DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Law
Bacolor, Pampanga

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW
(1st Semester, S.Y. 2022-2023)

Professor: Atty. Charmaine Itable Calizo

I. Philosophy and the Law

A. Definition (Tabucanon pp 1-3)
B. Nature (Tabucanon pp 17-46)
C. Function (Aquino pp 1-18)

Cases:
Tecson vs. Salas, 34 SCRA 275, July 31, 1970
Francisco vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang
Pilipino, 415 SCRA 44, November 10, 2003
Estrada vs. Disierto, 353 SCRA 452, March 02, 2001
Alonzo vs. Intermedite Appelate Court, G.R. No. 72873, My 28, 1978
League of Cities of the Philippine vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951,
December 21, 2009;
Dumaguete Cathedral Credit Cooperative vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

II. Philippine Legal System (Aquino pp 18-34)

A. 1987 Philippine Constitution
a. Constitution defined (Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, p 6)
b. Branches of the Philippine Government
i. Legislative Department – Art. VI
ii. Executive Department – Art. VII
iii. Judicial Department – Art. VIII
iv. Constitutional Commissions – Art. IX
1. Civil Service Commission – Art. IX [B], Sec. 1
2. Commission on Election – Art. IX [C], Sec. 1
3. Commission on Audit – Art. IX [D], Sec. 1
4. Commission on Human Rights – Art. XIII, Sec. 17
c. Principles related to the Doctrine Sepration
i. Check and Balances
ii. Blending of Powers

Cases:
Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, 51 SCRA 381
Ysip vs. Municipal of Cabiao, 43 Phil. 251
Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1, 11
Alonzo vs. Intermediate Court of Appeals, 150 SCA 259, 28 May
III. Legal Philosophy Schools of Thought (Aquino pp 36-65)
a. Natural Law Theory (Tabucanon pp 111-115)
b. Legal Positivism (Tabucanon pp 117-123)
c. Legal Realism (Tabucanon pp 125-130)
d. The Path of Law
e. Bad Man Theory
f. Legal Interpretivism
g. Pure Theory of Law

Cases:
Gomez vs. Palomar, 25 SCRA 827 (1968)
Municipality of Malabang vs. Benito, 27 SCRA 533 (1969)
The Philippine American Management & Financing vs. Management &
Supervisors Association of the Philippine-American Management & Financing. 48
SCRA 187 (1972)
People vs. Artuz, 71 SCRA 116, May 26, 1976
People vs. Ancheta, 64 SCRA 90, May 19, 1975
Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003
Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. vs Diocares, 29 SCRA 656, September 30, 1969
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973)
Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Building Co., Inc. 86 SCRA 305,
November 16, 1978
Lambino vs. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006
Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 278 SCRA 27, August 21, 1997
People vs. Acierto, 92 Phil 534, January 1953

IV. Laws and the Government (Aquino pp 67-123)

A. Definition of State
a. Elements
b. Functions
B. Doctrine of Parens Patria
C. Classification of Government
D. Fundamental and Inherent Power of the State
a. Police Power
b. Power of Eminent Domain
c. Power of Taxation

Cases:
Villavicencio vs Lukban, 39 Phil 778
Government of Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil 259
Teves vs. Commission on Electio, 90 Phil 370
Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156 (1997)
People vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328
In re: Almaceran, 31 SCRA 562
 Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 84 Phil 847
People vs. Veneracion, 249 SCRA 244,
Naval vs. Commission on Election, G.R. No. 207851 (2014)

V. Law and Morality (Aquino pp 127-202)

A.Utilitarianism (Tabucanon pp 141-144)
B.Relativism (Tabucanon pp 137-140)
C.Deontological Theory
D.Virtue Jurisprudence
E.Secular and Religious Morality
F.Freedom of Expression - Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution
a. Elements
i. Freedom from Restraint/Censorship
ii. Freedom from Punishment
1. The Clear and Present Danger Rule
2. The Dangerous Tendency Doctrine
3. The Balance-of-Interest Test
iii. Freedom of access to information
iv. Freedom of circulation
G. Art and Obscenity (Cruz pp 229-232)

Cases:
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rpe Workers’ Union, 59 SCRA 54, September 12, 1974
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, 259 SCTA 529 (1996)
Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003 and June 28, 2015
Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, April 8,
2010
Chavez vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 25, 2008
Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21,
2015
Lopez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011
Miller vs. California, 413 US 15
Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006
Soriano vs. Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, March 15, 2010

X. Law and Equality (Aquino pp 204-236)

A. Equality (Tabucanon pp 80-83)

Cases:
Batchelder vs. Central Bank, 44 CRA 45 (1972)
Filoil Refinary Corporation vs. Filoil Supervisory & Confidential Employees
Association, 46 SCRA 512 (1972)
 Garcia vs. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76 (2000)
International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845
(2000)
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services, G.R. No. 167614 (2009)
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency vs. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139 (2014)
Central Bank Employees Association vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No.
148208 (2004)
Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161872 (2004)
People of the Philippines vs. Ching Kuan, G.R. No. L-48515 (1942)

