No.

0
Case Title: Case Title (GR No., Date)
Ticker:
Facts
Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay (civic organization) launched a fund drive for the
purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner Martin
Centeno, the chairman solicited from her a contribution of P1,500.00 without a permit from
the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Judge Angeles the complainant said that the solicaitation is in violation of PD 1564.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information: on the ground that PD 1564 only covers
solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for a
religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel.

This was denied by the trial court, and petitioner's motion for reconsideration having met the
same fate, trial on the merits ensued

Later on the trial court rendered judgment finding accused Yco and petitioner Centeno guilty
BRD and sentencing them to each pay a fine of P200.00 be pardoned because they acted in
good faith, and the fact that it believed that the latter should not have been criminally liable
were it not for the existence of PD

Presidential Decree No. 1564 (which amended Act No. 4075, otherwise known as the
Solicitation Permit Law), provides as follows:
Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or association desiring to solicit or
receive contributions for charitable ‘or’ public welfare purposes shall first secure
a permit from the Regional Offices of the Department of Social Services and
Development as provided in the Integrated Reorganization Plan. Upon the filing of a
written application for a permit in the form prescribed by the Regional Offices of the
Department of Social Services and Development, the Regional Director or his duly
authorized representative may, in his discretion, issue a permanent or
temporary permit or disapprove the application. In the interest of the public, he
may in his discretion renew or revoke any permit issued under Act 4075.
Issue
WON the phrase "charitable purposes" should be construed in its broadest sense so as to
include a religious purpose?
Arguments
Petitioner (Please Respondent (Please
Ruling
indicate name of indicate name of
petitioner) respondent)
 CA affirmed the decision of the lower
court but
Centeno and Yco
appealed to the Regional modified the penalty, allegedly because
Trial Court. However, of the perversity of the act committed
accused Yco withdrew which caused damage and prejudice to
his appeal, hence the the complainant, by sentencing
case proceeded only petitioner Centeno to suffer an increased
with petitioner Centeno. penalty of imprisonment of 6 months
and a fine of P1,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.
The motion for reconsideration of the
decision was denied by the court
Petitioner questions the
applicability of PD 1564
to solicitations. The
It is an basic rule of statutory
term "religious purpose"
construction that the express mention of
is not expressly included
one person, thing, act, or consequence
in the provisions of the
excludes all others. This rule is
statute. it excludes;
expressed in the familiar maxim
a.) penal laws are to be
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
construed strictly
Where a statute, by its terms, is
against the State and
expressly limited to certain matters, it
liberally in favor of the
may not, by interpretation or
accused;
construction, be extended to others.
b.) to subject to State The rule proceeds from the premise
regulation solicitations that the legislature would not have
made for a religious made specified enumerations in a
purpose would statute had the intention been not to
constitute an restrict its meaning and to confine its
abridgment of the terms to those expressly mentioned
right to freedom of
religion guaranteed
under the
Constitution.
In the 1987 Constitution, as well as
several other statutes, treat the words
"charitable" and "religious" separately
and independently of each other. The
word "charitable" is only one of three
descriptive words used in Section 28
(3), Article VI of the Constitution which
provides that "charitable institutions,
churches and personages . . ., and all
lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively
used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxation."

That these legislative enactments

specifically spelled out "charitable" and
"religious" in an enumeration, whereas
PD 1564 merely stated "charitable or
public welfare purposes," only goes to
show that the framers of the law in
question never intended to include
solicitations for religious purposes
within its coverage.

A gift for "religious purposes" was

considered as a endowment for
"charitable use" as regards
exemption from inheritance tax.

All contributions designed to promote

the work of the church are "charitable"
in nature, since religious activities
depend for their support on voluntary
contributions.

However, "religious purpose" is not

interchangeable with the expression
"charitable purpose."

To embrace the "religious" purpose of

the solicitation within the concept of
"charitable" purpose which under PD
 1564 requires a prior permit from the
DSWD, under paid of penal liability in
the absence thereof, would be
prejudicial to petitioner.

Also, given which include the words

"charitable" and "religious" make use of
the disjunctive "or." In its elementary
sense, "or" as used in a statute is a
disjunctive article indicating an
alternative.

The court held to resort fundamental

doctrine that penal laws are to be
construed strictly against the State
and liberally in favor of the accused

If the statute is ambiguous and admits of

two reasonable but contradicting
interpretation, that one operates in favor
of a party accused should be followed.

