I.

Fundamental Principles
G.R. No. L-16968 October 6, 1921

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appelle,

vs.
CHAN FOOK, defendant-appellant.

Hartford Beaumont for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

VILLAMOR, J.:

The appellant Chan Fook was prosecuted for the crime of resistance and disobedience to the public
authority, and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila to two months and one day
of arresto mayor and to pay a fine or 1,301 pesetas and the costs of the action, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

From the record it appears that the accused, a Chinese subject, was a passenger of the United
States Military Transport South Bend, which arrived in Manila on April 6, 1920. Having been allowed
by the immigration authorities to land, he left the boat on the same day, April 6. At about 3 or 4
o'clock in the afternoon of the following day, he went to pier no. 1 to get his baggage. After the
search of the baggage in which postcards of an indecent character were found, a customs agent,
Eugenio M. Cruz, attempted to search the body of the accused, to which the latter apparently
objected. A dispute took place between the two, which terminated in the secret agent seizing the
Chinaman by the arm with intent to search his body, after showing him his police badge. The
accused resisted and struck the secret agent on the stomach. The latter in turn struck him on the
neck. Here the customs inspector, Anastacio Jacinto, intervened, and explained to the accused that
Cruz was a customs secret service agent and had the right to search him in order to find whether he
had on his person any contraband. Then the appellant made no further resistance and allowed
himself to be searched.

Under such circumstances, has the accused committed the crime of resistance and disobedience to
the public authority as alleged in the information? To decide this question, it is first necessary to
determine whether the agent, Cruz, was authorized to search the person of the accused.

The prosecution alleges that under section 1338 of the Administrative Code all persons coming into
the Philippine Islands from Foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by the customs
authorities under such regulations as may be prescribed relative thereto. The defense, however,
contends that once the accused has arrived at the point of his destination by being allowed to leave
the boat and to land he was beyond the jurisdiction of the customs authorities, and, therefore, not
liable to search without judicial warrant. Section 1338 of the Administrative Code provides:

SEC. 1338. Search of persons arriving from foreign countries. — All persons coming into the
Philippine Islands from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by the
customs authorities under such regulations as may be prescribed relative thereto.

Female inspectors may be employed for the examination and search of persons of their own
sex.
Having in mind the aim of the law in authorizing the search of persons coming from foreign
countries, which is to avoid the clandestine introduction into the Philippine Islands of goods subject
to the payment of customs duties, or the importation of the articles prohibited by law, or the entrance
of persons who have no right to reside in these Islands, we are of the opinion that after the customs
authorities have permitted the accused to land in Manila, the terminus of his voyage, he ceased to
be a passenger within the meaning of said section 1338 of the Administrative Code.

The fact that the accused returned to pier No. 1 to get the baggage that he had left there the day
before does not subject him to the operation of said section. He could have gone back there several
weeks or months after his arrival, and in such case, if the contention of the prosecution is sustained,
all foreigners arriving in the Philippines would be in the highly anomalous situation of being liable to
detention of the right to be secured against unreasonable searches guaranteed by section 3 of the
Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, known as Jones Law, which provides:

That the right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated.

It is urged that the object of searching the person of the accused was to find whether he had with
him any contraband. It was too late to look for any contraband. He had already been searched when
he left the boat. The accused had reached his destination, spending the night in the house where he
had taken lodging. It is not, therefore, reasonable to believe that when he returned to pier No. 1 the
next day, he had about his body any contraband. Thus the search made by the agent Cruz appears
to be unreasonable.

Commenting on the meaning and score of resistance and disobedience, as elements of the crimes
against public authority and its agents, Groizard, among other things, says:

A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power can not be said to
be in the exercise of the functions of his office. The law that defines and establishes his
powers does not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.

The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed, If they go
beyond, it and they violate any recognized rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist the
invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive with
the excess, and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression. 1awph!l .net

The invasion of the prerrogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of an
office, are the sources that make for legitimate resistance, especially, in so far as it is
necessary for the defense of the persons or their rights in the manner provided for in article 8
of the Penal Code. (3 Groizard, pp. 456, et seq.)

In the case at bar the action of the accused in laying his hands on the agent Cruz is, in our opinion,
an adequate defense to repel the aggression of the latter, who had seized him by the arm for the
purpose of searching him. In accordance with the repeated decisions of the supreme court of Spain,
the gravity of a disobedience to an order of a person in public authority is measured and graded by
the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the
transgression rather than by the source of the order disobeyed. And, taking into consideration the
circumstances of the present case, wherein the agent Cruz had exceeded his functions, and wherein
the accused acted in defense of the most highly esteemed of individual rights — the constitutional
right to be secured against unreasonable searches — we are of the opinion that there is no ground
for finding the accused guilty of the crime defined in article 252 of the Penal Code.
The supreme court of Spain, in a decision rendered December 26, 1876, held that the act of
obstinately disregarding an order of an agent of the authority does not constitute the crime of grave
resistance and disobedience to an agent of the public authority where it appears that upon being
directed for the third time, the accused obeyed, though uttering unpleasant words, for although the
accused did not leave the premises on the first and second requests, he, however, obeyed on the
third, and did not render it necessary for the public officer to make use of the means authorized by
law to make himself respected. That the accused had no intention to resist and disobey the agents
of the authority, in the legal sense of the word, is shows by the fact that by the mere explanation of
the customs inspector, Anastasio Jacinto, he finally allowed himself to be searched. Jacinto's words
were sufficient to make the Chinaman submit himself peacefully to the requirement of the agent
Cruz.

That foreigners in the Philippines are entitled to the benefits of the individual rights secured by the
Philippine Bill is undeniable. In the case of Kepner vs. U. S. (195 U. S., 100), the Supreme Court
said:

When Congress came to pass the Act of July 1, 1902, it enacted, almost in the language of
the President's instructions, the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. In view of the expressed
declarations of the President, followed by the action of Congress, both adopting, with little
alternation, the provisions of the Bill of Rights, there would seem to be no room for argument
that in this form it was intended to carry to the Philippine Islands those principles of our
government which the President declared to be established as rules of law for the
maintenance of individual freedom, at the same time expressing regret that the inhabitants of
the Islands had not therefore enjoyed their benefit.

And according to the principles underlying the Constitution, as extended to the Philippine Islands by
the President's instructions to the Commission and by the Philippine Bill, foreigners are entitled to
the protection of their life, liberty, and property. In the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (118 U. S., 356,
369), Justice Matthews says:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It
says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or properly without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These
provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,
without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection
of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the accused must be, and is
hereby, acquitted with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Johnson, Araullo, Street and Avanceña JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial
Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation
to Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The facts as summarized in the brief of the prosecution are as follows:

On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., the appellant and his common-law wife,
Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the
Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped packages.
Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The
appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich,
Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his
name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the consignee,
namely, "WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland" (Decision, p. 6)

Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages.
Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars,
and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's representation, Anita
Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the packages. The four (4) packages were then
placed inside a brown corrugated box one by two feet in size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed
at the bottom and on top of the packages before the box was sealed with masking tape, thus
making the box ready for shipment (Decision, p. 8).

Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job
Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard operating procedure,
opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor
emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly
containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a
cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening
on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof (tsn, pp.
29-30, October 6, 1987; Emphasis supplied).

Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a
laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper (tsn, pp. 5-
6, October 6, 1987).

He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that
 date, i.e., August 14, 1987. He was interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section. Job Reyes
informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes
and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila
(tsn, p. 30, October 6, 1987).

Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in the
presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam and took out the
cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have
been contained inside the cellophane wrappers (tsn, p. 38, October 6, 1987; Emphasis
supplied).

The package which allegedly contained books was likewise opened by Job Reyes. He
discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana leaves. The
package which allegedly contained tabacalera cigars was also opened. It turned out that
dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath the cigars (tsn, p. 39, October 6,
1987).

The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof,
after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects (tsn, pp. 2-3, October 7,
1987).

Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. Appellant's stated address in his
passport being the Manila Central Post Office, the agents requested assistance from the latter's
Chief Security. On August 27, 1987, appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was
invited by the NBI to shed light on the attempted shipment of the seized dried leaves. On the same
day the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the Forensic Chemistry Section
for laboratory examination. It turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as
certified by the forensic chemist. (Appellee's Brief, pp. 9-11, Rollo, pp. 132-134).

Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act.

After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed decision.

In this appeal, accused/appellant assigns the following errors, to wit:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED

AND SEIZED OBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE FOUR PARCELS.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED

FACT THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHILE UNDER CUSTODIAL
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT OBSERVED.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EXPLANATION OF

THE APPELLANT ON HOW THE FOUR PARCELS CAME INTO HIS POSSESSION
(Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 55)

1. Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in
violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of
communication (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore argues that the same should be
held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3 (2), Art. III).
Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide:

Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.

Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure had
its origin in the 1935 Charter which, worded as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 1 [3], Article III)

was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment ** to the United States Constitution.
As such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the United States Federal Supreme Court
and State Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this jurisdiction.

Thus, following the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp v. Ohio by the US Federal Supreme
Court (367 US 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 1081 [1961]), this Court, in Stonehill v. Diokno (20 SCRA
383 [1967]), declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search and
seizure warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado v. People's
Court (80 Phil. 1 [1948]) wherein the admissibility of evidence was not affected by the illegality of its
seizure. The 1973 Charter (Sec. 4 [2], Art. IV) constitutionalized the Stonehill ruling and is carried
over up to the present with the advent of the 1987 Constitution.

In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the exclusionary rule and has struck down the
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable
searches and seizures. (Bache & Co., (Phil.), Inc., v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Lim v. Ponce de
Leon, 66 SCRA 299 [1975]; People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 [1986]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA
687 [1987]; See also Salazar v. Hon. Achacoso, et al., GR No. 81510, March 14, 1990).

It must be noted, however, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so obtained were
invariably procured by the State acting through the medium of its law enforcers or other authorized
government agencies.

On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be
excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and
without the intervention and participation of State authorities. Under the circumstances, can
accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation
of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?

We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345 [1972]:

1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity
of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which
is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. . . .

. . . There the state, however powerful, does not as such have the access except under the
circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is
his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon
to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. . . . (Cf.
Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966] and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616
[1886]; Emphasis supplied).

In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), 41 S Ct. 547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the Court there in
construing the right against unreasonable searches and seizures declared that:

(t)he Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as
shown in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history
clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and
was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such
authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of
unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right
of seizure by process duly served.

The above ruling was reiterated in State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a parking attendant
who searched the automobile to ascertain the owner thereof found marijuana instead, without the
knowledge and participation of police authorities, was declared admissible in prosecution for illegal
possession of narcotics.

And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and
seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals
(citing People v. Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d 621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892 (1966); State v. Brown, Mo., 391
S.W.2d 903 (1965); State v. Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).

Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517 (1967). The Court there said:

The search of which appellant complains, however, was made by a private citizen — the
owner of a motel in which appellant stayed overnight and in which he left behind a travel
case containing the evidence*** complained of. The search was made on the motel owner's
own initiative. Because of it, he became suspicious, called the local police, informed them of
the bag's contents, and made it available to the authorities.

The fourth amendment and the case law applying it do not require exclusion of evidence
obtained through a search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment only proscribes
governmental action."
The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the latter
transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent
reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.

Appellant, however, would like this court to believe that NBI agents made an illegal search and
seizure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case which resulted in his conviction.

The postulate advanced by accused/appellant needs to be clarified in two days. In both instances,
the argument stands to fall on its own weight, or the lack of it.

First, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents
conducted an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly
indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made
search/inspection of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating
procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the
Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts (TSN, October 6 & 7, 1987, pp. 15-18; pp. 7-8; Original
Records, pp. 119-122; 167-168).

It will be recalled that after Reyes opened the box containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the
same to the NBI and later summoned the agents to his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the
parcel containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI
agents. Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and seizure, much less an illegal one, contrary to
the postulate of accused/appellant.

Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by
Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and
look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no
trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135).
Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer,
there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (US v. Lee 274 US 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202
[1927]; Ker v. State of California 374 US 23, 10 L.Ed.2d. 726 [1963]; Moore v. State, 429 SW2d 122
[1968]).

In Gandy v. Watkins (237 F. Supp. 266 [1964]), it was likewise held that where the property was
taken into custody of the police at the specific request of the manager and where the search was
initially made by the owner there is no unreasonable search and seizure within the constitutional
meaning of the term.

That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection
against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the
query which he himself posed, as follows:

First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of
constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of
Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the
relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any
power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Emphasis supplied)
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if
it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of
the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

Appellant argues, however, that since the provisions of the 1935 Constitution has been modified by
the present phraseology found in the 1987 Charter, expressly declaring as inadmissible any
evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seizure, it
matters not whether the evidence was procured by police authorities or private individuals
(Appellant's Brief, p. 8, Rollo, p. 62).

The argument is untenable. For one thing, the constitution, in laying down the principles of the
government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between
individuals. Moreover, it must be emphasized that the modifications introduced in the 1987
Constitution (re: Sec. 2, Art. III) relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of
arrest vis-a-vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof (See Soliven v. Makasiar, 167
SCRA 393 [1988]; Circular No. 13 [October 1, 1985] and Circular No. 12 [June 30, 1987]. The
modifications introduced deviate in no manner as to whom the restriction or inhibition against
unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. The restraint stayed with the State and did not
shift to anyone else.

Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against
the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with
appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed
as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the
constitution.

Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected through private seizure
equally applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-governmental as it is, of appellant's
constitutional rights to privacy and communication.

2. In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court erred in convicting him
despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution while under custodial investigation
were not observed.

Again, the contention is without merit, We have carefully examined the records of the case and
found nothing to indicate, as an "undisputed fact", that appellant was not informed of his
constitutional rights or that he gave statements without the assistance of counsel. The law enforcers
testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. It is presumed that they
have regularly performed their duties (See. 5(m), Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full
faith and credence, there being no evidence to the contrary. What is clear from the records, on the
other hand, is that appellant refused to give any written statement while under investigation as
testified by Atty. Lastimoso of the NBI, Thus:
 Fiscal Formoso:

You said that you investigated Mr. and Mrs. Job Reyes. What about the accused here, did
you investigate the accused together with the girl?

WITNESS:

Yes, we have interviewed the accused together with the girl but the accused availed of his
constitutional right not to give any written statement, sir. (TSN, October 8, 1987, p. 62;
Original Records, p. 240)

The above testimony of the witness for the prosecution was not contradicted by the defense on
cross-examination. As borne out by the records, neither was there any proof by the defense that
appellant gave uncounselled confession while being investigated. What is more, we have examined
the assailed judgment of the trial court and nowhere is there any reference made to the testimony of
appellant while under custodial investigation which was utilized in the finding of conviction.
Appellant's second assignment of error is therefore misplaced.

3. Coming now to appellant's third assignment of error, appellant would like us to believe that he was
not the owner of the packages which contained prohibited drugs but rather a certain Michael, a
German national, whom appellant met in a pub along Ermita, Manila: that in the course of their 30-
minute conversation, Michael requested him to ship the packages and gave him P2,000.00 for the
cost of the shipment since the German national was about to leave the country the next day
(October 15, 1987, TSN, pp. 2-10).

Rather than give the appearance of veracity, we find appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-
serving and contrary to human experience. It can easily be fabricated. An acquaintance with a
complete stranger struck in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four
(4) parcels and shell out P2,000.00 for the purpose and for appellant to readily accede to comply
with the undertaking without first ascertaining its contents. As stated by the trial court, "(a) person
would not simply entrust contraband and of considerable value at that as the marijuana flowering
tops, and the cash amount of P2,000.00 to a complete stranger like the Accused. The Accused, on
the other hand, would not simply accept such undertaking to take custody of the packages and ship
the same from a complete stranger on his mere say-so" (Decision, p. 19, Rollo, p. 91). As to why he
readily agreed to do the errand, appellant failed to explain. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot
be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters (People v. Esquillo, 171 SCRA 571 [1989]; People vs. Sariol, 174 SCRA 237
[1989]).

Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect considering that, as per records of the Interpol,
he was previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of
Germany on January 1, 1982 and that the consignee of the frustrated shipment, Walter Fierz, also a
Swiss national, was likewise convicted for drug abuse and is just about an hour's drive from
appellant's residence in Zurich, Switzerland (TSN, October 8, 1987, p. 66; Original Records, p. 244;
Decision, p. 21; Rollo, p. 93).

Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be
credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances (People v. Alto, 26 SCRA 342 [1968], citing Daggers v. Van Dyke,
37 N.J. Eg. 130; see also People v. Sarda, 172 SCRA 651 [1989]; People v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327
[1983]); Castañares v. CA, 92 SCRA 567 [1979]). As records further show, appellant did not even
bother to ask Michael's full name, his complete address or passport number. Furthermore, if indeed,
the German national was the owner of the merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in the
contract of shipment (Exh. "B", Original Records, p. 40). On the contrary, appellant signed the
contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a
person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him (Sec. 5 [j], Rule 131). At
this point, appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise.

