Case Study No.

Read each case carefully and state your legal opinion based on our topics under the
Philippine Constitution.

Case 1:

Mrs. Dela Cruz, president of the DEF Securities, Inc., has been charged of estafa under
Philippine courts. While DEF Securities, Inc. is now under receivership as approved by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mrs. Dela Cruz requested the court if she can
be allowed to leave for the United States which is “relative to his business transactions
and opportunities” since she is already released on bail and her bail bond has been
approved by the Court.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Court may deny Mrs. Dela Cruz’s request to travel?
State your legal opinion and provide which article and section in the Philippine
Constitution that the case is based upon.

Case 2:

In his late twenties, Pepito Cruz is a hardworking and very idealistic employee. He is a
waiter, has been employed at a Quezon City hotel for five years. He has seen that the
management has been neglecting its employees especially in the past three years in the
hotel. Approximately 70% of the employees feel low morale because of these
mistreatments and they would readily support any move to form a union. Pepito took
the initiative in talking to some potential leaders who will form the core group of a
possible union. He believes that this is the only way they can protect the rights of the
hotel workers. Upon learning of Pepito’s plans, top management gradually worked on a
plan on how to get rid of Pepito. After three months, Pepito was convicted of serious
charges resulting in his dismissal from the hotel.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the hotel management did the right thing?
2. Whether or not the hotel management violate a law?
State your legal opinion and provide which article and section in the Philippine
Constitution that the case is based upon.
Case 3:

Maranaw Hotel & Resort Corporation (wehry, and care Rarinanila) vs. National Labor
Relations Commission and Cito Betilla

Facts

Mr. Motoku Okumura (Japanese) filed a complaint against Sheraton Hotel for the loss of
his money amounting to 40,000 Japanese yen and US$210 inside his hotel room.

On April 5, 1989, Mr. Masatoshi Kusumoto, another Japanese guest at the hotel, also
lost his money.

Respondent Betila was informed of the findings of the Department of Tourism as

contained in its two (2) letter-recommendations, copies of which were attached to said
letter. Private respondent was required to explain his side within forty-eight (48) hours
from receipt of the letter.Despite receipt of said letter on May 11, 1989, private
respondent did not submit his explanation.

The hotel's management then proceeded to evaluate the findings and

recommendations made by the investigators of the Department of Tourism. It decided
to dismiss private respondent from the service and he was informed of his dismissal in a
Memorandum, dated July 17, 1989. He refused to acknowledge its receipt. Instead, he
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against petitioner.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the private respondent was
not accorded due process.