There is no compelling consideration

why the same treatment or usage of
these words cannot be made applicable
to the questioned provisions of PD
1564.
Petitioner next avers Freedom of conscience and freedom to
that solicitations for adhere to such religious organization or
religious purposes form of worship as the individual may
cannot be penalized choose cannot be restricted by law. On
under the law for, the other hand, it safeguards the free
otherwise, it will exercise of the chosen form of religion.
constitute an Thus, the constitution embraces two
abridgment or concepts:
restriction on the free
exercise clause 1. Freedom to believe
guaranteed under the
Constitution. 2. Freedom to act
 However a state may protect its
citizens from fraudulent solicitation
by requiring a stranger in the
community, before permitting him
publicly to solicit funds for any
purpose, to establish his identity and
his authority to act for the cause which
he purports to represent. The State is
likewise free to regulate the time and
manner of solicitation generally, in the
interest of public safety, peace, comfort,
or convenience.

The State has authority under the

exercise of its police power to
determine whether or not there shall be
restrictions on soliciting by
unscrupulous persons or for unworthy
causes or for fraudulent purposes.

Final Ruling: WHEREFORE, the

decision appealed from is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and
petitioner Martin Centeno is
ACQUITTED of the offense charged.

Solicitation for religious purposes may

be subject to proper regulation by the
State in the exercise of police power.
However, in the case at bar, considering
that solicitations intended for a religious
purpose are not within the coverage of
Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier
demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held
criminally liable therefor.
Doctrine
expressio unius est exclusio alterius." Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be
extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would
 not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to
restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned

No. 0
Case Title: Case Title (GR No., Date)
Ticker:
Facts
A complaint with the COMELEC's Law Department for violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646, and
Sections 232 and 261 of B.P. Blg. 881, against Victor Dominguez, Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto Tangilag,
Thomas Bayugan, Jose Bagwan who was then Provincial Election Supervisor, and the members of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers for abuse of discretion.
Malinias and Pilando alleged that on May 15, 1998 a police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain
Province blocked their supporters who were on their way to Bontoc, and prevented them supporters from
proceeding to the Provincial Capitol Building.
Malinias, Pilando and supporters file a mass affidavit requesting the COMELEC and its Law Department to
investigate and prosecute private respondents for the following alleged unlawful acts that the designated
representatives/watchers of both affiants were prevented from attending the canvassing
The Legal Department of COMELC conducted an investigation.
The respondents filed a counter-affidavit which states admitting that there are checkpoints to enforce the
COMELEC gun ban and other rules issued by the COMELEC during the election period.
Law Department of COMELEC ruled to dismiss the complaint due to lack of evidence. Favoring the
contention in the counter-affidavit of the respondents.
Issue
 WON the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Malinias and Pilando's complaint for
insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for alleged violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646
and Sections 232 and 261 (i) of B.P. 881?
Arguments
Respondent (Please
Petitioner (Please indicate Ruling
indicate name of
name of petitioner)
respondent)
Grave abuse of discretion COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion.

Obviously, the evidence relied upon by

Malinias to support his charges consisted
mainly of affidavits prepared by his own
supporters. The affidavits of Malinias' own
supporters, being self-serving, cannot be
accepted at face value under the circumstances.

Court has often stated, "reliance should not be


Alleged violation of Sec. 25
of R.A. No. 6646
Blatant violation of Section
232 of B.P. Blg. 881
placed on mere affidavits.
Also, the act of Corpuz and Tangilag in setting
up the checkpoint was plainly in accordance
with their avowed duty to maintain effectively
peace and order within the vicinity of the
canvassing site. Thus, the act is untainted with
any color of political activity.
The COMELEC and private respondents
apparently overlooked that R.A. 6646 does not
punish a violation of Section 25 of the law as a
criminal election offense. Section 25 merely
highlights one of the recognized rights of a
political party or candidate during elections,
aimed at providing an effective safeguard
against fraud or irregularities in the
canvassing of election returns. Section 2719
of R.A. No. 6646, which specifies the election
offenses punishable under this law, does not
include Section 25.
"Sec. 25. Right to be Present and to Counsel
During the Canvass. – Any registered political
party, coalition of parties, through their
representatives, and any candidate has the
right to be present and to counsel during the
canvass of the election returns …”
Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not one of the
election offenses explicitly enumerated in
Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881. While
Section 232 categorically states that it is
unlawful for the persons referred therein to
enter the canvassing room, this act is not one
of the election offenses criminally punishable
under Sections 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. 881.
Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881 is not punishable
as a criminal election offense.
“Sec. 232. Persons not allowed inside the
canvassing room. – It shall be unlawful for
any officer or member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines…similar functions to enter the
room where the canvassing of the election
 returns are held…”

Under the rule of statutory construction of

expressio unius est exclusio alterius, there is
no ground to order the COMELEC to
prosecute private respondents for alleged
violation of Section 232 of B.P. Blg. 881
precisely because this is a non-criminal act.