Premises considered, we see no error committed by the trial court in rendering the assailed
judgment.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr. and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO,

FLORENCIO, PADRIGANO RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON, ASENCION PACIENTE,
BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and RODULFO MUNSOD, petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.

L.S. Osorio & P.B. Castillo and J.C. Espinas & Associates for petitioners.

Demetrio B. Salem & Associates for private respondent.

MAKASIAR, J.:

The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO)
is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills
Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon,
Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and
members of the petitioner Union.

Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacañang
on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the
workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts
(from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the
respondent Company of their proposed demonstration.

The questioned order dated September 15, 1969, of Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador of the
respondent Court reproduced the following stipulation of facts of the parties — parties —

3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass

demonstration at Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police
Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM-2:00 PM) workers as well as
those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) in
the morning of March 4, 1969;

4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M.
at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur
L. Ang (2) Atty. S. de Leon, Jr., (3) and all department and section heads. For the
PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4)
Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu.

5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass
demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who
acted as spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and
stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already
been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration
has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute
with Management;

6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager,

informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union
guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for
that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For
 which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon warned the PBMEO
representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without
previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers
present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work
the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a
violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike;

7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked
Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of:
Nicanor Tolentino, Rodolfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In
this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the
PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacañang
demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be
excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize
the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA,
particularly Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE'. All those who will not follow
this warning of the Company shall be dismiss; De Leon reiterated the Company's
warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass
demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their
plans inasmuch as the Malacañang demonstration will be held the following morning;
and

8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the
Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are
as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING
DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969.' (Pars. 3-8, Annex "F", pp. 42-43, rec.)

Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration
despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers should not be required to
participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized
for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, respondent Company prior notice of
the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969, with the respondent Court, a charge against petitioners
and other employees who composed the first shift, charging them with a "violation of Section 4(a)-6
in relation to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of Republic Act No. 875, and of the CBA
providing for 'No Strike and No Lockout.' " (Annex "A", pp. 19-20, rec.). The charge was
accompanied by the joint affidavit of Arthur L. Ang and Cesareo de Leon, Jr. (Annex "B", pp. 21-24,
rec.). Thereafter, a corresponding complaint was filed, dated April 18, 1969, by Acting Chief
Prosecutor Antonio T. Tirona and Acting Prosecutor Linda P. Ilagan (Annex "C", pp. 25-30, rec.)

In their answer, dated May 9, 1969, herein petitioners claim that they did not violate the existing CBA
because they gave the respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4,
1969; that the said mass demonstration was a valid exercise of their constitutional freedom of
speech against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass demonstration
was not a declaration of strike because it was not directed against the respondent firm (Annex "D",
pp. 31-34, rec.)

After considering the aforementioned stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, Judge Joaquin M.
Salvador, in an order dated September 15, 1969, found herein petitioner PBMEO guilty of bargaining
in bad faith and herein petitioners Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion
Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Munsod as directly
responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and were, as a consequence, considered
to have lost their status as employees of the respondent Company (Annex "F", pp. 42-56, rec.)
Herein petitioners claim that they received on September 23, 1969, the aforesaid order (p. 11, rec.);
and that they filed on September 29, 1969, because September 28, 1969 fell on Sunday (p. 59,
rec.), a motion for reconsideration of said order dated September 15, 1969, on the ground that it is
contrary to law and the evidence, as well as asked for ten (10) days within which to file their
arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the CIR, as amended (Annex "G", pp.
57-60, rec. )

In its opposition dated October 7, 1969, filed on October 11, 1969 (p. 63, rec.), respondent Company
averred that herein petitioners received on September 22, 1969, the order dated September 17
(should be September 15), 1969; that under Section 15 of the amended Rules of the Court of
Industrial Relations, herein petitioners had five (5) days from September 22, 1969 or until September
27, 1969, within which to file their motion for reconsideration; and that because their motion for
reconsideration was two (2) days late, it should be accordingly dismissed, invoking Bien vs.
Castillo,1 which held among others, that a motion for extension of the five-day period for the filing of a
motion for reconsideration should be filed before the said five-day period elapses (Annex "M", pp.
61-64, rec.).

Subsequently, herein petitioners filed on October 14, 1969 their written arguments dated October 11,
1969, in support of their motion for reconsideration (Annex "I", pp. 65-73, rec.).

In a resolution dated October 9, 1969, the respondent en banc dismissed the motion for
reconsideration of herein petitioners for being pro forma as it was filed beyond the reglementary
period prescribed by its Rules (Annex "J", pp. 74-75, rec.), which herein petitioners received on
October 28, 196 (pp. 12 & 76, rec.).

At the bottom of the notice of the order dated October 9, 1969, which was released on October 24,
1969 and addressed to the counsels of the parties (pp. 75-76, rec.), appear the requirements of
Sections 15, 16 and 17, as amended, of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, that a motion
for reconsideration shall be filed within five (5) days from receipt of its decision or order and that an
appeal from the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sitting en banc, shall be perfected within
ten (10) days from receipt thereof (p. 76, rec.).

On October 31, 1969, herein petitioners filed with the respondent court a petition for relief from the
order dated October 9, 1969, on the ground that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration
on time was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the president of the
petitioner Union and of the office clerk of their counsel, attaching thereto the affidavits of the said
president and clerk (Annexes "K", "K-1" and "K-2", rec.).

Without waiting for any resolution on their petition for relief from the order dated October 9, 1969,
herein petitioners filed on November 3, 1969, with the Supreme Court, a notice of appeal (Annex "L",
pp. 88-89, rec.).

There is need of briefly restating basic concepts and principles which underlie the issues posed by
the case at bar.

(1) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human
personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable
character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts
and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person."2
(2) The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the
assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments,
and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles."3

In the pithy language of Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw
"certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of
majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's
rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly,
and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections."4 Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the individual, not the well-being of the State,
was the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged. His interests, not its power, set the limits
to the authority it was entitled to exercise."5

(3) The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among
the immunities reserved by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice Holmes, to
protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated,
not only to protect the minority who want to talk, but also to benefit the majority who refuse to
listen.6 And as Justice Douglas cogently stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties of all; and the
liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are protected.7

(4) The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political
rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete
fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment
of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in
the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to
the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as for the
imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees.

(5) While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property
rights is recognized.8 Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely
precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as
the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government
regulation only "with narrow specificity."9

Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If
human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to
limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials,
of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise.

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political
institutions; 10 and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting
dubious intrusions." 11

The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere
reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose —
that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive — would suffice to validate a law
which restricts or impairs property rights. 12 On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement
of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate
danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in the
main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the
opinion in Imbong vs. Ferrer. 13 It should be added that Mr. Justice Barredo in Gonzales vs.
Comelec, supra, like Justices Douglas, Black and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs.
Sullivan, 14 believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when
exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be
governed," 15 even as Mr. Justice Castro relies on the balancing-of-interests test. 16 Chief Justice
Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated by Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz. —
whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free
expression as is necessary to avoid the danger. 17

II

The respondent Court of Industrial Relations, after opining that the mass demonstration was not a
declaration of strike, concluded that by their "concerted act and the occurrence temporary stoppage
of work," herein petitioners are guilty bargaining in bad faith and hence violated the collective
bargaining agreement with private respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., inc.. Set against and
tested by foregoing principles governing a democratic society, such conclusion cannot be sustained.
The demonstration held petitioners on March 4, 1969 before Malacañang was against alleged
abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer, herein private respondent firm, said
demonstrate was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom expression in general and of
their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate
governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police officers of the municipality of Pasig.
They exercise their civil and political rights for their mutual aid protection from what they believe
were police excesses. As matter of fact, it was the duty of herein private respondent firm to protect
herein petitioner Union and its members fro the harassment of local police officers. It was to the
interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its
employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as
consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as
profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local
police. Was it securing peace for itself at the expenses of its workers? Was it also intimidated by the
local police or did it encourage the local police to terrorize or vex its workers? Its failure to defend its
own employees all the more weakened the position of its laborers the alleged oppressive police who
might have been all the more emboldened thereby subject its lowly employees to further indignities.

In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of
petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of herein private
respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the
Constitution — the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. The pretension of their
employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6
o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their
property rights. Such apprehended loss or damage would not spell the difference between the life
and death of the firm or its owners or its management. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark
reality — abused, harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of
the municipality. As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-
vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as
well as that of their families. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The
debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully
evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying
day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly
and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained. 18 Emphatic
reiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon — at once the shield and armor of the dignity and
worth of the human personality, the all-consuming ideal of our enlightened civilization — becomes
Our duty, if freedom and social justice have any meaning at all for him who toils so that capital can
produce economic goods that can generate happiness for all. To regard the demonstration against
police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence
a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of
the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement,
is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the
constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. 19

The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees, according to
the respondent Court Industrial Relations, in effect imposes on the workers the "duty ... to observe
regular working hours." The strain construction of the Court of Industrial Relations that a stipulated
working shifts deny the workers the right to stage mass demonstration against police abuses during
working hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life the workers and deserves severe
condemnation. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground.

The mass demonstration staged by the employees on March 4, 1969 could not have been legally
enjoined by any court, such an injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the
workers, even if it legally appears to be illegal picketing or strike. 20 The respondent Court of
Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedes that the mass demonstration was not a declaration
of a strike "as the same not rooted in any industrial dispute although there is concerted act and the
occurrence of a temporary stoppage work." (Annex "F", p. 45, rec.).

The respondent firm claims that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the
demonstration and that they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6 A.M.
to 2 P.M. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted. This stand
failed appreciate the sine qua non of an effective demonstration especially by a labor union, namely
the complete unity of the Union members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site in
order to generate the maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause but also immediately action
on the part of the corresponding government agencies with jurisdiction over the issues they raised
against the local police. Circulation is one of the aspects of freedom of expression. 21 If
demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the circulation of the issues raised by the
demonstration is diminished. The more the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the
purpose of the rally. Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a
substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued
alleged police persecution. At any rate, the Union notified the company two days in advance of their
projected demonstration and the company could have made arrangements to counteract or prevent
whatever losses it might sustain by reason of the absence of its workers for one day, especially in
this case when the Union requested it to excuse only the day-shift employees who will join the
demonstration on March 4, 1969 which request the Union reiterated in their telegram received by the
company at 9:50 in the morning of March 4, 1969, the day of the mass demonstration (pp. 42-43,
rec.). There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the
request of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass
demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the
Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is
as unchristian as it is unconstitutional.

III

The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on the part of
the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against
alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service
constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and
freedom petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice
defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the
Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to
engage in concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair
labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights
guaranteed in Section Three."

We repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the
respondent firm on March 4, 1969, was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police
abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the employees to engage in
such common action to better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. The
insistence on the part of the respondent firm that the workers for the morning and regular shift
should not participate in the mass demonstration, under pain of dismissal, was as heretofore stated,
"a potent means of inhibiting speech." 22

Such a concerted action for their mutual help and protection deserves at least equal protection as
the concerted action of employees in giving publicity to a letter complaint charging bank president
with immorality, nepotism, favoritism an discrimination in the appointment and promotion of ban
employees. 23 We further ruled in the Republic Savings Bank case, supra, that for the employees to
come within the protective mantle of Section 3 in relation to Section 4(a-1) on Republic Act No. 875,
"it is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated," as
long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance of their interests. 24

As stated clearly in the stipulation of facts embodied in the questioned order of respondent Court
dated September 15, 1969, the company, "while expressly acknowledging, that the demonstration is
an inalienable right of the Union guaranteed by the Constitution," nonetheless emphasized that "any
demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company" and
"warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who
without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who
are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning
(March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and,
therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike (;)" (p. III, petitioner's brief). Such threat of
dismissal tended to coerce the employees from joining the mass demonstration. However, the
issues that the employees raised against the local police, were more important to them because they
had the courage to proceed with the demonstration, despite such threat of dismissal. The most that
could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by reason of their absence from work on the day of
the demonstration. One day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to
support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration would
bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was adamant in refusing to
recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition
for redress.

Because the respondent company ostensibly did not find it necessary to demand from the workers
proof of the truth of the alleged abuses inflicted on them by the local police, it thereby concedes that
the evidence of such abuses should properly be submitted to the corresponding authorities having
jurisdiction over their complaint and to whom such complaint may be referred by the President of the
Philippines for proper investigation and action with a view to disciplining the local police officers
involved.

On the other hand, while the respondent Court of Industrial Relations found that the demonstration
"paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company," the respondent Court of
Industrial Relations did not make any finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained by the firm. This
significant circumstance can only mean that the firm did not sustain any loss or damage. It did not
present evidence as to whether it lost expected profits for failure to comply with purchase orders on
that day; or that penalties were exacted from it by customers whose orders could not be filled that
day of the demonstration; or that purchase orders were cancelled by the customers by reason of its
failure to deliver the materials ordered; or that its own equipment or materials or products were
damaged due to absence of its workers on March 4, 1969. On the contrary, the company saved a
sizable amount in the form of wages for its hundreds of workers, cost of fuel, water and electric
consumption that day. Such savings could have amply compensated for unrealized profits or
damages it might have sustained by reason of the absence of its workers for only one day.

IV

Apart from violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly as well as the right to
petition for redress of grievances of the employees, the dismissal of the eight (8) leaders of the
workers for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent from work,
constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly
employees. Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social
justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is
emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall
afford protection to labor ...". Respondent Court of Industrial Relations as an agency of the State is
under obligation at all times to give meaning and substance to these constitutional guarantees in
favor of the working man; for otherwise these constitutional safeguards would be merely a lot of
"meaningless constitutional patter." Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations
is enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by encouraging
and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of
collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being." It is most
unfortunate in the case at bar that respondent Court of Industrial Relations, the very governmental
agency designed therefor, failed to implement this policy and failed to keep faith with its avowed
mission — its raison d'etre — as ordained and directed by the Constitution.

It has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divests the court of
jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights. Relief from a
criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through
habeas corpus proceedings even long after the finality of the judgment. Thus, habeas corpus is the
remedy to obtain the release of an individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a forced
confession, which violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination; 25 or who is denied the
right to present evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty without due process of
law, 26 even after the accused has already served sentence for twenty-two years. 27

Both the respondents Court of Industrial Relations and private firm trenched upon these
constitutional immunities of petitioners. Both failed to accord preference to such rights and
aggravated the inhumanity to which the aggrieved workers claimed they had been subjected by the
municipal police. Having violated these basic human rights of the laborers, the Court of Industrial
Relations ousted itself of jurisdiction and the questioned orders it issued in the instant case are a
nullity. Recognition and protection of such freedoms are imperative on all public offices including the
courts 28 as well as private citizens and corporations, the exercise and enjoyment of which must not
be nullified by mere procedural rule promulgated by the Court Industrial Relations exercising a
purely delegate legislative power, when even a law enacted by Congress must yield to the
untrammelled enjoyment of these human rights. There is no time limit to the exercise of the
freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech, the printing of one
article or the staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised
when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced,
inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by
rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a race for
time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the latter eventually loses because
he cannot employ the best an dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required
diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of the financial resources with which to pay for competent legal
services. 28-a

VI

The Court of Industrial Relations rule prescribes that motion for reconsideration of its order or writ
should filed within five (5) days from notice thereof and that the arguments in support of said motion
shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of filing of such motion for reconsideration (Sec. 16).
As above intimated, these rules of procedure were promulgated by the Court of Industrial Relations
pursuant to a legislative delegation. 29

The motion for reconsideration was filed on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days from notice on
September 22, 1969 of the order dated September 15, 1969 or two (2) days late. Petitioners claim
that they could have filed it on September 28, 1969, but it was a Sunday.

Does the mere fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days late defeat the rights of
the petitioning employees? Or more directly and concretely, does the inadvertent omission to comply
with a mere Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule governing the period for filing a motion for
reconsideration or appeal in labor cases, promulgated pursuant to a legislative delegation, prevail
over constitutional rights? The answer should be obvious in the light of the aforecited cases. To
accord supremacy to the foregoing rules of the Court of Industrial Relations over basic human rights
sheltered by the Constitution, is not only incompatible with the basic tenet of constitutional
government that the Constitution is superior to any statute or subordinate rules and regulations, but
also does violence to natural reason and logic. The dominance and superiority of the constitutional
right over the aforesaid Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule of necessity should be affirmed.
Such a Court of Industrial Relations rule as applied in this case does not implement or reinforce or
strengthen the constitutional rights affected,' but instead constrict the same to the point of nullifying
the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court of Industrial Relations rule,
promulgated as it was pursuant to a mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is
beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which
to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieved workers, who usually do
not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re
hearing or reconsideration (See. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of
Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if
September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of
Industrial are concerned.

