Facts:

The case of US v. Tamparong was a criminal prosecution for the violation of a municipal ordinance in the
Philippines. At the time, the Philippines was a territory of the United States, and the case raised
questions about the extent of US jurisdiction over the territory.

Issue:

The main issue in the case was the interpretation of the term "within the jurisdiction of the United
States" in the context of the Philippines. The US government argued that the Philippines were within US
jurisdiction and therefore the US Constitution and laws applied there. On the other hand, the defendant
claimed that the US lacked jurisdiction over the Philippines.

Ruling:

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US government, finding that the Philippines were indeed
within US jurisdiction and that the US Constitution and laws applied there. In reaching this conclusion,
the court noted the territorial authority of the US government over the Philippines and the fact that the
Philippine Islands were acquired by the US as part of its victory in the Spanish-American War.

Additionally, the court addressed the confusion between the jurisdiction of the courts of law and courts
of equity established in the Philippines by the Philippine Commission. The court ruled that both courts
had concurrent jurisdiction, and could hear cases in either a legal or equitable manner, depending on
the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

In conclusion, the case of US v. Tamparong helped establish the US's territorial authority over the
Philippines and clarify the jurisdiction of the courts in the territory. It confirmed that the US Constitution
and laws applied in the Philippines, and addressed the confusion between the jurisdiction of the courts
of law and equity.

Facts: Arturo Valenzona was employed by GF Equity and was terminated prior to the expiration of his
contract. GF Equity based the termination on a provision in the contract which was later determined to
be void. Valenzona filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and claimed damages, including moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees.

Issues:

Whether the pre-termination of Valenzona's contract was done in bad faith or with malice, making GF
Equity liable for moral and exemplary damages.

Whether GF Equity is liable to pay Valenzona actual damages and attorney's fees.

Ruling:

The court found that GF Equity did not act in bad faith or with malice in pre-terminating Valenzona's
contract, and as such, was not liable for moral and exemplary damages. However, GF Equity was
ordered to pay Valenzona actual damages in the amount of P525,000.00 and attorney's fees in the
amount of P60,000.00, as GF Equity had refused to pay the balance of Valenzona's salaries, leading him
to litigate to protect his interest.
With regards to the court of law and court of equity, the court of law focuses on enforcing legal rights
and obligations, while the court of equity focuses on fairness and justice. In this case, the court applied
both principles by enforcing the legal obligation of GF Equity to pay actual damages and attorney's fees,
while also considering the fairness and justice in denying the award of moral and exemplary damages.

The case of Pacita David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. concerns a
dispute over an easement of right of way. The petitioner, Pacita David-Chan, filed an amended petition
with a prayer for preliminary prohibitory injunction, seeking to stop the private respondent from fencing
its property and depriving her of access to the highway. The petitioner alleged that her property was
nearly completely surrounded by other immovables and that her only access to the highway was a small
opening through the property of the private respondent. She sought a compulsory easement of right of
way and requested the court to enjoin the private respondent from fencing the lot, and to order the
private respondent to sell her the subject lot and pay damages, attorney's fees, and the cost of the suit.

Whether David-Chan may resort to equity to overturn the legal findings found by the court?

The private respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner and argued that the petitioner was not
entitled to a right of pre-emption or right of redemption as she was not a tenant of the former owner of
the property. The trial court found the petitioner's petition to be without merit and dismissed it with
costs against her. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court upheld the
decision on the grounds that the petitioner failed to provide factual support to show her entitlement to
an easement of right of way, and that resort to equity was possible only in the absence, not in
contravention, of statutory law.

The issue of judicial stability can be seen in the case involving Judge George E. Omelio, where he was
found guilty of gross ignorance of the law. This raises questions about the ability of the judiciary to
interpret and apply the law, which is crucial for maintaining a stable and predictable legal system
impartially and accurately. The multiple counts of gross ignorance of the law, including failing to
recognize parties as indispensable, granting a contentious motion in violation of the three-day notice
rule, non-compliance with the rules on summons, and rendering a decision without proper notice to all
parties, all demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding of the rules and procedures necessary
for the fair administration of justice. This undermines public trust in the judicial system and calls into
question its ability to provide stable and fair outcomes.