The rule of expressio unius est exclusio

alterius and its variations are canons of
restrictive interpretation. They are based on
the rules of logic and the natural workings of
the human mind. They are predicated upon
one's own voluntary act and not upon that of
others. They proceed from the premise that the
legislature would not have made specified
enumeration in a statute had the intention
been not to restrict its meaning and confine its
terms to those expressly mentioned
Though not a criminal election offense, but
they are administratively liable under Section
2, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
disciplinary action

Also, under Revised Admin. Code,

COMELEC recommend to the proper authority
the suspension or removal of any government
official or employee found guilty of violation
of election laws or failure to comply with
COMELEC orders or rulings.
Doctrine
The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and its variations are canons of restrictive
interpretation. They are based on the rules of logic and the natural workings of the human mind.
They are predicated upon one's own voluntary act and not upon that of others. They proceed from the
premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumeration in a statute had the intention
been not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned

No. 0
Case Title: SMCEU-PTGWO vs. SMPPEU- PDMP

Ticker:
Facts
Petitioner is the incumbent bargaining agent for the bargaining unit comprised of the regular rank and file
employees of the three divisions of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), namely, the San Miguel Corporate Staff
Unit (SMCSU), San Miguel Brewing Philippines (SMBP), and the San Miguel Packaging Products (SMPP),
in all offices and plants of SMC, including the Metal Closure and Lithography Plant in Laguna. It had been
the certified bargaining agent for 20 years.

Respondent is registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP). PDMP

issued respondent submitted the requisite documents to the BLR for the purpose of acquiring legal
personality.

PDMP was issued Charter Certificate No 112 to respondents. In compliance with registration requirements,
respondents submitted documents to Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) for acquiring legal personality.
Thereafter, they were granted a Certificate to create their own Chapter of PDMP. They later on file to DOLE-
NCR certification election to represent on 3 separate petition (for SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP).

Petition was denied on the grounds all three fragmented petition holds a single bargaining unit.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL

WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU-PTGWO), then filed at the DOLE-NCR seeking for cancellation of
the respondents registration and dropping its rolls as a legitimate labor organization. In its petition,
petitioner accused respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration
requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration.

Petitioner raised:
1.) Respondents violated Articles 239 (a), (b) and (c) and 234(c) of the Labor Code.
2.) PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a trade union center, hence, it cannot directly create a
local or chapter.

DOLE-NCR Director issued dismissed the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, and irregularity in the
submission of documents by respondent. Regional Director further ruled that respondent is allowed to create
a local or chapter.

However, he found that respondent did not comply with the 20% membership requirement and, thus,
ordered the cancellation of its certificate of registration and removal from the rolls of legitimate labor
organizations in the BLR.

Respondent appealed and DOLE-NCR affirmed and granted it.

Ratio:
PDMP is still considered as a trade union center. Their status of a legitimate labor organization with all the
rights and privileges to act as representative of its members for purposes of collective bargaining agreement.
On this basis, PDMP can charter or create a local, in accordance with the provisions of Department Order
No. 9.

Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the BLR at CA

Reason:
Petitioner does not agree with the reversal of 20% membership is a requirement for respondent to attain legal
personality as a labor organization.

Petition Dismissed

Hence, this Petition for Certiorari at the CA

Issue
 WON the CA erred in ruling that private respondent is not required to submit the number of
employees and names of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining
unit where it seeks to operate?

 WON legal personality of respondent is a legitimate labor organization?

 WON respondents can create their own local or chapter?

Arguments
Respondent (Please
Ruling
SMCEU-PTGWO indicate name of
respondent)
ISSUE1:
1.) Petitioner contends that
respondent is required to
submit a list of members
comprising at least 20% of
the employees in the
bargaining unit before it
may acquire legitimacy. Petitioner maintains that respondent failed to
meet this 20% membership requirement since
Citing: it based its membership on the number of
Art 234 (c) Labor Code employees of a single division only the SMPP.
The names of all its
members comprising at least THERE IS MERIT IN PETITIONER'S
twenty percent (20%) of all CONTENTIONS
the employees in the
bargaining unit where it
seeks to operate.
2.) Petitioner also insists that
the 20% requirement for
registration of respondent
must be based not on the
number of employees of a
single division.
Citing: Sec 1 of Collective
Bargaining Agreement
(CBA)
Section 1. Appropriate
Bargaining Unit. The
appropriate bargaining unit
covered by this Agreement
consists of all regular rank
and file employees paid on
the basis of fixed salary per
month and…..
ISSUE 2: Packaging
1.) Respondent was not
validly and legitimately
created, for PDMP cannot
create a local or chapter as it
is not a legitimate labor
organization, it being a trade
union center.
Firstly, this line of reasoning attempts to
predicate that a trade union center is not a
legitimate labor organization. In the process,
the legitimacy of PDMP is being impugned,
albeit indirectly. Secondly, the same
contention premises that a trade union center
cannot directly create a local or chapter
through the process of chartering.
 the legal personality of a legitimate
labor organization, such as PDMP,
cannot be subject to a collateral
attack. The law is very clear on this
matter. 
 A TRADE UNION CENTER MAY
BE A LEGIT LABOR ORG. Article
212 (h) of the Labor Code, as amended,
defines alegitimate labor
organization as any labor organization
duly registered with the DOLE, and
includes any branch or local thereof
 On the other hand, a trade union center
is any group of registered national
unions or federations organized for the
mutual aid and protection of its
members; for assisting such members
in collective bargaining; or for
participating in the formulation of