It should be stressed here that the motion for reconsideration dated September 27, 1969, is based
on the ground that the order sought to be reconsidered "is not in accordance with law, evidence and
facts adduced during the hearing," and likewise prays for an extension of ten (10) days within which
to file arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations
(Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec.); although the arguments were actually filed by the herein petitioners on
October 14, 1969 (Annex "I", pp. 70-73, rec.), long after the 10-day period required for the filing of
such supporting arguments counted from the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Herein
petitioners received only on October 28, 1969 the resolution dated October 9, 1969 dismissing the
motion for reconsideration for being pro forma since it was filed beyond the reglementary period
(Annex "J", pp. 74-75, rec.)

It is true that We ruled in several cases that where a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, or
where the arguments in suppf such motion are filed beyond the 10 day reglementary period provided
for by the Court of Industrial Relations rules, the order or decision subject of29-a reconsideration
becomes final and unappealable. But in all these cases, the constitutional rights of free expression,
free assembly and petition were not involved.

It is a procedural rule that generally all causes of action and defenses presently available must be
specifically raised in the complaint or answer; so that any cause of action or defense not raised in
such pleadings, is deemed waived. However, a constitutional issue can be raised any time, even for
the first time on appeal, if it appears that the determination of the constitutional issue is necessary to
a decision of the case, the very lis mota of the case without the resolution of which no final and
complete determination of the dispute can be made. 30 It is thus seen that a procedural rule of
Congress or of the Supreme Court gives way to a constitutional right. In the instant case, the
procedural rule of the Court of Industrial Relations, a creature of Congress, must likewise yield to the
constitutional rights invoked by herein petitioners even before the institution of the unfair labor
practice charged against them and in their defense to the said charge.

In the case at bar, enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law, is
a most compelling reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which impinges
on such human rights. 30-a

It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules
or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require." 30-b Mr.
Justice Barredo in his concurring opinion in Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo. 30-c reiterated this principle
and added that

Under this authority, this Court is enabled to cove with all situations without
concerning itself about procedural niceties that do not square with the need to do
justice, in any case, without further loss of time, provided that the right of the parties
to a full day in court is not substantially impaired. Thus, this Court may treat an
appeal as a certiorari and vice-versa. In other words, when all the material facts are
spread in the records before Us, and all the parties have been duly heard, it matters
little that the error of the court a quo is of judgment or of jurisdiction. We can then
and there render the appropriate judgment. Is within the contemplation of this
doctrine that as it is perfectly legal and within the power of this Court to strike down in
an appeal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or committed with grave abuse of
discretion, it cannot be beyond the admit of its authority, in appropriate cases, to
reverse in a certain proceed in any error of judgment of a court a quo which cannot
be exactly categorized as a flaw of jurisdiction. If there can be any doubt, which I do
not entertain, on whether or not the errors this Court has found in the decision of the
Court of Appeals are short of being jurisdiction nullities or excesses, this Court would
still be on firm legal grounds should it choose to reverse said decision here and
now even if such errors can be considered as mere mistakes of judgment or only as
faults in the exercise of jurisdiction, so as to avoid the unnecessary return of this
case to the lower court for the sole purpose of pursuing the ordinary course of an
appeal. (Emphasis supplied). 30-d

Insistence on the application of the questioned Court industrial Relations rule in this particular case
at bar would an unreasoning adherence to "Procedural niceties" which denies justice to the herein
laborers, whose basic human freedoms, including the right to survive, must be according supremacy
over the property rights of their employer firm which has been given a full hearing on this case,
especially when, as in the case at bar, no actual material damage has be demonstrated as having
been inflicted on its property rights.

If We can disregard our own rules when justice requires it, obedience to the Constitution renders
more imperative the suspension of a Court of Industrial Relations rule that clash with the human
rights sanctioned and shielded with resolution concern by the specific guarantees outlined in the
organic law. It should be stressed that the application in the instant case Section 15 of the Court of
Industrial Relations rules relied upon by herein respondent firm is unreasonable and therefore such
application becomes unconstitutional as it subverts the human rights of petitioning labor union and
workers in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances revealed by the record.

The suspension of the application of Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with
reference to the case at is also authorized by Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the C.I.R.
charter, which enjoins the Court of Industrial Relations to "act according to justice and equity and
substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms ..."

On several occasions, We emphasized this doctrine which was re-stated by Mr. Justice Barredo,
speaking for the Court, in the 1970 case of Kapisanan, etc. vs. Hamilton, etc., et. al., 30-e thus:

As to the point that the evidence being offered by the petitioners in the motion for
new trial is not "newly discovered," as such term is understood in the rules of
procedure for the ordinary courts, We hold that such criterion is not binding upon the
Court of Industrial Relations. Under Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, 'The
Court of Industrial Relations shall adopt its, rules or procedure and shall have such
other powers as generally pertain to a court of justice: Provided, however, That in the
hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in
exercising any duties and power under this Act, the Court shall act according to
justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities
or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but
may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.' By this
provision the industrial court is disengaged from the rigidity of the technicalities
applicable to ordinary courts. Said court is not even restricted to the specific relief
demanded by the parties but may issue such orders as may be deemed necessary
or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or dispelling any doubts that may
give rise to future disputes. (Ang Tibay v. C.I.R., G.R. No. 46496, Feb. 17, 1940;
Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor, 71 Phil. 124.) For these reasons, We
believe that this provision is ample enough to have enabled the respondent court to
consider whether or not its previous ruling that petitioners constitute a minority was
founded on fact, without regard to the technical meaning of newly discovered
evidence. ... (Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Chua Kiong v. Whitaker, 46 Phil. 578).
(emphasis supplied.)

To apply Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with "pedantic rigor" in the instant case
is to rule in effect that the poor workers, who can ill-afford an alert competent lawyer, can no longer
seek the sanctuary of human freedoms secured to them by the fundamental law, simply because
their counsel — erroneously believing that he received a copy of the decision on September 23,
1969, instead of September 22, 1969 - filed his motion for reconsideration September 29, 1969,
which practically is only one day late considering that September 28, 1969 was a Sunday.
Many a time, this Court deviated from procedure technicalities when they ceased to be instruments
of justice, for the attainment of which such rules have been devised. Summarizing the jurisprudence
on this score, Mr. Justice Fernando, speaking for a unanimous Court in Palma vs. Oreta, 30-f Stated:

As was so aptly expressed by Justice Moreland in Alonso v. Villamor (16 Phil. 315
[1910]. The Villamor decision was cited with approval in Register of Deeds v. Phil.
Nat. Bank, 84 Phil. 600 [1949]; Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156 [1958]
and Uy v. Uy, 14243, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 675.), decided as far back as 1910,
"technicality. when it deserts its proper-office as an aid to justice and becomes its
great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." (Ibid.,
p, 322.) To that norm, this Court has remained committed. The late Justice Recto in
Blanco v. Bernabe, (63 Phil. 124 [1936]) was of a similar mind. For him the
interpretation of procedural rule should never "sacrifice the ends justice." While
"procedural laws are no other than technicalities" view them in their entirety, 'they
were adopted not as ends themselves for the compliance with which courts have
organized and function, but as means conducive to the realization the administration
of the law and of justice (Ibid., p.,128). We have remained steadfastly opposed, in
the highly rhetorical language Justice Felix, to "a sacrifice of substantial rights of a
litigant in altar of sophisticated technicalities with impairment of the sacred principles
of justice." (Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156, 161 [1958]). As succinctly
put by Justice Makalintal, they "should give way to the realities of the situation."
(Urbayan v. Caltex, L-15379, Aug. 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 1016, 1019). In the latest
decision in point promulgated in 1968, (Udan v. Amon, (1968, 23 SCRA citing
McEntee v. Manotok, L-14968, Oct. 27, 1961, 3 SCRA 272.) Justice Zaldivar was
partial to an earlier formulation of Justice Labrador that rules of procedure "are not to
be applied in a very rigid, technical sense"; but are intended "to help secure
substantial justice." (Ibid., p. 843) ... 30-g

Even if the questioned Court of Industrial Relations orders and rule were to be given effect, the
dismissal or termination of the employment of the petitioning eight (8) leaders of the Union is harsh
for a one-day absence from work. The respondent Court itself recognized the severity of such a
sanction when it did not include the dismissal of the other 393 employees who are members of the
same Union and who participated in the demonstration against the Pasig police. As a matter of fact,
upon the intercession of the Secretary of Labor, the Union members who are not officers, were not
dismissed and only the Union itself and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named as
respondents in the unfair labor practice charge filed against them by the firm (pp. 16-20,
respondent's Brief; Annexes "A", "B" and "C", pp. 20-30, rec.). Counsel for respondent firm
insinuates that not all the 400 or so employee participated in the demonstration, for which reason
only the Union and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named in the unfair labor practice
charge (p. 20, respondent's brief). If that were so, then many, if not all, of the morning and regular
shifts reported for work on March 4, 1969 and that, as a consequence, the firm continued in
operation that day and did not sustain any damage.

The appropriate penalty — if it deserves any penalty at all — should have been simply to charge
said one-day absence against their vacation or sick leave. But to dismiss the eight (8) leaders of the
petitioner Union is a most cruel penalty, since as aforestated the Union leaders depend on their
wages for their daily sustenance as well as that of their respective families aside from the fact that it
is a lethal blow to unionism, while at the same time strengthening the oppressive hand of the petty
tyrants in the localities.

Mr. Justice Douglas articulated this pointed reminder:

 The challenge to our liberties comes frequently not from those who consciously seek
to destroy our system of Government, but from men of goodwill — good men who
allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to
accomplish involves an impairment of liberty.

... The Motives of these men are often commendable. What we must remember,
however, is that preservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression
of liberty has the same effect whether the suppress or be a reformer or an outlaw.
The only protection against misguided zeal is a constant alertness of the infractions
of the guarantees of liberty contained in our Constitution. Each surrender of liberty to
the demands of the moment makes easier another, larger surrender. The battle over
the Bill of Rights is a never ending one.

... The liberties of any person are the liberties of all of us.

... In short, the Liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.

... But even if we should sense no danger to our own liberties, even if we feel secure
because we belong to a group that is important and respected, we must recognize
that our Bill of Rights is a code of fair play for the less fortunate that we in all honor
and good conscience must be observe. 31

The case at bar is worse.

Management has shown not only lack of good-will or good intention, but a complete lack of
sympathetic understanding of the plight of its laborers who claim that they are being subjected to
indignities by the local police, It was more expedient for the firm to conserve its income or profits
than to assist its employees in their fight for their freedoms and security against alleged petty
tyrannies of local police officers. This is sheer opportunism. Such opportunism and expediency
resorted to by the respondent company assaulted the immunities and welfare of its employees. It
was pure and implement selfishness, if not greed.

Of happy relevance is the 1967 case of Republic Savings Bank vs. C.I.R., 32 where the petitioner
Bank dismissed eight (8) employees for having written and published "a patently libelous letter ... to
the Bank president demanding his resignation on the grounds of immorality, nepotism in the
appointment and favoritism as well as discrimination in the promotion of bank employees." Therein,
thru Mr. Justice Castro, We ruled:

It will avail the Bank none to gloat over this admission of the respondents. Assuming
that the latter acted in their individual capacities when they wrote the letter-charge
they were nonetheless protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in the
exercise of their right of self organization that includes concerted activity for mutual
aid and protection, (Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act ...) This is the view of some
members of this Court. For, as has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or
demands, even by a small group of employees, if in furtherance of their interests as
such, is a concerted activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary
that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. (Annot.,
6 A.L.R. 2d 416 [1949]).

xxx xxx xxx

 Instead of stifling criticism, the Bank should have allowed the respondents to air their
grievances.

xxx xxx xxx

The Bank defends its action by invoking its right to discipline for what it calls the
respondents' libel in giving undue publicity to their letter-charge. To be sure, the right
of self-organization of employees is not unlimited (Republic Aviation Corp. vs. NLRB
324 U.S. 793 [1945]), as the right of the employer to discharge for cause (Philippine
Education Co. v. Union of Phil. Educ. Employees, L-13773, April 29, 1960) is
undenied. The Industrial Peace Act does not touch the normal exercise of the right of
the employer to select his employees or to discharge them. It is directed solely
against the abuse of that right by interfering with the countervailing right of self
organization (Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB 313 U.S. 177 [1941])...

xxx xxx xxx

In the final sum and substance, this Court is in unanimity that the Bank's conduct,
identified as an interference with the employees' right of self-organization or as a
retaliatory action, and/or as a refusal to bargain collectively, constituted an unfair
labor practice within the meaning and intendment of section 4(a) of the Industrial
Peace Act. (Emphasis supplied.) 33

If free expression was accorded recognition and protection to fortify labor unionism in the Republic
Savings case, supra, where the complaint assailed the morality and integrity of the bank president
no less, such recognition and protection for free speech, free assembly and right to petition are
rendered all the more justifiable and more imperative in the case at bar, where the mass
demonstration was not against the company nor any of its officers.

WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered:

(1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated
September 15 and October 9, 1969; and

(2) directing the re instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from the date of
their separation from the service until re instated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings they
might have realized from other sources during their separation from the service.

With costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Company, Inc.

Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Esguerra, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, C.J, took no part.

Separate Opinions
BARREDO, J., dissenting:

I bow in respectful and sincere admiration, but my sense of duty compels me to dissent.

The background of this case may be found principally in the stipulation of facts upon which the
decision under review is based. It is as follows:

1. That complainant Philippine Blooming Mills, Company, Inc., is a corporation

existing and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines with
corporate address at 666 Muelle de Binondo, Manila, which is the employer of
respondent;

2. That Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization PBMEO for short, is a

legitimate labor organization, and the respondents herein are either officers of
respondent PBMEO or members thereof;

3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass

demonstration at Malacañang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police
Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM — 2:00 PM workers as well
as those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
in the morning of March 4, 1969;

4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M.
at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur
L. Ang, (2) Atty. Cesareo S. de Leon, Jr. (3) and all department and section heads.
For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4)
Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu.

5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass
demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who
acted as the spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration
and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already
been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration
has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute
with Management;

6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager,

informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union
guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for
that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For
which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, warned the PBMEO
representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without
previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers
present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work
the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a
violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike;

7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked.
Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of:
 Nicanor Tolentino, Rodulfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In
this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the
PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacañang
demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be
excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize
the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA,
particularly Article XXIV "NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE". All those who will not follow
this warning of the Company shall be dismissed; De Leon reiterated the Company's
warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass
demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their
plans inasmuch as the Malacañang demonstration will be held the following morning;
and

8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the
Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are
as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING
DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969.

Additionally, the trial court found that "the projected demonstration did in fact occur and in the
process paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company". (p. 5, Annex F).

Upon these facts the Prosecution Division of the Court of Industrial Relations filed with said court a
complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against petitioners charging that: .

3. That on March 4, 1969, respondents (petitioners herein) particularly those in the

first shift, in violation of the existing collective bargaining agreement and without filing
the necessary notice as provided for by law, failed to report for work, amounting to a
declaration of strike;

4. That the above acts are in violation of Section 4(a) subparagraph 6, in relation to
Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Republic Act No. 875, and of the collective bargaining
agreement. (Pars. 3 and 4, Annex C.)

After due hearing, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which read's:

IN VIEW HEREOF, the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Employees

Organization is found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and is hereby ordered to cease
and desist from further committing the same and its representatives namely:
respondent Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion
Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo
Monsod who are directly responsible for perpetrating this unfair labor practice act,
are hereby considered to have lost their status as employees of the Philippine
Blooming Mills, Inc. (p. 8, Annex F.)

Although it is alleged in the petition herein that petitioners were notified of this decision on
September 23, 1969, there seems to be no serious question that they were actually served therewith
on September 22, 1969. In fact, petitioners admitted this date of notice in paragraph 2 of their
Petition for Relief dated October 30, 1969 and filed with the industrial court on the following day.
(See Annex K.)

It is not controverted that it was only on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days after they were
notified of the court's decision, that petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration with the industrial
court; as it is also not disputed that they filed their "Arguments in Support of the Respondents'
Motion for Reconsideration" only on October 14, 1969. (See Annex I.) In other words, petitioners'
motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days after the lapse of the five (5) day period provided
for the filing thereof in the rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, whereas the "Arguments" were
filed five (5) days after the expiration of the period therefor also specified in the same rules.

