSC
Regional Office No. VII invalidated Quirog’s appointment on
the ground that it was part of the bulk appointment made by
the governor which violated a resolution promulgated by the
CSC.
ISSUE: WON Quirog’s appointment violated the resolution of
the CSC
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that the resolution was
issued 3 days after the appointment or Quirog. Moreover, the
said resolution does not a provision that it should be given a
retroactive effect. The Court also found no clear implication in
the said resolution that it can be applied retroactively. Thus,
the resolution was not violated by Quirog’s appointment.
PEOPLE VS MORILLA
FACTS: Morillo and Mayor Mitra were charged of conspiring
for the purpose of gain in the transport of illegal drugs.
Subsequently, they were found to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt by the RTC. The RTC sentenced the two
with life imprisonment and a fine of 10,000,000 pesos each.
The CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
ISSUE: WON life imprisonment is the proper penalty for the
two
HELD: NO. The Court sustained the amount of fine for the
two. However, the Court finds that the correct penalty is
reclusion perpetua. Initially, the penalty for illegal
transportation of illegal drug was imprisonment ranging from
six years and one day to 12 years. Then it was amended to life
imprisonment and was further changed to reclusion perpetua
to death. The Court finds that reclusion perpetua, which is
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, is lighter
than life imprisonment because the latter does not have any
definite duration.
PEOPLE VS MEJECA
FACTS: Lita Berianas, the vault custodian of a pawnshop in
Marikina, was fatally shot as she tried to flee when armed
men barged into the shop and carted away jewelries. Arnold
Narciso was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Robbery with Homicide. He was sentenced of death penalty
with lethal injection by the RTC taking into account the
aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm
pursuant to RA 8294 and in band.
ISSUE: WON RA 8294 is applicable in this case
HELD: NO. Penal law should only be given retroactive effect
when they are favorable in the accused. In this case, the trial
court took into account the aggravating circumstance of use
of unlicensed firearm pursuant to RA 8294. Thus, Narciso’s
penalty was aggravated to death. Since it is not favorable to
Narcison, RA 8294 should not be applicable.
OCAMPO VS CA
FACTS: Ocampo was charged of violation of Anti-Squatting
law. Upon presentation of evidence by the prosecution,
Ocampo waived his right to present evidence and instead,
filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove that the land belongs to
University of the Philippines. The RTC denied his motion and
found him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved,
he filed an appeal before the CA and argued that the RTC
erred in applying Section 15 of Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in applying the said rule
HELD: NO. The said rule provided that together with a motion
to dismiss, there should be an express leave of court of the
accused. Although the rule took effect after the commission
of the crime, it has retroactive effect on pending cases
because procedural laws are deemed to have retroactivity in
so far with pending cases. Thus, the RTC did not err in
applying Section 15 of Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
YAKULT PH VS CA
FACTS: Roy Camaso, a five-year-old boy, was standing on the
sidewalk in Manila when he was sideswiped by a motorcycle.
The motorcycle was owned by Yakult Philippines and driven
by Larry Salvado, an employee of Yakult. A criminal action
was instituted by Camaso’s party against Salvado. Also,
Camaso’s party instituted an independent civil action against
both Salvado and Yakult PH. Yakult now argues that the civil
action instituted by Camaso’s party will not prosper because
it was made without a reservation.
ISSUE: WON the civil action filed by Camaso’s party will
prosper
HELD: YES. Although the actions were filed before the
effectivity of 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the said rules
can still be applied retrospectively because as a general rule,
procedural laws have retroactive effect. 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires that a reservation be made
before instituting a separate civil action. The reservation
should be made before prosecution presents its evidence so
that the judge would be informed to avoid awarding of
damages twice. In this case, the civil action was instituted
before prosecution presented evidence and the judge was
informed about the separate civil action. The Court finds that
it was tantamount to making a reservation and thus, the civil
action will prosper.
MARTINEZ VS PEOPLE
FACTS: Martinez was accused of homicide. He filed a motion
to litigate as pauper in the RTC and was denied. He also did
the same before the CA attaching affidavits which attest to his
eligibility to avail the privilege. The CA denied his petition and
ordered him to pay the docketing fees. Martinez paid under
protest but according to the CA his payment was short of 150
pesos.