X. Law and Justice (Aquino pp 238-281)

A. Theories of Justice
We apply law with justice for that is the mission and purpose in the scheme (plan,
strategy) of our republic.
We cannot apply the law if it is unjust
We cannot administer justice if it is against the law
Law and justice are inseparable

a. Utilitarian Justice – do not believe that the primary distributive concern

should be material goods and services. But are valuable only in so far as
they increase welfare.
- Advocates welfare-based principles
- Welfare-based principles are motivated by the idea that what
is of primary moral importance is the level of welfare of
people.
- Welfare can be in grants, food stamps, vouchers, Medicaid,
health care, and housing assistance.
Utilitarianism holds that all human actions (as well as those of a state) are
virtuous, moral, and just when they contribute to achieving general happiness.
Hence, actions are judged based on their consequences.
b. Libertarian Justice – based upon a theory of natural rights
- Individuals have certain moral rights simply by virtue of their
status as human beings, that these rights exist prior to and
logically independent of the existence of the government.
Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize
the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties.
TEST OF RESTRAINTS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
1. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – permits limitations on speech once a rational
connection has been established between speech restrained and the danger
contemplated.
2. Balancing of interests tests – balance conflicting social values and individual
interest and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay
of interests observable in a given situation of type of situation.
 3. The clear and present danger rule – speech may be restrained because there
is a substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil, the
government has a right to prevent
SUI GENERIS - of its own kind
- Independent legal classification.
c. Justice as Fairness – Theories of justice seek to specify what is meant
by a just distribution of goods among members of society.
- Outcome of individuals acting independently, without the
intervention of any central authority (talents) – compensation
- Individual preferences and their abilities
- Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves.
B. Justice as Inherent in the Law
- Laws are the instruments to perpetuate the cause of justice
- Justice is the overriding reason for the law’s existence
WE TEST A LAW BY ITS RESULTS. A LAW SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS
TO CAUSE AN INJUSTICE
- Justice may be done even as the law is obeyed.
- Find a balance between the word and the will.
- Presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice
to prevail.
b. Abuse of Right - Article 19, Civil Code
- Every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give every one his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
- A person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to
honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability.
ELEMENTS OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS
- Existence of a legal right or duty which is exercised in bad
faith
- For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
Capitalism is based on individual initiative and favors market mechanisms over
government intervention, while socialism is based on government planning and
limitations on private control of resources. Left to themselves, economies tend to
combine elements of both systems.
C. Social Justice
RIGHT – power or privilege guaranteed under a constitution
- is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political
and social rights and opportunities
In simple terms, economic equality is about a level playing
field where everyone has the same access to the same wealth.
EXAMPLE:
If someone is doing the same work just as well as another staff
member, they should be getting paid the same for that work.
Political rights
 The right to vote in an election, but also the rights to join a political
party; run for office; and participate freely in political rallies, events, or
protests.
Social rights
Access to quality public services.
Access to education.
Access to health services.
Access to social protection.
Access to housing.
Access to employment.

Economic social and cultural rights (ESCR) include the rights to adequate food, to
adequate housing, to education, to health, to social security, to take part in cultural life,
to water and sanitation, and to work.

Civil and political rights are among the best-known human rights, covering freedom
from discrimination and the right to privacy, as well as the right to peaceful assembly,
free expression, the right to vote, and freedom of religion.
Cases:
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs Act Theater, G.R. No. 147076
(2004)
Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation, 24 SCRA 172 (1968)
Cometa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141855 (2001)
Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726
PLDT vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 80609 (1988)
Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, (1997)
China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140687 (2006)
In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No.
148311 (2005)
Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322 (2006)
California Clothing vs. Quinones, G.R. No. 175822 (2013)

X. Crime and Punishment (Aquino pp 283-320)

A. Criminal law
a. Define
i. People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil 120
b. Nature
i. Art. III, Sec. 22 1987 Constitution
Sec 22
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted
ii. Art. III, Sec. 14 (1) 1987 Constitution
Sec 14
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of
 law.
1. Constitutional rights of the accused – Art. III, 1987
Constitution
ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS. Section 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

2. Statutory rights of the accused – Sec 1, Rule 115, Revised

Penal Code
Rule 115 - Rights of the Accused
SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial. —In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation against him.
c. Punishment
Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a
crime or misdemeanor, or for the omission of the performance of an act required by
law, by the judgment and command of some lawful court.
i. Classical Theory
For every criminal act there is a corresponding punishment
Focuses on the criminal act
ii. Positivist Theory
Penalty not as a punishment but as a tool for rehabilitation of the
offender
Focuses on the criminal himself
We still adopt – as far as the RPC is concerned – the classical school of thought
although more and more of our newer special penal laws are leaning towards a
positivist treatment or a fusion of both.

BASIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY - Human free will, should be adjudged or held

accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.
Free will to choose between good and evil.
Criminal act (delito doloso) – the act presumed to have been done voluntarily, with
freedom, intelligence and intent.

B. Due Process - Due process includes here, inter alia, provisions ensuring an
accused person a fair and public trial before a competent tribunal, the right to be
 present at the trial, and the right to be heard in his or her own defense. Due
process includes both the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy.
C. Death Penalty - Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a state-
sanctioned practice of killing a person as a punishment for a crime. The sentence
ordering that an offender is to be punished in such a manner is known as a
death sentence, and the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an
execution.
- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally
convicted of a capital crime.

Cases:
People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil 120
People vs. Court of Appeals, 423 SCRA 605
People vs. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000)
People vs. Bauden, 77 Phil 105 (1946)
People vs. Siton, G.R. No. 169364 (2009)
People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487 (2000)
De Joya vs. The Jail Warden of Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19 (2003)
Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119 (1992)
People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432 (2014)
People vs. Austria, G.R. No. L-55109 (1991)
Magno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96132 (1992)
People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-5790
People of the Philippines vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-25513 (1968)
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74457 (1987)

IX. Torts and Damages (Aquino pp 322-357)

A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to
a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in

recompense for, loss or injury sustained.

Loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation

A. Quasi Delict – Articles 2176 to 2194 New Civil Code (NCC)

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter

Under Article 2194 of the New Civil Code, “the responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary
 Negligence – failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another
person that the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

Test of Negligence – Whether the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act
used that reasonable care and caution which ordinary person would have used in
the same situation.

DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY

The phrase has been equated with ordinary care or that diligence which an
average (a reasonably prudent) person exercise over his own property. The
diligence as a father of a family requires extraordinary care of diligence.

a. Quasi Delict Concept – Art. 2176, NCC

(1) An obligation is solidary when each debtor is bound to perform
the obligation in full and the creditor may require performance
from any of them until full performance has been received.

ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICTS

1. An act or omission
2. Presence of fault or negligence in the performance or non-
performace of the act
3. Injury
4. Causal conection between negligent act and the injury
5. No pre-existing contractual relation

4 Essential elements
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation

The actions of the person (or entity) who owes you a duty must be sufficiently related
to your injuries such that the law considers the person to have caused your injuries in a
legal sense.

b. Tort Concept – Black Law Dictionary, Phil. Encyclopedia

What is a tort? According to Black's Law Dictionary a tort is a "civil wrong,
other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained,
usually in the form of damages; a breach of a duty that the law imposes
on persons who stand in a particular relation to one another."

A breach of contract occurs when one party in a binding agreement fails

to deliver according to the terms of the agreement
 An act of breaking the terms set out in a contract.
B. Theories of Tort Liability
The obligations imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
C. Causation and Liability

Causation, or causality, is the capacity of one variable to influence another. The first
variable may bring the second into existence or may cause the incidence of the
second variable to fluctuate.

D. Acts of Commissions, Acts of Omission

Cases:
Alano vs. Magud-Logmo, G.R. No. 175540 (2014)
Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336 (1993)
Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Baking, G.R. No. 156037 (2007)
Picart vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219 (1918)
Dulay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108017 (1995)
Guillang vs. Bedania, 588 SCRA 73, May 21, 2009
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122445 (1997)
Zenith Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85296 (1990)
Arco Pulp and Paper vs. Lim, G.R. No. 206806 (2014)
Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. DMC-Construction, G.R. No. 193914
(2014)
J. Plus Asia Development Corporation vs. Utility Assurance Corporation, G.R. No.
199650 (2013)
Algarra vs. Sandejas, G.R. No. L-8385 (1914)

X. Legal Philosophy and Legal Education (Aquino pp 359-362)

Cases:
Colinares vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182748 (2011)
Feliciano vs. Court of Appelas, G.R. No. 123293 (1998)
So vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138869 (2002)
Justice (A Philosophical Perspective), 208 SCRA 617 (1992)

References:
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, codal edition
Laws and Issuances indicated in the Course Outline
Aquino, David Robert. The Philosophy of Law, Central Book Supply, Inc.
Tabucanon, Gil Marvel. Legal Philosophy for Filipinos, Rex Book store, Inc.

Criteria for grading:

Class Standing: 30%
Major Exam: 25%
Final Exam: 35%
Case Digest & Other Requirements: 10%

Happy Semester!
May God bless you all.