Accordingly, the first issue that confronts the Court is the one raised by respondent private firm,
namely, that in view of the failure of petitioners to file not only their motion for reconsideration but
also their arguments in support thereof within the periods respectively fixed in the rules therefor, the
Court of Industrial Relations acted correctly and within the law in rendering and issuing its impugned
order of October 9, 1969 dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Respondent's contention presents no problem. Squarely applicable to the facts hereof is the decision
of this Court in Elizalde & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations1 wherein it was ruled that:

August 6, 1963. Petitioner received a copy of the decision of the then Associate
Judge Arsenio I. Martinez, the dispositive part of which was set forth earlier in this
opinion.

August 12, 1963. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. No arguments were
advanced in support thereof.

August 21, 1963. Petitioner moved for additional time to file its arguments in support
of its motion to reconsider.

August 27, 1963. Petitioner filed its arguments in support of its aforesaid motion
seeking reconsideration.

September 16, 1963. CIR en banc resolved to dismiss the motion for
reconsideration. Ground therefor was that the arguments were filed out of time.

October 3, 1963. Petitioner filed its notice of appeal and at the same time lodged the
present petition with this Court.

Upon respondent Perlado's return and petitioner's brief (respondents did not file their
brief), the case is now before us for resolution.

1. That the judgment appealed from is a final judgment — not merely an interlocutory
order — there is no doubt. The fact that there is need for computation of respondent
Perlado's overtime pay would not render the decision incomplete. This in effect is the
holding of the Court in Pan American World Airways System (Philippines) vs. Pan
American Employees Association, which runs thus: 'It is next contended that in
ordering the Chief of the Examining Division or his representative to compute the
compensation due, the Industrial Court unduly delegated its judicial functions and
thereby rendered an incomplete decision. We do not believe so. Computation of the
overtime pay involves a mechanical function, at most. And the report would still have
to be submitted to the Industrial Court for its approval, by the very terms of the order
itself. That there was no specification of the amount of overtime pay in the decision
did not make it incomplete, since this matter should necessarily be made clear
enough in the implementation of the decision (see Malate Taxicab & Garage, Inc. vs.
CIR, et al.,
L-8718, May 11, 1956).
2. But has that judgment reached the stage of finality in the sense that it can no
longer, be disturbed?

CIR Rules of Procedure, as amended, and the jurisprudence of this Court both
answer the question in the affirmative.

Section 15 of the CIR Rules requires that one who seeks to reconsider the judgment
of the trial judge must do so within five (5) days from the date on which he received
notice of the decision, subject of the motion. Next follows Section 16 which says that
the motion must be submitted with arguments supporting the same. But if said
arguments could not be submitted simultaneously with the motion, the same section
commands the 'the movant shall file the same within ten (10) days from the date of
the filing of his motion for reconsideration.' Section 17 of the same rules admonishes
a movant that "(f)ailure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient
cause for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer
and/or the supporting arguments, as the case may be".

Not that the foregoing rules stand alone. Jurisprudence has since stabilized the
enforceability thereof. Thus, in Bien vs. Castillo, (97 Phil. 956) we ruled that where a
pro forma motion for reconsideration was filed out of time its denial is in order
pursuant to CIR rules, regardless of whether the arguments in support of said motion
were or were not filed on time. Pangasinan Employees Laborers & Tenants
Association (PELTA) vs. Martinez, (L-13846, May 20, 1960) pronounced that where
a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, the order or decision subject of
reconsideration comes final. And so also, where the arguments in support of the
motion for reconsideration are filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period, the pre
forma motion for reconsideration although seasonably filed must nevertheless be
denied. This in essence is our ruling in Local 7, Press & Printing Free Workers (FFW)
vs. Tabigne. The teaching in Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, is that where the motion for reconsideration is denied upon the ground that
the arguments in support thereof were filed out of time, the order or decision subject
of the motion becomes "final and unappealable".

We find no difficulty in applying the foregoing rules and pronouncements of this Court
in the case before us. On August 6, petitioner received a copy of the judgment of
Judge Arsenio I. Martinez aforesaid. Petitioner's motion to reconsider — without
arguments in support thereof — of August 12 was filed on time. For, August 11, the
end of the five-day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration, was a
Sunday. But, actually, the written arguments in support of the said motion were
submitted to the court on August 27. The period from August 12 to August 27, is a
space of fifteen (15) days. Surely enough, said arguments were filed out of time —
five (5) days late. And the judgment had become final.

3. There is, of course, petitioner's motion of August 21, 1963 seeking extension of
time within which to present its arguments in support of its motion. Counsel in his
petition before this Court pleads that the foregoing motion was grounded on the
'extremely busy and difficult schedule of counsel which would not enable him to do
so within the stated ten-day reglementary period. The arguments were only filed on
August 27 — five (5) days late, as aforesaid.

The foregoing circumstances will not avail petitioner any. It is to be noted that the
motion for expansion of time was filed only on August 21, that is, one day before the
 due date which is August 22. It was petitioner's duty to see to it that the court act on
this motion forthwith or at least inquire as to the fate thereof not later than the 22nd of
August. It did not. It merely filed its arguments on the 27th.

To be underscored at this point is that "obviously to speed up the disposition of

cases", CIR "has a standing rule against the extension of the ten-day period for filing
supporting arguments". That no-extension policy should have placed petitioner on
guard. It should not have simply folded its arms, sit by supinely and relied on the
court's generosity. To compound petitioner's neglect, it filed the arguments only on
August 27, 1953, knowing full well that by that time the reglementary period had
expired.

Petitioner cannot complain against CIR's ruling of September 16, 1963 dismissing
the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the supporting arguments were
filed out of time. That ruling in effect denied the motion for extension.

We rule that CIR's judgment has become final and unappealable. We may not review
the same.

Notwithstanding this unequivocal and unmistakable precedent, which has not been in any way
modified, much less revoked or reversed by this Court, the main opinion has chosen not only to go
into the merits of petitioners' pose that the respondent court erred in holding them guilty of
bargaining in bad faith but also to ultimately uphold petitioners' claim for reinstatement on
constitutional grounds.

Precisely because the conclusions of the main opinion are predicated on an exposition of the
constitutional guarantees of freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for redress of grievances,
so scholarly and masterful that it is bound to overwhelm Us unless We note carefully the real issues
in this case, I am constrained, over and above my sincere admiration for the eloquence and zeal of
Mr. Justice Makasiar's brilliant dissertation, to dutifully state that as presented by petitioners
themselves and in the light of its attendant circumstances, this case does not call for the resolution
of any constitutional issue. Admittedly, the invocation of any constitutional guarantee, particularly
when it directly affects individual freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights, deserves the closest
attention of this Court. It is my understanding of constitutional law and judicial practices related
thereto, however, that even the most valuable of our constitutional rights may be protected by the
courts only when their jurisdiction over the subject matter is unquestionably established and the
applicable rules of procedure consistent with substantive and procedural due process are observed.
No doubt no constitutional right can be sacrificed in the altar of procedural technicalities, very often
fittingly downgraded as niceties but as far as I know, this principle is applied to annul or set aside
final judgments only in cases wherein there is a possible denial of due process. I have not come
across any instance, and none is mentioned or cited in the well-documented main opinion, wherein a
final and executory judgment has been invalidated and set aside upon the ground that the same has
the effect of sanctioning the violation of a constitutional right, unless such violation amounts to a
denial of due process.

Without support from any provision of the constitution or any law or from any judicial precedent or
reason of principle, the main opinion nudely and unqualifiedly asserts, as if it were universally
established and accepted as an absolute rule, that the violation of a constitutional right divests the
court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no
rights". Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, which is mentioned almost in passing, does
uphold the proposition that "relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional
liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even after the finality of the
judgment". And, of course, Chavez is correct; as is also Abriol vs. Homeres2 which, in principle,
served as its precedent, for the very simple reason that in both of those cases, the accused were
denied due process. In Chavez, the accused was compelled to testify against himself as a witness
for the prosecution; in Abriol, the accused was denied his request to be allowed to present evidence
to establish his defense after his demurrer to the People's evidence was denied.

As may be seen, however, the constitutional issues involved in those cases are a far cry from the
one now before Us. Here, petitioners do not claim they were denied due process. Nor do they
pretend that in denying their motion for reconsideration, "the respondent Court of Industrial Relations
and private firm trenched upon any of their constitutional immunities ...," contrary to the statement to
such effect in the main opinion. Indeed, neither in the petition herein nor in any of the other pleading
of petitioners can any direct or indirect assertion be found assailing the impugned decision of the
respondent court as being null and void because it sanctioned a denial of a valued constitutional
liberty.

In their petition, petitioners state the issue for Our resolution as follows:

Petitioners herein humbly submit that the issue to be resolved is whether or not the
respondent Court en banc under the facts and circumstances, should consider the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by your petitioners.

Petitioners, therefore, in filing this petition for a writ of certiorari, humbly beg this
Honorable Court to treat this petition under Rule 43 and 65 of the Rules of Court.

xxx xxx xxx

The basic issue therefore is the application by the Court en banc of the strict and
narrow technical rules of procedure without taking into account justice, equity and
substantial merits of the case.

On the other hand, the complete argument submitted by petitioners on this point in
their brief runs thus:

III

ISSUES

1. Does the refusal to heed a warning in the exercise of a fundamental right to

peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances constitute
bargaining in bad faith? and,

Do the facts found by the court below justify the declaration and conclusion that the
union was guilty of bargaining in bad faith meriting the dismissal of the persons
allegedly responsible therefore?

2. Was there grave abuse of discretion when the respondent court refused to act one
way or another on the petition for relief from the resolution of October 9, 1969?

IV

ARGUMENT
The respondent Court erred in finding the petition union guilty of bargaining in bad
faith and consequently dismissing the persons allegedly responsible therefor,
because such conclusion is country to the evidence on record; that the dismissal of
leaders was discriminatory.

As a result of exercising the constitutional rights of freedom to assemble and petition

the duly constituted authorities for redress of their grievances, the petitioners were
charged and then condemned of bargaining in bad faith.

The findings that petitioners were guilty of bargaining in bad faith were not borne out
by the records. It was not even alleged nor proven by evidence. What has been
alleged and which the respondent company tried to prove was that the demonstration
amounted to a strike and hence, a violation of the provisions of the "no-lockout — no
strike" clause of the collective bargaining agreement. However, this allegation and
proof submitted by the respondent company were practically resolved when the
respondent court in the same decision stated categorically:

'The company alleges that the walkout because of the demonstration

is tantamount to a declaration of a strike. We do not think so, as the
same is not rooted in any industrial dispute although there is a
concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work.'
(Emphasis supplied, p. 4, 5th paragraph, Decision.)

The respondent court's findings that the petitioner union bargained in

bad faith is not tenable because:

First, it has not been alleged nor proven by the respondent company; .

Second, before the demonstration, the petitioner union and the respondent company
convened twice in a meeting to thresh out the matter of demonstration. Petitioners
requested that the employees and workers be excused but the respondent company
instead of granting the request or even settling the matter so that the hours of work
will not be disrupted, immediately threatened the employees of mass dismissal;

Third, the refusal of the petitioner union to grant the request of the company that the
first shift shall be excluded in the demonstration is not tantamount to bargaining in
bad faith because the company knew that the officers of the union belonged to the
first shift, and that the union cannot go and lead the demonstration without their
officers. It must be stated that the company intends to prohibit its officers to lead and
join the demonstration because most of them belonged to the first shift; and

Fourth, the findings of the respondent court that the demonstration if allowed will
practically give the union the right to change the working conditions agreed in the
CBA is a conclusion of facts, opinionated and not borne by any evidence on record.
The demonstration did not practically change the terms or conditions of employment
because it was only for one (1) day and the company knew about it before it went
through. We can even say that it was the company who bargained in bad faith, when
upon representation of the Bureau of Labor not to dismiss the employees
demonstrating, the company tacitly approved the same and yet while the
demonstration was in progress, the company filed a ULP Charge and consequently
dismissed those who participated.
 Records of the case show that more or less 400 members of the union participated in
the demonstration and yet, the respondent court selected the eight officers to be
dismissed from the union thus losing their status as employees of the respondent
company. The respondent court should have taken into account that the company's
action in allowing the return of more or less three hundred ninety two (392)
employees/members of the union is an act of condonation and the dismissal of the
eight (8) officers is an act of discrimination (Phil. Air Lines Inc., vs. Phil. Air Lines
Employees Association, G.R. No. L-8197, Oct. 31, 1958). Seemingly, from the
opinion stated in the decision by the court, while there is a collective bargaining
agreement, the union cannot go on demonstration or go on strike because it will
change the terms and conditions of employment agreed in the CBA. It follows that
the CBA is over and above the constitutional rights of a man to demonstrate and the
statutory rights of a union to strike as provided for in Republic Act 875. This creates a
bad precedent because it will appear that the rights of the union is solely dependent
upon the CBA.

One of the cardinal primary rights which must be respected in proceedings before the
Court of Industrial Relations is that "the decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected." (Interstate Commerce Commission vs. L & N R. Co., 227 U.S. 88,
33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law ed. 431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the
evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their rights to know
and meet the case against them. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-45496, February
27, 1940.)

The petitioners respectfully and humbly submit that there is no scintilla of evidence to
support the findings of the respondent court that the petitioner union bargained in
bad faith. Corollary therefore, the dismissal of the individual petitioners is without
basis either in fact or in law.

Additionally, in their reply they also argued that:

1) That respondent court's finding that petitioners have been guilty of bargaining in
bad faith and consequently lost their status as employees of the respondent
company did not meet the meaning and comprehension of "substantial merits of the
case." Bargaining in bad faith has not been alleged in the complaint (Annex "C",
Petition) nor proven during the hearing of the can. The important and substantial
merit of the case is whether under the facts and circumstances alleged in respondent
company's pleadings, the demonstration done by the petitioners amounted to on
"illegal strike" and therefore in violation of the "no strike — no lock out" clause of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Petitioners respectfully reiterate and humbly
submit, that the respondent court had altogether opined and decided that such
demonstration does not amount to a strike. Hence, with that findings, petitioners
should have been absolved of the charges against them. Nevertheless, the same
respondent court disregarding, its own findings, went out of bounds by declaring the
petitioners as having "bargained in faith." The stand of the respondent court is
fallacious, as it follows the principle in logic as "non-siquitor";

2) That again respondents wanted to impress that the freedom to assemble

peaceably to air grievances against the duly constituted authorities as guaranteed in
our Constitution is subject to the limitation of the agreement in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. The fundamental rights of the petitioners to free speech and
 assembly is paramount to the provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
such attempt to override the constitutional provision would be null and void. These
fundamental rights of the petitioners were not taken into consideration in the
deliberation of the case by the respondent court;

Thus, it is clear from the foregoing contentions that petitioners are not raising any issue of due
process. They do not posit that the decision of the industrial court is null and void on that
constitutional ground. True it is that they fault the respondent court for having priced the provisions
of the collective bargaining agreement herein involved over and above their constitutional right to
peaceably assemble and petition for redress of their grievances against the abuses of the Pasig
police, but in no sense at all do they allege or contend that such action affects its jurisdiction in a
manner that renders the proceedings a nullity. In other words, petitioners themselves consider the
alleged flaw in the court's action as a mere error of judgment rather than that of jurisdiction which the
main opinion projects. For this Court to roundly and indignantly condemn private respondent now for
the grievous violation of the fundamental law the main opinion sees in its refusal to allow all its
workers to join the demonstration in question, when that specific issue has not been duly presented
to Us and properly argued, is to my mind unfair and unjust, for the simple reason that the manner
this case was brought to Us does not afford it the opportunity to be heard in regard to such
supposed constitutional transgression.

To be sure, petitioners do maintain, that respondent court committed an error of jurisdiction by

finding petitioners guilty of bargaining in bad faith when the charge against them alleged in the
complaint was for having conducted a mass demonstration, which "amounted to a strike", in violation
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but definitely, this jurisdictional question has no
constitutional color. Indeed, We can even assume for the sake of argument, that the trial judge did
err in not giving preferential importance to the fundamental freedoms invoked by the petitioners over
the management and proprietary attributes claimed by the respondent private firm — still, We cannot
rightly hold that such disregard of petitioners' priceless liberties divested His Honor of jurisdiction in
the premises. The unbending doctrine of this Court is that "decisions, erroneous or not, become final
after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless, no questions would be finally settled; and
titles to property would become precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them at any
time in the future".3

I only have to add to this that the fact that the error is in the interpretation, construction or application
of a constitutional precept not constituting a denial of due process, should not make any difference.
Juridically, a party cannot be less injured by an overlooked or erroneously sanctioned violation of an
ordinary statute than by a misconstrued or constitutional injunction affecting his individual, freedoms.
In both instances, there is injustice which should be intolerable were it not for the more paramount
considerations that inform the principle of immutability of final judgments. I dare say this must be the
reason why, as I have already noted, the main opinion does not cite any constitutional provision, law
or rule or any judicial doctrine or principle supporting its basic holding that infringement of
constitutional guarantees, other than denial of due process, divests courts of jurisdiction to render
valid judgments.