ISSUE: WON CA erred in denying the motion to litigate as
pauper by Martinez
HELD: YES. Although the controlling procedural law at the
time Martinez filed his motion was the 1967 Revised Rules of
Court, the Court applied the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
Nothing in the 1997 Rules prohibits Martinez from filing a
motion to litigate as pauper in the appellate court. The Court
resolved to apply the 1997 Rules as procedural statutes can
be applied retrospectively.
TAN JR. VS CA
FACTS: Jaime Tan sold a parcel of land to spouses Magdangal
and has the option of redeeming it in the period of 1 year.
However, Tan died without redeeming the property. His heirs
filed a suit against the spouses alleging that the real intention
Tan is putting the land under mortgage instead of sale. The
RTC ruled in favor or Tan’s heirs and ordered the heirs to
return the money of the spouses with interest within 120
days from the finality of the decision. The spouses appealed
before the CA and the CA affirmed RTC’s decision on October
5, 1995. Later, the spouses filed a Motion for Consolidation
and Writ of Possession alleging that 120 days given by RTC
has already passed with October 20, 1995 as the reckoning
date taking into account the period of appeal as prescribed by
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. On one hand, the
heirs argued that they paid within the 120 days and the date
of reckoning is the entry of judgment into the books as
prescribed by Rule 51 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs paid within the 120-day
period as ordered by the RTC
HELD: YES. The Court finds that the heirs should not be
penalized by following the law controlling at that time
because it would produce injustice. To lose the land that the
petitioner fought so hard because of a change of procedure
on the date of reckoning is unfair. Since it would produce
injustice, the 1997 Revised Rules should not be given
retroactive effect.
WILSON DIU AND DORCITA SIU VS CA
FACTS: The petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money
against the private respondent. When the matters where
brought the Barangay Chairman, the parties did not reach any
settlement. When the matters reached the CA, the CA
dismissed the case because it violated PD 1508 which
requires the parties did not seek the Pangkat
Tagapagkasundo after the failure of reaching settlement
before the barangay captain.
ISSUE: WON the procedure provided for by PD1508 was
violated
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out the Local Government Code
repealed PD 1508. Under the Local Government Code, the
barangay chairman is the head of the Pangkat
Tagapagkasundo. Since the parties appeared before the
baranagay chairman, then PD1508 was not violated.
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO VS MENDEZ
FACTS: The municipality of San Andres was created through
an executive order consisting of some barrios of the
municipality of San Narciso. After 30 years, San Narciso was
questioning the validity of the creation of San Andres. Since it
was made through and executive order, there was an
usurpation of the powers of the legislative. On the other
hand, San Andres filed a motion to dismiss invoking the Local
Government Code which provides that municipalities existing
as of the date of the effectivity of the said Code shall continue
to exist and operate.
ISSUE: WON the alleged unconstitutionality of the creation of
San Andres has been cured by the enactment of the Local
Government Code
HELD: YES. The Local Government Code provides that
municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of the
said Code shall continue to exist and operate. In this case, the
local government code operates as a curative statute and
which can be given a retroactive effect. Curative statutes are
aimed to giving validity to acts which were invalid under
existing laws as if existing laws have been complied with.
BRIAD AGRO-DEVELOPMENT VS CERNA
FACTS: The union of the workers of petitioner which is an
agricultural firm filed a complaint against petitioner before
the Director of Labor Department in Region 1. The workers
alleged that the firm did not pay their wage and benefits
accordingly. The firm argued that the union erred in filing the
case before the Director. The firm averred that it was the
Labor Arbiter who had jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: WON the union erred in filing the case before the
Director
HELD: NO. The Court pointed out that EO 111 has the
character of a curative law. The amendment provided by EO
111 was meant to make both the Secretary of Labor or the
various regional directors and the Labor Arbiters share
jurisdiction. Thus, it was proper for the union to file the case
before the Regional Director.
PEOPLE VS BALLAGAN
FACTS: Ballagan was convicted of violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Acts of 1972. He was sentenced of the penalty of life
imprisonment. Later, said act has been amended which
changed the penalties to depend on the quantity of drugs
involved in the case. Under this amendment, Ballagan would
be sentenced only of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: WON the amendment applies to Ballagan
HELD: YES. The amendment would be in favor of Ballagan and
thus the amendment can be applied retrospectively. Penal
statues can have retroactive effect when it is favorable to the
accused.