ISSUE 3:
1.) PDMP cannot directly
create a local or chapter. It
being a trade union center
social and employment policies,
standards, and programs, and is duly
registered with the DOLE in
accordance with Rule III, Section 2 of
the Implementing Rules.
 The Implementing Rules stipulate that
a labor organization shall be deemed
registered and vested with legal
personality on the date of issuance of
its certificate of registration. Once a
certificate of registration is issued to
a union, its legal personality cannot
be subject to collateral attack. It may
be questioned only in an independent
petition for cancellation in accordance
with Section 5 of Rule V, Book V of
the Implementing Rules. 
 PDMP was registered as a trade union
center and issued Registration
Certificate by the BLR. Until the
certificate of registration of PDMP is
cancelled, its legal personality as a
legitimate labor organization
subsists. Once a union acquires
legitimate status as a labor
organization, it continues to be
recognized as such until its certificate
of registration is cancelled or revoked
in an independent action for
cancellation. It bears to emphasize
that what is being directly challenged
is the personality of respondent as a
legitimate labor organization and not
that of PDMP. This being a collateral
attack, this Court is without
jurisdiction to entertain questions
indirectly impugning the legitimacy
of PDMP.
A trade union center is any group of registered
national unions or federations organized for
the mutual aid and protection of its members;
for assisting such members in collective
bargaining; or for participating in the
formulation of social and employment policies,
standards, and programs, and is duly registered
with the DOLE in accordance with Rule III,
Sect. 2 of the IRR.

Under Art. 234 of the Labor Code of PH

indicates who can register it:

Requirements of Registration. — A federation,

national union or industry or trade union
center or an independent union shall acquire
legal personality and shall be entitled to the
rights and privileges granted by law to
legitimate labor organizations…..”

However there is a new amendment to better

the Code.

Republic Act No. 9481 or "An Act

Strengthening the Workers' Constitutional
Right to Self-Organization, Amending for
the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines.

ART. 234-A. Chartering and Creation of a

Local Chapter. — A duly registered federation
or national union may directly create a local
chapter by issuing a charter certificate
indicating the establishment of the local
chapter. The chapter shall acquire legal
personality only for purposes of filing a
petition for certification election from the date
it was issued a charter certificate.

Art. 234-A, did not mention of a "trade union

center."

Latin maxim expressio unius est

exclusio alterius. Under this maxim of
statutory interpretation, the expression of one
thing is the exclusion of another. When certain
persons or things are specified in a law,
contract, or will, an intention to exclude all
others from its operation may be inferred. If a
statute specifies one exception to a general rule
or assumes to specify the effects of a certain
provision, other exceptions or effects are
 excluded.

Where the terms are expressly limited to

certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to other matters.

The law could have so easily and conveniently

included "trade union centers" in identifying
the labor organizations allowed to charter a
chapter or local. Anything that is not included
in the enumeration is excluded therefrom, and
a meaning that does not appear nor is intended
or reflected in the very language of the statute
cannot be placed therein.
mentioned.

Expressium facit cessare tacitum. What is

expressed puts an end to what is implied.
Casus omissus pro omisso habendus
est. A person, object or thing omitted must
have been omitted intentionally.

Thus, since under the pertinent status and

applicable implementing rules, the power
granted to labor organizations to directly create
a chapter or local through chartering is given
to a federation or national union, then a trade
union center is without authority to charter
directly.
Doctrine
expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where the terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may
not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters.
(Sec. 5 of Rule V, Book V of IR )
Once a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral
attacked. Until the certificate of registration of PDMP is cancelled, its legal personality as a legitimate
labor organization subsists

Court held: This being a collateral attack, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain questions
indirectly impugning the legitimacy of PDMP.