In this connection, it must be recalled that the teaching of Philippine Association of Colleges
and Universities vs. Secretary of Education,4 following Santiago vs. Far Eastern Broadcasting,5 is
that "it is one of our (the Supreme Court's) decisional practices that unless a constitutional point is
specifically raised, insisted upon and adequately argued, the court will not consider it". In the case at
bar, the petitioners have not raised, they are not insisting upon, much less have they adequately
argued the constitutional issues so extendedly and ably discussed in the main opinion.
Indeed, it does not seem wise and sound for the Supreme Court to hold that the erroneous
resolution by a court of a constitutional issue not amounting to a denial of due process renders its
judgment or decision null and void, and, therefore, subject to attack even after said judgment or
decision has become final and executory. I have actually tried to bring myself into agreement with
the views of the distinguished and learned writer of the main opinion, if only to avoid dissenting from
his well prepared thesis, but its obvious incongruity with settled jurisprudence always comes to the
fore to stifle my effort.

As a matter of fact, for a moment, it appeared to me as if I could go along with petitioners under the
authority of our constitutionally irreducible appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(5) of Article VII of
the Philippines6 (reenacted practically ipssisimis verbis in Section 5(2) of the 1973 Constitution), only
to realize upon further reflection that the very power granted to us to review decisions of lower courts
involving questions of law(and these include constitutional issues not affecting the validity of
statutes, treaty, executive agreement, etc.) is not unqualified but has to be exercised only in the
manner provided in the law of the Rules of Court. In other words, before We can exercise appellate
jurisdiction over constitutional issues, no matter how important they may be, there must first be a
showing of compliance with the applicable procedural law or rules, among them, those governing
appeals from the Court of Industrial Relations involved herein. Consequently, if by law or rule, a
judgment of the industrial court is already final and executory, this Court would be devoid of power
and authority to review, much less alter or modify the same, absent any denial of due process or
fatal defect of jurisdiction. It must be borne in mind that the situation confronting Us now is not
merely whether or not We should pass upon a question or issue not specifically raised by the party
concerned, which, to be sure, could be enough reason to dissuade Us from taking pains in resolving
the same; rather, the real problem here is whether or not We have jurisdiction to entertain it. And, in
this regard, as already stated earlier, no less than Justice Conrado Sanchez, the writer of
Chavez, supra., which is being relied upon by the main opinion, already laid down the precedent
in Elizalde vs. Court, supra, which for its four-square applicability to the facts of this case, We have
no choice but to follow, that is, that in view of reconsideration but even their argument supporting the
same within the prescribed period, "the judgment (against them)has become final, beyond recall".

Indeed, when I consider that courts would be useless if the finality and enforceability of their
judgments are made contingent on the correctness thereof from the constitutional standpoint, and
that in truth, whether or not they are correct is something that is always dependent upon combined
opinion of the members of the Supreme Court, which in turn is naturally as changeable as the
members themselves are changed, I cannot conceive of anything more pernicious and destructive to
a trustful administration of justice than the idea that, even without any showing of denial of due
process or want of jurisdiction of the court, a final and executory judgment of such court may still be
set aside or reopened in instances other than those expressly allowed by Rule 38 and that of
extrinsic fraud under Article 1146(1) of the Civil Code.7 And just to emphasize the policy of the law of
respecting judgments once they have become final, even as this Court has ruled that final decisions
are mute in the presence of fraud which the law abhors,8 it is only when the fraud is extrinsic and not
intrinsic that final and executory judgments may be set aside,9 and this only when the remedy is
sought within the prescriptive period. 10

Apropos here is the following passage in Li Kim Those vs. Go Sin Kaw, 82 Phil. 776:

Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an
effective and efficient administration of justice that once a judgment has become
final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of
the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring
about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts
should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Likewise the stern admonition of Justice George Malcolm in Dy Cay v. Crossfield, 38 Phil. 521, thus:

... Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors,
judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. The very
object for which courts were instituted was to put an end to controversies. To fulfill
this purpose and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to
be set up to spur on the slothful. 'If a vacillating, irresolute judge were allowed to thus
keep causes ever within his power, to determine and redetermine them term after
term, to bandy his judgments about from one party to the other, and to change his
conclusions as freely and as capriciously as a chamelon may change its hues, then
litigation might become more intolerable than the wrongs it is intended to redress.'
(See Arnedo vs. Llorente and Liongson (1911), 18 Phil., 257.).

My disagreement with the dissenters in Republic vs. Judge de los Angeles,

L-26112, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 422, was not as to the unalterability and invulnerability of final
judgments but rather on the correct interpretation of the contents of the judgment in question therein.
Relevantly to this case at bar, I said then:

The point of res adjudicata discussed in the dissents has not escaped my attention.
Neither am I overlooking the point of the Chief Justice regarding the dangerous and
inimical implications of a ruling that would authorize the revision, amendment or
alteration of a final and executory judgment. I want to emphasize that my position in
this opinion does not detract a whit from the soundness, authority and binding force
of existing doctrines enjoining any such modifications. The public policy of
maintaining faith and respect in judicial decisions, which inform said doctrines, is
admittedly of the highest order. I am not advocating any departure from them. Nor
am I trying to put forth for execution a decision that I believe should have been rather
than what it is. All I am doing is to view not the judgment of Judge Tengco but the
decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-20950, as it is and not as I believe it should have
been, and, by opinion, I would like to guide the court a quo as to what, in my own
view, is the true and correct meaning and implications of decision of this Court, not
that of Judge Tengco's.

The main opinion calls attention to many instant precisely involving cases in the industrial court,
wherein the Court refused to be constrained by technical rules of procedure in its determination to
accord substantial justice to the parties I still believe in those decisions, some of which were penned
by me. I am certain, however, that in none of those precedents did this Court disturb a judgment
already final and executory. It too obvious to require extended elucidation or even reference any
precedent or authority that the principle of immutability of final judgments is not a mere technicality,
and if it may considered to be in a sense a procedural rule, it is one that is founded on public policy
and cannot, therefore, yield to the ordinary plea that it must give priority to substantial justice.

Apparently vent on looking for a constitutional point of due process to hold on, the main opinion goes
far as to maintain that the long existing and constantly applied rule governing the filing of motions for
reconsideration in the Court of Industrial Relations, "as applied in this case does not implement on
reinforce or strengthen the constitutional rights affected, but instead constricts the same to the point
of nullifying the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court on Industrial Relations
Rule, promulgated as it was pursuant to mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore
is beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which
to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieve workers, who usually do
not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeal
and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re-
hearing or reconsideration (Sec. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of
Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if
September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of
Industrial Relations Rule insofar as circumstances of the instant case are concerned."

I am afraid the zeal and passion of these arguments do not justify the conclusion suggested. Viewed
objectively, it can readily be seen that there can hardly be any factual or logical basis for such a
critical view of the rule in question. Said rule provides:

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

Sec. 15. The movant shall file the motion, in six copies, within five (5) days from the
date on which he receives notice of the order or decision, object of the motion for
reconsideration, the same to be verified under oath with respect to the correctness of
the allegations of fact, and serving a copy thereof, personally or by registered mail,
on the adverse party. The latter may file an answer, in six (6) copies, duly verified
under oath.

Sec. 16. Both the motion and the answer shall be submitted with arguments
supporting the same. If the arguments can not be submitted simultaneously with said
motions, upon notice Court, the movant shall file same within ten (10) days from the
date of the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The adverse party shall also file
his answer within ten (10) days from the receipt by him of a copy of the arguments
submitted by the movant.

Sec. 17. After an answer to the motion is registered, or after ten (10) days from the
receipt of the arguments in support of said motion having been filed, the motion shall
be deemed submitted for resolution of the Court in banc, unless it is considered
necessary to bear oral arguments, in which case the Court shall issue the
corresponding order or notice to that effect.

Failure to observe the above-specified periods shall be sufficient cause for dismissal
of the motion for reconsideration or striking out of the answer and/or the supporting
arguments, as the case may be. (As amended April 20, 1951, Court of Industrial
Relations.).

As implemented and enforced in actual practice, this rule, as everyone acquainted with proceedings
in the industrial court well knows, precisely permits the party aggrieved by a judgment to file no more
than a pro-forma motion for reconsideration without any argument or lengthy discussion and with
barely a brief statement of the fundamental ground or grounds therefor, without prejudice to
supplementing the same by making the necessary exposition, with citations laws and authorities, in
the written arguments the be filed (10) days later. In truth, such a pro-forma motion has to effect of
just advising the court and the other party that the movant does not agree with the judgment due to
fundamental defects stated in brief and general terms. Evidently, the purpose of this requirement is
to apprise everyone concerned within the shortest possible time that a reconsideration is to sought,
and thereby enable the parties concerned to make whatever adjustments may be warranted by the
situation, in the meanwhile that the litigation is prolonged. It must borne in mind that cases in the
industrial court may involve affect the operation of vital industries in which labor-management
problems might require day-to-day solutions and it is to the best interests of justice and concerned
that the attitude of each party at every imports juncture of the case be known to the other so that
both avenues for earlier settlement may, if possible, be explored.
There can be no reason at all to complain that the time fixed by the rule is short or inadequate. In
fact, the motion filed petitioners was no more than the following:

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COME NOW movant respondents, through counsel, to this Honorable Court most
respectfully moves for the RECONSIDERATION of the Order of this Honorable Court
dated September 17, 1969 on the ground that the same is not in accordance with
law, evidence and facts adduced during the hearing of the above entitled case.

Movant-respondents most respectfully move for leave to file their respective

arguments within ten (10) days pursuant to Section 15, 16 & 17 as amended of the
Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration be

admitted.

Manila, September 27, 1969.

To say that five (5) days is an unreasonable period for the filing of such a motion is to
me simply incomprehensible. What worse in this case is that petitioners have not
even taken the trouble of giving an explanation of their inability to comply with the
rule. Not only that, petitioners were also late five (5) days in filing their written
arguments in support of their motion, and, the only excuse offered for such delay is
that both the President of the Union and the office clerk who took charge of the
matter forgot to do what they were instructed to do by counsel, which, according to
this Court, as I shall explain anon "is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge
employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by
the Rules of Court". (Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Arca, infra). And yet, very
indignantly, the main opinion would want the Court to overlook such nonchalance
and indifference.

In this connection, I might add that in my considered opinion, the rules fixing periods for the finality of
judgments are in a sense more substantive than procedural in their real nature, for in their operation
they have the effect of either creating or terminating rights pursuant to the terms of the particular
judgment concerned. And the fact that the court that rendered such final judgment is deprived of
jurisdiction or authority to alter or modify the same enhances such substantive character. Moreover,
because they have the effect of terminating rights and the enforcement thereof, it may be said that
said rules partake of the nature also of rules of prescription, which again are substantive. Now, the
twin predicates of prescription are inaction or abandonment and the passage of time or a prescribed
period. On the other hand, procrastination or failure to act on time is unquestionably a form of
abandonment, particularly when it is not or cannot be sufficiently explained. The most valuable right
of a party may be lost by prescription, and be has no reason to complain because public policy
demands that rights must be asserted in time, as otherwise they can be deemed waived.

I see no justification whatsoever for not applying these self-evident principles to the case of
petitioners. Hence, I feel disinclined to adopt the suggestion that the Court suspend, for the
purposes of this case the rules aforequoted of the Court of Industrial Relations. Besides, I have
grave doubts as to whether we can suspend rules of other courts, particularly that is not under our
supervisory jurisdiction, being administrative agency under the Executive Department Withal, if, in
order to hasten the administration of substance justice, this Court did exercise in some instances its
re power to amend its rules, I am positively certain, it has done it for the purpose of reviving a case
in which the judo has already become final and executory.

Before closing, it may be mentioned here, that as averred their petition, in a belated effort to salvage
their Petitioners filed in the industrial court on October 31, 1969 a Petition for relief alleging that their
failure to file "Arguments in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary
period or five (5), if not seven (7), days late "was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake
committed by the President of the respondent Union and on office clerk of the counsel for
respondents as shown attested in their respective affidavits", (See Annexes K, and K-2) which in
brief, consisted allegedly of the President's having forgotten his appointment with his lawyer "despite
previous instructions and of the said office employee having also coincidentally forgotten "to do the
work instructed (sic) to (him) by Atty. Osorio" because he "was busy with clerical jobs". No sympathy
at all can be evoked these allegations, for, under probably more justification circumstances, this
Court ruled out a similar explanation previous case this wise:

We find merit in PAL's petition. The excuse offered respondent Santos as reason for
his failure to perfect in due time appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court,
that counsel's clerk forgot to hand him the court notice, is the most hackneyed and
habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe procedural
requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. The uncritical acceptance of this kind
of common place excuses, in the face of the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that
they are neither credible nor constitutive of excusable negligence (Gaerlan vs.
Bernal, L-4039, 29 January 1952; Mercado vs. Judge Domingo, L-19457, December
1966) is certainly such whimsical exercise of judgment to be a grave abuse of
discretion. (Philippine Air Lines, Inc. Arca, 19 SCRA 300.)

For the reason, therefore, that the judgment of the industrial court sought to be reviewed in the
present case has already become final and executory, nay, not without the fault of the petitioners,
hence, no matter how erroneous from the constitutional viewpoint it may be, it is already beyond
recall, I vote to dismiss this case, without pronouncement as to costs.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

For having carried out a mass demonstration at Malacañang on March 4, 1969 in protest against
alleged abuses of the Pasig police department, upon two days' prior notice to respondent employer company, as
against the latter's insistence that the first shift 1 should not participate but instead report for work, under pain of dismissal, the industrial court
ordered the dismissal from employment of the eight individual petitioners as union officers and organizers of the mass demonstration.

Respondent court's order finding petitioner union guilty on respondent's complaint of bargaining in
bad faith and unfair labor practice for having so carried out the mass demonstration, notwithstanding
that it concededly was not a declaration of strike nor directed in any manner against respondent
employer, and ordering the dismissal of the union office manifestly constituted grave abuse of
discretion in fact and in law.

There could not be, in fact, bargaining in bad faith nor unfair labor practice since respondent firm
conceded that "the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed' by the Constitution"
and the union up to the day of the demonstration pleaded by cablegram to the company to excuse
the first shift and allow it to join the demonstration in accordance with their previous requests.

Neither could there be, in law, a willful violation of the collective bargaining agreement's "no-strike"
clause as would warrant the union leaders' dismissal, since as found by respondent court itself the
mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike, there being no industrial dispute between the
protagonists, but merely the occurrence of a temporary stoppage of work" to enable the workers to
exercise their constitutional rights of free expression, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of
grievance against alleged police excesses.

Respondent court's en banc resolution dismissing petitioners' motion for reconsideration for having
been filed two days late, after expiration of the reglementary five-day period fixed by its rules, due to
the negligence of petitioners' counsel and/or the union president should likewise be set aside as a
manifest act of grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners' petition for relief from the normal adverse
consequences of the late filing of their motion for reconsideration due to such negligence — which
was not acted upon by respondent court — should have been granted, considering the monstrous
injustice that would otherwise be caused the petitioners through their summary dismissal from
employment, simply because they sought in good faith to exercise basic human rights guaranteed
them by the Constitution. It should be noted further that no proof of actual loss from the one-day
stoppage of work was shown by respondent company, providing basis to the main opinion's premise
that its insistence on dismissal of the union leaders for having included the first shift workers in the
mass demonstration against its wishes was but an act of arbitrary vindictiveness.

Only thus could the basic constitutional rights of the individual petitioners and the constitutional
injunction to afford protection to labor be given true substance and meaning. No person may be
deprived of such basic rights without due process — which is but "responsiveness to the supremacy
of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and
unfairness avoided ... Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of
reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness."2

Accordingly, I vote for the setting aside of the appealed orders of the respondent court and concur in
the judgment for petitioners as set forth in the main opinion.
G.R. No. L-24693 July 31, 1967

ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC., HOTEL DEL MAR
INC. and GO CHIU, petitioners-appellees,
vs.
THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, respondent-appellant.
VICTOR ALABANZA, intervenor-appellee.

Panganiban, Abad and Associates Law Office for respondent-appellant.

J. M. Aruego, Tenchavez and Associates for intervenor-appellee.

FERNANDO, J.:

The principal question in this appeal from a judgment of the lower court in an action for prohibition is
whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due process clause. The lower
court held that it is and adjudged it "unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void." For reasons to be
more specifically set forth, such judgment must be reversed, there being a failure of the requisite
showing to sustain an attack against its validity.

The petition for prohibition against Ordinance No. 4760 was filed on July 5, 1963 by the petitioners,
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, one of its members, Hotel del Mar Inc., and a
certain Go Chiu, who is "the president and general manager of the second petitioner" against the
respondent Mayor of the City of Manila who was sued in his capacity as such "charged with the
general power and duty to enforce ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders
for the faithful execution and enforcement of such ordinances." (par. 1). It was alleged that the
petitioner non-stock corporation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the interest of its
eighteen (18) members "operating hotels and motels, characterized as legitimate businesses duly
licensed by both national and city authorities, regularly paying taxes, employing and giving livelihood
to not less than 2,500 person and representing an investment of more than P3 million."1 (par. 2). It
was then alleged that on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted
Ordinance No. 4760, approved on June 14, 1963 by the then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, who
was at the time acting as Mayor of the City of Manila. (par. 3).

After which the alleged grievances against the ordinance were set forth in detail. There was the
assertion of its being beyond the powers of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila to enact insofar
as it would regulate motels, on the ground that in the revised charter of the City of Manila or in any
other law, no reference is made to motels; that Section 1 of the challenged ordinance is
unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process insofar as it would
impose P6,000.00 fee per annum for first class motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; that
the provision in the same section which would require the owner, manager, keeper or duly
authorized representative of a hotel, motel, or lodging house to refrain from entertaining or accepting
any guest or customer or letting any room or other quarter to any person or persons without his filling
up the prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times and in his presence, wherein the
surname, given name and middle name, the date of birth, the address, the occupation, the sex, the
nationality, the length of stay and the number of companions in the room, if any, with the name,
relationship, age and sex would be specified, with data furnished as to his residence certificate as
well as his passport number, if any, coupled with a certification that a person signing such form has
personally filled it up and affixed his signature in the presence of such owner, manager, keeper or
duly authorized representative, with such registration forms and records kept and bound together, it
also being provided that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels and lodging houses would
be open for inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly authorized
representatives is unconstitutional and void again on due process grounds, not only for being
arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive but also for being vague, indefinite and uncertain, and likewise
for the alleged invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty against self-incrimination; that
Section 2 of the challenged ordinance classifying motels into two classes and requiring the
maintenance of certain minimum facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room, a
dining room or, restaurant and laundry similarly offends against the due process clause for being
arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive, a conclusion which applies to the portion of the ordinance
requiring second class motels to have a dining room; that the provision of Section 2 of the
challenged ordinance prohibiting a person less than 18 years old from being accepted in such
hotels, motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied by parents or a lawful
guardian and making it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of
such establishments to lease any room or portion thereof more than twice every 24 hours, runs
counter to the due process guaranty for lack of certainty and for its unreasonable, arbitrary and
oppressive character; and that insofar as the penalty provided for in Section 4 of the challenged
ordinance for a subsequent conviction would, cause the automatic cancellation of the license of the
offended party, in effect causing the destruction of the business and loss of its investments, there is
once again a transgression of the due process clause.

There was a plea for the issuance of preliminary injunction and for a final judgment declaring the
above ordinance null and void and unenforceable. The lower court on July 6, 1963 issued a writ of
preliminary injunction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain from enforcing said Ordinance No. 4760
from and after July 8, 1963.

In the a answer filed on August 3, 1963, there was an admission of the personal circumstances
regarding the respondent Mayor and of the fact that petitioners are licensed to engage in the hotel or
motel business in the City of Manila, of the provisions of the cited Ordinance but a denial of its
alleged nullity, whether on statutory or constitutional grounds. After setting forth that the petition did
fail to state a cause of action and that the challenged ordinance bears a reasonable relation, to a
proper purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and proper exercise of the police power and that
only the guests or customers not before the court could complain of the alleged invasion of the right
to privacy and the guaranty against self incrimination, with the assertion that the issuance of the
preliminary injunction ex parte was contrary to law, respondent Mayor prayed for, its dissolution and
the dismissal of the petition.

Instead of evidence being offered by both parties, there was submitted a stipulation of facts dated
September 28, 1964, which reads:

1. That the petitioners Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. and Hotel
del Mar Inc. are duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, both with
offices in the City of Manila, while the petitioner Go Chin is the president and general
manager of Hotel del Mar Inc., and the intervenor Victor Alabanza is a resident of Baguio
City, all having the capacity to sue and be sued;

2. That the respondent Mayor is the duly elected and incumbent City Mayor and chief
executive of the City of Manila charged with the general power and duty to enforce
ordinances of the City of Manila and to give the necessary orders for the faithful execution
and enforcement of such ordinances;

3. That the petitioners are duly licensed to engage in the business of operating hotels and
motels in Malate and Ermita districts in Manila;

4. That on June 13, 1963, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No.
4760, which was approved on June 14, 1963, by Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga, then the
 acting City Mayor of Manila, in the absence of the respondent regular City Mayor, amending
sections 661, 662, 668-a, 668-b and 669 of the compilation of the ordinances of the City of
Manila besides inserting therein three new sections. This ordinance is similar to the one
vetoed by the respondent Mayor (Annex A) for the reasons stated in its 4th Indorsement
dated February 15, 1963 (Annex B);

5. That the explanatory note signed by then Councilor Herminio Astorga was submitted with
the proposed ordinance (now Ordinance 4760) to the Municipal Board, copy of which is
attached hereto as Annex C;

6. That the City of Manila derived in 1963 an annual income of P101,904.05 from license
fees paid by the 105 hotels and motels (including herein petitioners) operating in the City of
Manila. 1äwphï1.ñët

Thereafter came a memorandum for respondent on January 22, 1965, wherein stress was laid on
the presumption of the validity of the challenged ordinance, the burden of showing its lack of
conformity to the Constitution resting on the party who assails it, citing not only U.S. v. Salaveria, but
likewise applicable American authorities. Such a memorandum likewise refuted point by point the
arguments advanced by petitioners against its validity. Then barely two weeks later, on February 4,
1965, the memorandum for petitioners was filed reiterating in detail what was set forth in the petition,
with citations of what they considered to be applicable American authorities and praying for a
judgment declaring the challenged ordinance "null and void and unenforceable" and making
permanent the writ of preliminary injunction issued.

After referring to the motels and hotels, which are members of the petitioners association, and
referring to the alleged constitutional questions raised by the party, the lower court observed: "The
only remaining issue here being purely a question of law, the parties, with the nod of the Court,
agreed to file memoranda and thereafter, to submit the case for decision of the Court." It does
appear obvious then that without any evidence submitted by the parties, the decision passed upon
the alleged infirmity on constitutional grounds of the challenged ordinance, dismissing as is
undoubtedly right and proper the untenable objection on the alleged lack of authority of the City of
Manila to regulate motels, and came to the conclusion that "the challenged Ordinance No. 4760 of
the City of Manila, would be unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void." It made permanent the
preliminary injunction issued against respondent Mayor and his agents "to restrain him from
enforcing the ordinance in question." Hence this appeal.

As noted at the outset, the judgment must be reversed. A decent regard for constitutional doctrines
of a fundamental character ought to have admonished the lower court against such a sweeping
condemnation of the challenged ordinance. Its decision cannot be allowed to stand, consistently with
what has hitherto been the accepted standards of constitutional adjudication, in both procedural and
substantive aspects.

Primarily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of any evidence to offset the
presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. As was expressed
categorically by Justice Malcolm: "The presumption is all in favor of validity x x x . The action of the
elected representatives of the people cannot be lightly set aside. The councilors must, in the very
nature of things, be familiar with the necessities of their particular municipality and with all the facts
and circumstances which surround the subject and necessitate action. The local legislative body, by
enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being
of the people x x x . The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a
clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.2
It admits of no doubt therefore that there being a presumption of validity, the necessity for evidence
to rebut it is unavoidable, unless the statute or ordinance is void on its face which is not the case
here. The principle has been nowhere better expressed than in the leading case of O'Gorman &
Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.,3 where the American Supreme Court through Justice Brandeis
tersely and succinctly summed up the matter thus: The statute here questioned deals with a subject
clearly within the scope of the police power. We are asked to declare it void on the ground that the
specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due
process of law. As underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of
this character, the resumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual
foundation of record for overthrowing the statute." No such factual foundation being laid in the
present case, the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts, the
presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment against the ordinance set aside.

Nor may petitioners assert with plausibility that on its face the ordinance is fatally defective as being
repugnant to the due process clause of the Constitution. The mantle of protection associated with
the due process guaranty does not cover petitioners. This particular manifestation of a police power
measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such imputation of
nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance. To hold otherwise
would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which has been properly
characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,4 extending as it does
"to all the great public needs."5 It would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the
very purpose of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to
promote public health, public morals, public safety and the genera welfare.6 Negatively put, police
power is "that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurt full
to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.7

There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals. The explanatory note of the Councilor Herminio Astorga included
as annex to the stipulation of facts, speaks of the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution,
adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which "provide a
necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit" and thus become the "ideal haven
for prostitutes and thrill-seekers." The challenged ordinance then proposes to check the clandestine
harboring of transients and guests of these establishments by requiring these transients and guests
to fill up a registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to public view at all times, and
by introducing several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter the privacy that
characterizes the registration of transients and guests." Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees
was intended to discourage "establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal"
and at the same time, to increase "the income of the city government." It would appear therefore that
the stipulation of facts, far from sustaining any attack against the validity of the ordinance, argues
eloquently for it.

It is a fact worth noting that this Court has invariably stamped with the seal of its approval,
ordinances punishing vagrancy and classifying a pimp or procurer as a vagrant;8 provide a license
tax for and regulating the maintenance or operation of public dance halls;9 prohibiting
gambling;10 prohibiting jueteng;11 and monte;12 prohibiting playing of panguingui on days other than
Sundays or legal holidays;13 prohibiting the operation of pinball machines;14 and prohibiting any
person from keeping, conducting or maintaining an opium joint or visiting a place where opium is
smoked or otherwise used,15 all of which are intended to protect public morals.

On the legislative organs of the government, whether national or local, primarily rest the exercise of
the police power, which, it cannot be too often emphasized, is the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. In view of
the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable constitutional guaranties
however, the exercise of such police power insofar as it may affect the life, liberty or property of any
person is subject to judicial inquiry. Where such exercise of police power may be considered as
either capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, a denial of due process or a violation of any
other applicable constitutional guaranty may call for correction by the courts.

We are thus led to considering the insistent, almost shrill tone, in which the objection is raised to the
question of due process.16 There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes
though a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life,
liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard of due process
which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance,
or any governmental action for that matter, from the imputation of legal infirmity sufficient to spell its
doom? It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.
Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process
requirement, official action, to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result
in sheer oppression. Due process is thus hostile to any official action marred by lack of
reasonableness. Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment
of the sporting idea of fair play.17 It exacts fealty "to those strivings for justice" and judges the act of
officialdom of whatever branch "in the light of reason drawn from considerations of fairness that
reflect [democratic] traditions of legal and political thought."18 It is not a narrow or "technical
conception with fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances,"19 decisions based on
such a clause requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into fundamental principles of our
society."20 Questions of due process are not to be treated narrowly or pedantically in slavery to form
or phrases.21

It would thus be an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet what a
municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious proportion an arbitrary and capricious
exercise of authority. It would seem that what should be deemed unreasonable and what would
amount to an abdication of the power to govern is inaction in the face of an admitted deterioration of
the state of public morals. To be more specific, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila felt the
need for a remedial measure. It provided it with the enactment of the challenged ordinance. A strong
case must be found in the records, and, as has been set forth, none is even attempted here to attach
to an ordinance of such character the taint of nullity for an alleged failure to meet the due process
requirement. Nor does it lend any semblance even of deceptive plausibility to petitioners' indictment
of Ordinance No. 4760 on due process grounds to single out such features as the increased fees for
motels and hotels, the curtailment of the area of freedom to contract, and, in certain particulars, its
alleged vagueness.

Admittedly there was a decided increase of the annual license fees provided for by the challenged
ordinance for hotels and motels, 150% for the former and over 200% for the latter, first-class motels
being required to pay a P6,000 annual fee and second-class motels, P4,500 yearly. It has been the
settled law however, as far back as 1922 that municipal license fees could be classified into those
imposed for regulating occupations or regular enterprises, for the regulation or restriction of non-
useful occupations or enterprises and for revenue purposes only.22 As was explained more in detail
in the above Cu Unjieng case: (2) Licenses for non-useful occupations are also incidental to the
police power and the right to exact a fee may be implied from the power to license and regulate, but
in fixing amount of the license fees the municipal corporations are allowed a much wider discretion in
this class of cases than in the former, and aside from applying the well-known legal principle that
municipal ordinances must not be unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical, courts have, as a general
rule, declined to interfere with such discretion. The desirability of imposing restraint upon the number
of persons who might otherwise engage in non-useful enterprises is, of course, generally an
important factor in the determination of the amount of this kind of license fee. Hence license fees
clearly in the nature of privilege taxes for revenue have frequently been upheld, especially in of
licenses for the sale of liquors. In fact, in the latter cases the fees have rarely been declared
unreasonable.23

Moreover in the equally leading case of Lutz v. Araneta24 this Court affirmed the doctrine earlier
announced by the American Supreme Court that taxation may be made to implement the state's
police power. Only the other day, this Court had occasion to affirm that the broad taxing authority
conferred by the Local Autonomy Act of 1959 to cities and municipalities is sufficiently plenary to
cover a wide range of subjects with the only limitation that the tax so levied is for public purposes,
just and uniform.25

As a matter of fact, even without reference to the wide latitude enjoyed by the City of Manila in
imposing licenses for revenue, it has been explicitly held in one case that "much discretion is given
to municipal corporations in determining the amount," here the license fee of the operator of a
massage clinic, even if it were viewed purely as a police power measure.26 The discussion of this
particular matter may fitly close with this pertinent citation from another decision of significance: "It is
urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees that the enforcement of the ordinance could deprive them
of their lawful occupation and means of livelihood because they can not rent stalls in the public
markets. But it appears that plaintiffs are also dealers in refrigerated or cold storage meat, the sale
of which outside the city markets under certain conditions is permitted x x x . And surely, the mere
fact, that some individuals in the community may be deprived of their present business or a
particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of the police power. As was said in a
case, persons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest be affected
by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the disadvantages which
may result from the legal exercise of that power."27

Nor does the restriction on the freedom to contract, insofar as the challenged ordinance makes it
unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel, motel,
lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent room or portion thereof more than
twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, call for a different
conclusion. Again, such a limitation cannot be viewed as a transgression against the command of
due process. It is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Precisely it was intended to curb the
opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be, and, according to
the explanatory note, are being devoted. How could it then be arbitrary or oppressive when there
appears a correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the
legislative attempt at correction. Moreover, petitioners cannot be unaware that every regulation of
conduct amounts to curtailment of liberty which as pointed out by Justice Malcolm cannot be
absolute. Thus: "One thought which runs through all these different conceptions of liberty is plainly
apparent. It is this: 'Liberty' as understood in democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by
law.' Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of
the peace and order of society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases.
Every man must renounce unbridled license. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to
reasonable restraint by general law for the common good x x x The liberty of the citizen may be
restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the
proper scope of the police power."28

A similar observation was made by Justice Laurel: "Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the
enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the state x x x To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the individual
are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made
to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made
to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should achieve the
required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and personal discipline, so
that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and
happiness for all.29

It is noteworthy that the only decision of this Court nullifying legislation because of undue deprivation
of freedom to contract, People v. Pomar,30 no longer "retains its virtuality as a living principle. The
policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right
of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest.31 What may be stressed
sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the
validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed
affects at the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.32 How
justify then the allegation of a denial of due process?

Lastly, there is the attempt to impugn the ordinance on another due process ground by invoking the
principles of vagueness or uncertainty. It would appear from a recital in the petition itself that what
seems to be the gravamen of the alleged grievance is that the provisions are too detailed and
specific rather than vague or uncertain. Petitioners, however, point to the requirement that a guest
should give the name, relationship, age and sex of the companion or companions as indefinite and
uncertain in view of the necessity for determining whether the companion or companions referred to
are those arriving with the customer or guest at the time of the registry or entering the room With him
at about the same time or coming at any indefinite time later to join him; a proviso in one of its
sections which cast doubt as to whether the maintenance of a restaurant in a motel is dependent
upon the discretion of its owners or operators; another proviso which from their standpoint would
require a guess as to whether the "full rate of payment" to be charged for every such lease thereof
means a full day's or merely a half-day's rate. It may be asked, do these allegations suffice to render
the ordinance void on its face for alleged vagueness or uncertainty? To ask the question is to
answer it. From Connally v. General Construction Co.33 to Adderley v. Florida,34 the principle has
been consistently upheld that what makes a statute susceptible to such a charge is an enactment
either forbidding or requiring the doing of an act that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Is this the situation before us? A citation from
Justice Holmes would prove illuminating: "We agree to all the generalities about not supplying
criminal laws with what they omit but there is no canon against using common sense in construing
laws as saying what they obviously mean."35

That is all then that this case presents. As it stands, with all due allowance for the arguments
pressed with such vigor and determination, the attack against the validity of the challenged
ordinance cannot be considered a success. Far from it. Respect for constitutional law principles so
uniformly held and so uninterruptedly adhered to by this Court compels a reversal of the appealed
decision.

Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the injunction issued lifted forthwith. With
costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., are on leave.
G.R. No. 104768 July 21, 2003

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH
DIMAANO, Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan (First Division)1 dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No.
0037. The first Resolution dismissed petitioner’s Amended Complaint and ordered the return of the
confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner prays for the grant of the reliefs sought in its Amended
Complaint, or in the alternative, for the remand of this case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) for
further proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its evidence.

Antecedent Facts

Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA Revolution, then
President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 ("EO No. 1") creating the Presidential
Commission on Good Government ("PCGG"). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-
gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates
and close associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power "(a) to conduct investigation as
may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order" and the power
"(h) to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this
order." Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-
Graft Board ("AFP Board") tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices
by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.2

Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of
respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas ("Ramas"). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued
a Resolution on its findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas. The
relevant part of the Resolution reads:

III. FINDINGS and EVALUATION:

Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot located at 15-Yakan
St., La Vista, Quezon City. He is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. The lot has
an area of 3,327 square meters.

The value of the property located in Quezon City may be estimated modestly at ₱700,000.00.

The equipment/items and communication facilities which were found in the premises of Elizabeth
Dimaano and were confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas were all covered by
invoice receipt in the name of CAPT. EFREN SALIDO, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These items
could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth Dimaano if not given for her use by respondent
Commanding General of the Philippine Army.

Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the raiding team was also
able to confiscate money in the amount of ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of
Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986.

Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit, Military Security Command, Philippine Army,
stationed at Camp Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano is the mistress of
respondent. That respondent usually goes and stays and sleeps in the alleged house of Elizabeth
Dimaano in Barangay Tengga, Itaas, Batangas City and when he arrives, Elizabeth Dimaano
embraces and kisses respondent. That on February 25, 1986, a person who rode in a car went to
the residence of Elizabeth Dimaano with four (4) attache cases filled with money and owned by
MGen Ramas.

Sworn statement in the record disclosed also that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means of
income and is supported by respondent for she was formerly a mere secretary.

Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth Dimaano could not have used the military equipment/items
seized in her house on March 3, 1986 without the consent of respondent, he being the Commanding
General of the Philippine Army. It is also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she owns
the ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she had no visible source of income.

This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent. There was
an intention to cover the existence of these money because these are all ill-gotten and unexplained
wealth. Were it not for the affidavits of the members of the Military Security Unit assigned at Camp
Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, the existence and ownership of these money would have never been
known.

The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent were also submitted for scrutiny and analysis
by the Board’s consultant. Although the amount of ₱2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars were not
included, still it was disclosed that respondent has an unexplained wealth of ₱104,134. 60.

IV. CONCLUSION:

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that a prima facie case exists against respondent for ill-
gotten and unexplained wealth in the amount of ₱2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US Dollars.

V. RECOMMENDATION:

Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for
violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" and
RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as "The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired
Property."3

Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 ("RA
No. 1379") 4 against Ramas.

Before Ramas could answer the petition, then Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez filed an
Amended Complaint naming the Republic of the Philippines ("petitioner"), represented by the PCGG,
as plaintiff and Ramas as defendant. The Amended Complaint also impleaded Elizabeth Dimaano
("Dimaano") as co-defendant.

The Amended Complaint alleged that Ramas was the Commanding General of the Philippine Army
until 1986. On the other hand, Dimaano was a confidential agent of the Military Security Unit,
Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-typist at the office of Ramas from 1 January 1978 to February
1979. The Amended Complaint further alleged that Ramas "acquired funds, assets and properties
manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his other income from legitimately
acquired property by taking undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority
and influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close
associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos."5

The Amended Complaint also alleged that the AFP Board, after a previous inquiry, found reasonable
ground to believe that respondents have violated RA No. 1379.6 The Amended Complaint prayed for,
among others, the forfeiture of respondents’ properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State.

Ramas filed an Answer with Special and/or Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaim to
the Amended Complaint. In his Answer, Ramas contended that his property consisted only of a
residential house at La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at ₱700,000, which was not out of
proportion to his salary and other legitimate income. He denied ownership of any mansion in Cebu
City and the cash, communications equipment and other items confiscated from the house of
Dimaano.

Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint. Admitting her employment as a clerk-
typist in the office of Ramas from January-November 1978 only, Dimaano claimed ownership of the
monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine
Constabulary raiding team.

After termination of the pre-trial,7 the court set the case for trial on the merits on 9-11 November
1988.

On 9 November 1988, petitioner asked for a deferment of the hearing due to its lack of preparation
for trial and the absence of witnesses and vital documents to support its case. The court reset the
hearing to 17 and 18 April 1989.

On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in order "to charge the
delinquent properties with being subject to forfeiture as having been unlawfully acquired by
defendant Dimaano alone x x x."8

Nevertheless, in an order dated 17 April 1989, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with petitioner’s
presentation of evidence on the ground that the motion for leave to amend complaint did not state
when petitioner would file the amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan further stated that the
subject matter of the amended complaint was on its face vague and not related to the existing
complaint. The Sandiganbayan also held that due to the time that the case had been pending in
court, petitioner should proceed to present its evidence.

After presenting only three witnesses, petitioner asked for a postponement of the trial.

On 28 September 1989, during the continuation of the trial, petitioner manifested its inability to
proceed to trial because of the absence of other witnesses or lack of further evidence to present.
Instead, petitioner reiterated its motion to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence already
presented or to change the averments to show that Dimaano alone unlawfully acquired the monies
or properties subject of the forfeiture.

The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner had already delayed the case for over a year mainly
because of its many postponements. Moreover, petitioner would want the case to revert to its
preliminary stage when in fact the case had long been ready for trial. The Sandiganbayan ordered
petitioner to prepare for presentation of its additional evidence, if any.

During the trial on 23 March 1990, petitioner again admitted its inability to present further evidence.
Giving petitioner one more chance to present further evidence or to amend the complaint to conform
to its evidence, the Sandiganbayan reset the trial to 18 May 1990. The Sandiganbayan, however,
hinted that the re-setting was without prejudice to any action that private respondents might take
under the circumstances.

However, on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its inability to proceed to trial because it had
no further evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the Sandiganbayan granted petitioner
60 days within which to file an appropriate pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, warned
petitioner that failure to act would constrain the court to take drastic action.

Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Republic v. Migrino.9 The Court held
in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by
reason of mere position held without a showing that they are "subordinates" of former President
Marcos.

On 18 November 1991, the Sandiganbayan rendered a resolution, the dispositive portion of which
states:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Amended Complaint, without

pronouncement as to costs. The counterclaims are likewise dismissed for lack of merit, but the
confiscated sum of money, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles are ordered returned
to Elizabeth Dimaano.

The records of this case are hereby remanded and referred to the Hon. Ombudsman, who has
primary jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases under R.A. No. 1379, for such appropriate action as the
evidence warrants. This case is also referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano in connection
herewith.

SO ORDERED.

On 4 December 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration.

In answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, private respondents filed a Joint Comment/Opposition
to which petitioner filed its Reply on 10 January 1992.

On 25 March 1992, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan dismissed the Amended Complaint on the following grounds:

 (1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme
Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan10 and Republic v. Migrino11 which involve the same
issues.

(2.) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted
against Ramas and Dimaano.

(3.) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against
him.

(4.) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.

The Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues:

A. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER’S

EVIDENCE CANNOT MAKE A CASE FOR FORFEITURE AND THAT THERE WAS NO
SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION OR RELATIONSHIP BY CONSANGUINITY
OR AFFINITY BY AND BETWEEN RESPONDENT RAMAS AND RESPONDENT DIMAANO
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS WERE CLEARLY
UNFOUNDED AND PREMATURE, HAVING BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO THE
COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER.

B. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIONS

TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT IN LINE WITH THE
RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 194 SCRA 474
AND REPUBLIC v. MIGRINO, 189 SCRA 289, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT:

1. The cases of Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra, and Republic v. Migrino, supra,
are clearly not applicable to this case;

2. Any procedural defect in the institution of the complaint in Civil Case No. 0037 was
cured and/or waived by respondents with the filing of their respective answers with
counterclaim; and

3. The separate motions to dismiss were evidently improper considering that they
were filed after commencement of the presentation of the evidence of the petitioner
and even before the latter was allowed to formally offer its evidence and rest its case;

C. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ARTICLES AND

THINGS SUCH AS SUMS OF MONEY, COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, JEWELRY AND
LAND TITLES CONFISCATED FROM THE HOUSE OF RESPONDENT DIMAANO WERE
ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND THEREFORE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE.12

The Court’s Ruling

First Issue: PCGG’s Jurisdiction to Investigate Private Respondents

This case involves a revisiting of an old issue already decided by this Court in Cruz, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan13 and Republic v. Migrino.14

The primary issue for resolution is whether the PCGG has the jurisdiction to investigate and cause
the filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA No.
1379.

We hold that PCGG has no such jurisdiction.

The PCGG created the AFP Board to investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of
AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.15 The PCGG tasked the AFP Board to make
the necessary recommendations to appropriate government agencies on the action to be taken
based on its findings.16 The PCGG gave this task to the AFP Board pursuant to the PCGG’s power
under Section 3 of EO No. 1 "to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish
and to carry out the purposes of this order." EO No. 1 gave the PCGG specific responsibilities, to wit:

SEC. 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the
following matters:

(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or
abroad, including the takeover and sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or
controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue
advantage of their public office and/ or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or
relationship.

(b) The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the
Commission from time to time.

x x x.

The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt
practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO
No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the
administration of former President Marcos by being the latter’s immediate family, relative,
subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers,
influence x x x;17 or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the
President assigns their cases to the PCGG.18

Petitioner, however, does not claim that the President assigned Ramas’ case to the PCGG.
Therefore, Ramas’ case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG
could exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a subordinate
of former President Marcos because of his position as the Commanding General of the Philippine
Army. Petitioner claims that Ramas’ position enabled him to receive orders directly from his
commander-in-chief, undeniably making him a subordinate of former President Marcos.

We hold that Ramas was not a "subordinate" of former President Marcos in the sense contemplated
under EO No. 1 and its amendments.
Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a "subordinate" as this term
is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former
President Marcos. Migrino discussed this issue in this wise:

A close reading of EO No. 1 and related executive orders will readily show what is contemplated
within the term ‘subordinate.’ The Whereas Clauses of EO No. 1 express the urgent need to recover
the ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives, and close associates both here and abroad.

EO No. 2 freezes ‘all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President Marcos
and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates,
dummies, agents, or nominees have any interest or participation.’

Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis that is-

‘[W]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and
specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be
held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned
[Smith, Bell & Co, Ltd. vs. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96 Phil. 53, 58, citing Black on Interpretation
of Laws, 2nd Ed., 203].’

[T]he term "subordinate" as used in EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to one who enjoys a close association with
former President Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close
associate in EO No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in EO
No. 2.

xxx

It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a government official or employee
during the administration of former President Marcos. There must be a prima facie showing that the
respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former
Pres. Marcos and/or his wife. (Emphasis supplied)

Ramas’ position alone as Commanding General of the Philippine Army with the rank of Major
General19 does not suffice to make him a "subordinate" of former President Marcos for purposes of
EO No. 1 and its amendments. The PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a
close associate of former President Marcos, in the same manner that business associates,
dummies, agents or nominees of former President Marcos were close to him. Such close association
is manifested either by Ramas’ complicity with former President Marcos in the accumulation of ill-
gotten wealth by the deposed President or by former President Marcos’ acquiescence in Ramas’
own accumulation of ill-gotten wealth if any.

This, the PCGG failed to do.

Petitioner’s attempt to differentiate the instant case from Migrino does not convince us. Petitioner
argues that unlike in Migrino, the AFP Board Resolution in the instant case states that the AFP
Board conducted the investigation pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A in relation to RA No. 1379.
Petitioner asserts that there is a presumption that the PCGG was acting within its jurisdiction of
investigating crony-related cases of graft and corruption and that Ramas was truly a subordinate of
the former President. However, the same AFP Board Resolution belies this contention. Although the
Resolution begins with such statement, it ends with the following recommendation:
V. RECOMMENDATION:

Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for
violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" and
RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as "The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired
Property."20

Thus, although the PCGG sought to investigate and prosecute private respondents under EO Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A, the result yielded a finding of violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379
without any relation to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. This absence of relation to EO No. 1 and its
amendments proves fatal to petitioner’s case. EO No. 1 created the PCGG for a specific and limited
purpose, and necessarily its powers must be construed to address such specific and limited
purpose.

Moreover, the resolution of the AFP Board and even the Amended Complaint do not show that the
properties Ramas allegedly owned were accumulated by him in his capacity as a "subordinate" of his
commander-in-chief. Petitioner merely enumerated the properties Ramas allegedly owned and
suggested that these properties were disproportionate to his salary and other legitimate income
without showing that Ramas amassed them because of his close association with former President
Marcos. Petitioner, in fact, admits that the AFP Board resolution does not contain a finding that
Ramas accumulated his wealth because of his close association with former President Marcos, thus:

10. While it is true that the resolution of the Anti-Graft Board of the New Armed Forces of the
Philippines did not categorically find a prima facie evidence showing that respondent Ramas
unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former
President Marcos and/or his wife, it is submitted that such omission was not fatal. The
resolution of the Anti-Graft Board should be read in the context of the law creating the same and the
objective of the investigation which was, as stated in the above, pursuant to Republic Act Nos. 3019
and 1379 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-a;21 (Emphasis supplied)

Such omission is fatal. Petitioner forgets that it is precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-gotten
wealth was accumulated by a "subordinate" of former President Marcos that vests jurisdiction on
PCGG. EO No. 122 clearly premises the creation of the PCGG on the urgent need to recover all ill-
gotten wealth amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates
and close associates. Therefore, to say that such omission was not fatal is clearly contrary to the
intent behind the creation of the PCGG.

In Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,23 the Court outlined the cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the
PCGG pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2,24 14,25 14-A:26

A careful reading of Sections 2(a) and 3 of Executive Order No. 1 in relation with Sections 1, 2 and 3
of Executive Order No. 14, shows what the authority of the respondent PCGG to investigate and
prosecute covers:

(a) the investigation and prosecution of the civil action for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth
under Republic Act No. 1379, accumulated by former President Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or
abroad, including the take-over or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities
owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through his nominees, by
taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority and
influence, connections or relationships; and
 (b) the investigation and prosecution of such offenses committed in the acquisition of said ill-
gotten wealth as contemplated under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1.

However, other violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act not otherwise falling
under the foregoing categories, require a previous authority of the President for the
respondent PCGG to investigate and prosecute in accordance with Section 2 (b) of Executive
Order No. 1. Otherwise, jurisdiction over such cases is vested in the Ombudsman and other
duly authorized investigating agencies such as the provincial and city prosecutors, their
assistants, the Chief State Prosecutor and his assistants and the state
prosecutors. (Emphasis supplied)

The proper government agencies, and not the PCGG, should investigate and prosecute forfeiture
petitions not falling under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The preliminary investigation of
unexplained wealth amassed on or before 25 February 1986 falls under the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman, while the authority to file the corresponding forfeiture petition rests with the Solicitor
General.27 The Ombudsman Act or Republic Act No. 6770 ("RA No. 6770") vests in the Ombudsman
the power to conduct preliminary investigation and to file forfeiture proceedings involving
unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986.28

After the pronouncements of the Court in Cruz, the PCGG still pursued this case despite the
absence of a prima facie finding that Ramas was a "subordinate" of former President Marcos. The
petition for forfeiture filed with the Sandiganbayan should be dismissed for lack of authority by the
PCGG to investigate respondents since there is no prima facie showing that EO No. 1 and its
amendments apply to respondents. The AFP Board Resolution and even the Amended Complaint
state that there are violations of RA Nos. 3019 and 1379. Thus, the PCGG should have
recommended Ramas’ case to the Ombudsman who has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
investigation of ordinary unexplained wealth and graft cases. As stated in Migrino:

[But] in view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG to investigate and cause the prosecution of
private respondent for violation of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379, the PCGG must also be enjoined
from proceeding with the case, without prejudice to any action that may be taken by the proper
prosecutory agency. The rule of law mandates that an agency of government be allowed to exercise
only the powers granted to it.

Petitioner’s argument that private respondents have waived any defect in the filing of the forfeiture
petition by submitting their respective Answers with counterclaim deserves no merit as well.

Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private respondents. Thus, there is no jurisdiction to waive in the
first place. The PCGG cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never granted to it.
PCGG’s powers are specific and limited. Unless given additional assignment by the President,
PCGG’s sole task is only to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and
cronies.29 Without these elements, the PCGG cannot claim jurisdiction over a case.

Private respondents questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and
prosecute their cases by filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as they learned of the pronouncement
of the Court in Migrino. This case was decided on 30 August 1990, which explains why private
respondents only filed their Motion to Dismiss on 8 October 1990. Nevertheless, we have held that
the parties may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.30 Thus, we hold that there
was no waiver of jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the parties to an
action.31
Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the PCGG to conduct the
preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman may still conduct the proper preliminary investigation for
violation of RA No. 1379, and if warranted, the Solicitor General may file the forfeiture petition with
the Sandiganbayan.32 The right of the State to forfeit unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379 is not
subject to prescription, laches or estoppel.33

Second Issue: Propriety of Dismissal of Case

Before Completion of Presentation of Evidence

Petitioner also contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of
the presentation of petitioner’s evidence.

We disagree.

Based on the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the records of this case, we find that petitioner has
only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence. First, this case has been
pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner filed its Amended
Complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner
had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient time, petitioner still
delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements
and extensions. Even before the date set for the presentation of its evidence, petitioner filed, on 13
April 1989, a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.34 The motion sought "to charge the
delinquent properties (which comprise most of petitioner’s evidence) with being subject to forfeiture
as having been unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone x x x."

The Sandiganbayan, however, refused to defer the presentation of petitioner’s evidence since
petitioner did not state when it would file the amended complaint. On 18 April 1989, the
Sandiganbayan set the continuation of the presentation of evidence on 28-29 September and 9-11
October 1989, giving petitioner ample time to prepare its evidence. Still, on 28 September 1989,
petitioner manifested its inability to proceed with the presentation of its evidence. The
Sandiganbayan issued an Order expressing its view on the matter, to wit:

The Court has gone through extended inquiry and a narration of the above events because this case
has been ready for trial for over a year and much of the delay hereon has been due to the inability of
the government to produce on scheduled dates for pre-trial and for trial documents and witnesses,
allegedly upon the failure of the military to supply them for the preparation of the presentation of
evidence thereon. Of equal interest is the fact that this Court has been held to task in public about its
alleged failure to move cases such as this one beyond the preliminary stage, when, in view of the
developments such as those of today, this Court is now faced with a situation where a case already
in progress will revert back to the preliminary stage, despite a five-month pause where appropriate
action could have been undertaken by the plaintiff Republic.35

On 9 October 1989, the PCGG manifested in court that it was conducting a preliminary investigation
on the unexplained wealth of private respondents as mandated by RA No. 1379.36 The PCGG prayed
for an additional four months to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan granted
this request and scheduled the presentation of evidence on 26-29 March 1990. However, on the
scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform the court of the result of the preliminary investigation the
PCGG supposedly conducted. Again, the Sandiganbayan gave petitioner until 18 May 1990 to
continue with the presentation of its evidence and to inform the court of "what lies ahead insofar as
the status of the case is concerned x x x."37 Still on the date set, petitioner failed to present its
evidence. Finally, on 11 July 1990, petitioner filed its Re-Amended Complaint.38 The Sandiganbayan
correctly observed that a case already pending for years would revert to its preliminary stage if the
court were to accept the Re-Amended Complaint.

Based on these circumstances, obviously petitioner has only itself to blame for failure to complete
the presentation of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more than sufficient time to
finish the presentation of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioner’s delays and yet
petitioner ended the long-string of delays with the filing of a Re-Amended Complaint, which would
only prolong even more the disposition of the case.

Moreover, the pronouncements of the Court in Migrino and Cruz prompted the Sandiganbayan to
dismiss the case since the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the case against
private respondents. This alone would have been sufficient legal basis for the Sandiganbayan to
dismiss the forfeiture case against private respondents.

Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before completion of the
presentation of petitioner’s evidence.

Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure

Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated from
Dimaano’s house as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue bears a
significant effect on petitioner’s case since these properties comprise most of petitioner’s evidence
against private respondents. Petitioner will not have much evidence to support its case against
private respondents if these properties are inadmissible in evidence.

On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at Dimaano’s residence a search warrant
captioned "Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition." Dimaano was not present during the
raid but Dimaano’s cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the
seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The raiding team seized
these items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol,
caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of ₱2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and
land titles.

Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the search and
seizure "on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution."39 Petitioner argues that
a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing
that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were "taking power in the name and by the will of
the Filipino people."40 Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the
operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary right.

Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies only
beginning 2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that
all rights under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the
search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and
use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not
enjoy any constitutional right.

Petitioner is partly right in its arguments.

The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President
Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was "done in defiance of
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."41 The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary
government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international
law.

The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of
the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of
power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to
24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution); and (2) whether
the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect
during the interregnum.

We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum.
However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration
remained in effect during the interregnum.

During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme
law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher
than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a
person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a
constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. As the Court explained in Letter of Associate
Justice Reynato S. Puno:42

A revolution has been defined as "the complete overthrow of the established government in any
country or state by those who were previously subject to it" or as "a sudden, radical and fundamental
change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of
violence." In Kelsen's book, General Theory of Law and State, it is defined as that which "occurs
whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not
prescribed by the first order itself."

It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as
the "people power revolution" that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime.
This revolution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government.

From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has been defined as "an inherent right of a
people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of
government or institutions by force or a general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods
of making such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable." It has
been said that "the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state" and from
there is derived "the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of
government without regard to the existing constitution."

xxx

It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional
processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a
Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986
presidential election. Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. Aquino’s Government which
was met by little resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet
and other key officers of the administration, the departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of
the Judiciary and the Military signaled the point where the legal system then in effect, had ceased
to be obeyed by the Filipino. (Emphasis supplied)

To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained operative during the interregnum
would render void all sequestration orders issued by the Philippine Commission on Good
Government ("PCGG") before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration orders,
which direct the freezing and even the take-over of private property by mere executive issuance
without judicial action, would violate the due process and search and seizure clauses of the Bill of
Rights.

During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary government
bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration orders as violative of the
Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum. However, upon the
adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered companies assailed the sequestration orders
as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution.

In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. Inc. vs. Presidential Commission on Good
Government,43 petitioner Baseco, while conceding there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum,
questioned the continued validity of the sequestration orders upon adoption of the Freedom
Constitution in view of the due process clause in its Bill of Rights. The Court ruled that the Freedom
Constitution, and later the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognized the validity of sequestration
orders, thus:

If any doubt should still persist in the face of the foregoing considerations as to the validity and
propriety of sequestration, freeze and takeover orders, it should be dispelled by the fact that these
particular remedies and the authority of the PCGG to issue them have received constitutional
approbation and sanction. As already mentioned, the Provisional or "Freedom" Constitution
recognizes the power and duty of the President to enact "measures to achieve the mandate of the
people to . . . (r)ecover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous
regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or
accounts." And as also already adverted to, Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution treats
of, and ratifies the "authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated
March 25, 1986."

The framers of both the Freedom Constitution and the 1987 Constitution were fully aware that the
sequestration orders would clash with the Bill of Rights. Thus, the framers of both constitutions had
to include specific language recognizing the validity of the sequestration orders. The following
discourse by Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas during the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission is instructive:

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there is something schizophrenic about the arguments in defense
of the present amendment.

For instance, I have carefully studied Minister Salonga’s lecture in the Gregorio Araneta University
Foundation, of which all of us have been given a copy. On the one hand, he argues that everything
the Commission is doing is traditionally legal. This is repeated by Commissioner Romulo also.
Minister Salonga spends a major portion of his lecture developing that argument. On the other hand,
almost as an afterthought, he says that in the end what matters are the results and not the legal
niceties, thus suggesting that the PCGG should be allowed to make some legal shortcuts, another
word for niceties or exceptions.
Now, if everything the PCGG is doing is legal, why is it asking the CONCOM for special protection?
The answer is clear. What they are doing will not stand the test of ordinary due process, hence they
are asking for protection, for exceptions. Grandes malos, grandes remedios, fine, as the saying
stands, but let us not say grandes malos, grande y malos remedios. That is not an allowable
extrapolation. Hence, we should not give the exceptions asked for, and let me elaborate and give
three reasons:

First, the whole point of the February Revolution and of the work of the CONCOM is to hasten
constitutional normalization. Very much at the heart of the constitutional normalization is the full
effectivity of the Bill of Rights. We cannot, in one breath, ask for constitutional normalization and at
the same time ask for a temporary halt to the full functioning of what is at the heart of
constitutionalism. That would be hypocritical; that would be a repetition of Marcosian protestation of
due process and rule of law. The New Society word for that is "backsliding." It is tragic when we
begin to backslide even before we get there.

Second, this is really a corollary of the first. Habits tend to become ingrained. The committee report
asks for extraordinary exceptions from the Bill of Rights for six months after the convening of
Congress, and Congress may even extend this longer.

Good deeds repeated ripen into virtue; bad deeds repeated become vice. What the committee report
is asking for is that we should allow the new government to acquire the vice of disregarding the Bill
of Rights.

Vices, once they become ingrained, become difficult to shed. The practitioners of the vice begin to
think that they have a vested right to its practice, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the
franchise. That would be an unhealthy way of consolidating the gains of a democratic revolution.

Third, the argument that what matters are the results and not the legal niceties is an argument that is
very disturbing. When it comes from a staunch Christian like Commissioner Salonga, a Minister, and
repeated verbatim by another staunch Christian like Commissioner Tingson, it becomes doubly
disturbing and even discombobulating. The argument makes the PCGG an auctioneer, placing the
Bill of Rights on the auction block. If the price is right, the search and seizure clause will be sold.
"Open your Swiss bank account to us and we will award you the search and seizure clause. You can
keep it in your private safe."

Alternatively, the argument looks on the present government as hostage to the hoarders of hidden
wealth. The hoarders will release the hidden health if the ransom price is paid and the ransom price
is the Bill of Rights, specifically the due process in the search and seizure clauses. So, there is
something positively revolving about either argument. The Bill of Rights is not for sale to the highest
bidder nor can it be used to ransom captive dollars. This nation will survive and grow strong, only if it
would become convinced of the values enshrined in the Constitution of a price that is beyond
monetary estimation.

For these reasons, the honorable course for the Constitutional Commission is to delete all of Section
8 of the committee report and allow the new Constitution to take effect in full vigor. If Section 8 is
deleted, the PCGG has two options. First, it can pursue the Salonga and the Romulo argument —
that what the PCGG has been doing has been completely within the pale of the law. If sustained, the
PCGG can go on and should be able to go on, even without the support of Section 8. If not
sustained, however, the PCGG has only one honorable option, it must bow to the majesty of the Bill
of Rights.
The PCGG extrapolation of the law is defended by staunch Christians. Let me conclude with what
another Christian replied when asked to toy around with the law. From his prison cell, Thomas More
said, "I'll give the devil benefit of law for my nation’s safety sake." I ask the Commission to give the
devil benefit of law for our nation’s sake. And we should delete Section 8.

Thank you, Madam President. (Emphasis supplied)

Despite the impassioned plea by Commissioner Bernas against the amendment excepting
sequestration orders from the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Commission still adopted the
amendment as Section 26,44 Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. The framers of the Constitution
were fully aware that absent Section 26, sequestration orders would not stand the test of due
process under the Bill of Rights.

Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution remained in force during the interregnum,
absent a constitutional provision excepting sequestration orders from such Bill of Rights, would
clearly render all sequestration orders void during the interregnum. Nevertheless, even during the
interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost
the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed
responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a
signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State "to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights45 recognized in the present
Covenant." Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure
that "[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence."

The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that "[n]o
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Although the signatories to the Declaration did not
intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the
Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the
State.46 Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the
rights47 of individuals under the Declaration.

The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the
interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its obligations under
the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that the
Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law, and that Filipinos as human
beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the
revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it
repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could
not escape responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under
international law.

It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the directives
and orders of the revolutionary government became subject to a higher municipal law that, if
contravened, rendered such directives and orders void. The Provisional Constitution adopted
verbatim the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.48 The Provisional Constitution served as a self-
limitation by the revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it by
the people.
During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by
government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them
by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders should not have also violated the
Covenant or the Declaration. In this case, the revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned
the warrant since the revolutionary government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge
upon proper application, specified the items to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid
with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant.

However, the Constabulary raiding team seized items not included in the warrant. As admitted by
petitioner’s witnesses, the raiding team confiscated items not included in the warrant, thus:

Direct Examination of Capt. Rodolfo Sebastian

AJ AMORES

Q. According to the search warrant, you are supposed to seize only for weapons. What else, aside
from the weapons, were seized from the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano?

A. The communications equipment, money in Philippine currency and US dollars, some jewelries,
land titles, sir.

Q. Now, the search warrant speaks only of weapons to be seized from the house of Elizabeth
Dimaano. Do you know the reason why your team also seized other properties not mentioned in said
search warrant?

A. During the conversation right after the conduct of said raid, I was informed that the reason why
they also brought the other items not included in the search warrant was because the money and
other jewelries were contained in attaché cases and cartons with markings "Sony Trinitron", and I
think three (3) vaults or steel safes. Believing that the attaché cases and the steel safes were
containing firearms, they forced open these containers only to find out that they contained money.

xxx

Q. You said you found money instead of weapons, do you know the reason why your team seized
this money instead of weapons?

A. I think the overall team leader and the other two officers assisting him decided to bring along also
the money because at that time it was already dark and they felt most secured if they will bring that
because they might be suspected also of taking money out of those items, your Honor.49

Cross-examination

Atty. Banaag

Q. Were you present when the search warrant in connection with this case was applied before the
Municipal Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 1?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the search warrant applied for by you was for the search and seizure of five (5) baby armalite
rifles M-16 and five (5) boxes of ammunition?
A. Yes, sir.

xxx

AJ AMORES

Q. Before you applied for a search warrant, did you conduct surveillance in the house of Miss
Elizabeth Dimaano?

A. The Intelligence Operatives conducted surveillance together with the MSU elements, your Honor.

Q. And this party believed there were weapons deposited in the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano?

A. Yes, your Honor.

Q. And they so swore before the Municipal Trial Judge?

A. Yes, your Honor.

Q. But they did not mention to you, the applicant for the search warrant, any other properties or
contraband which could be found in the residence of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano?

A. They just gave us still unconfirmed report about some hidden items, for instance, the
communications equipment and money. However, I did not include that in the application for search
warrant considering that we have not established concrete evidence about that. So when…

Q. So that when you applied for search warrant, you had reason to believe that only weapons were
in the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano?

A. Yes, your Honor.50

xxx

Q. You stated that a .45 caliber pistol was seized along with one armalite rifle M-16 and how many
ammunition?

A. Forty, sir.

Q. And this became the subject of your complaint with the issuing Court, with the fiscal’s office who
charged Elizabeth Dimaano for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what happened to that case?

A. I think it was dismissed, sir.

Q. In the fiscal’s office?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because the armalite rifle you seized, as well as the .45 caliber pistol had a Memorandum
Receipt in the name of Felino Melegrito, is that not correct?

A. I think that was the reason, sir.

Q. There were other articles seized which were not included in the search warrant, like for instance,
jewelries. Why did you seize the jewelries?

A. I think it was the decision of the overall team leader and his assistant to bring along also the
jewelries and other items, sir. I do not really know where it was taken but they brought along also
these articles. I do not really know their reason for bringing the same, but I just learned that these
were taken because they might get lost if they will just leave this behind.

xxx

Q. How about the money seized by your raiding team, they were not also included in the search
warrant?

A. Yes sir, but I believe they were also taken considering that the money was discovered to be
contained in attaché cases. These attaché cases were suspected to be containing pistols or other
1âw phi1

high powered firearms, but in the course of the search the contents turned out to be money. So the
team leader also decided to take this considering that they believed that if they will just leave the
money behind, it might get lost also.

Q. That holds true also with respect to the other articles that were seized by your raiding team, like
Transfer Certificates of Title of lands?

A. Yes, sir. I think they were contained in one of the vaults that were opened.51

It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the monies,
communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team confiscated. The search
warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding team confiscated them on its own
authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without showing that these items
could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure.52 Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its
authority when it seized these items.

The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are contraband per se,53 and
they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them. However, we
do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely that the search and
seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor.
We thus hold that these items should be returned immediately to Dimaano.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037, remanding the
records of this case to the Ombudsman for such appropriate action as the evidence may warrant,
and referring this case to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of
any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., in the result. I concur with Mr. Justice Vitug in his concurring opinion.
Puno and Vitug, JJ., see separate opinion
Panganiban, J., in the result.
Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., on official leave.
Ynares-Santiago, J., in the result. I concur in the separate opinion of J. Reynato Puno.
Tinga, J., separate opinion reserved.