Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Due Process Clause - Procedural

Due Process Clause - Procedural

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,468|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Consti Part 2: procedural due process
STREET, J +4 concurred, 1 dissent
(note: not in Bernas) This action was instituted by "El Banco Espanol-Filipino"to foreclose a mortgage upon property situated in the cityof Manila. The mortgage was executed by the originaldefendant herein, Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng, assecurity for a debt owing by him to the bank.After the execution of this instrument by Tanquinyeng, hereturned to China and he there died.As Tanquinyeng was a nonresident at the time, it wasnecessary for the bank in the foreclosure proceeding togive notice to Tanquinyeng by publication pursuant to sec399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Publication was madein a newspaper of Manila. The court also directed the clerkof court to deposit in the post office a copy of the summonsand complaint directed to Tanquinyeng at his last place of residence, the city of Amoy, China pursuant to the sameprovision.Sec. 399,Code of Civil Procedure:In case of publication, where the residence of anonresident or absent defendant is known, the judge must direct a copy of the summons andcomplaint to be forthwith deposited by the clerkin the post-office, postage prepaid, directed tothe person to be served, at his place of residenceWhether the clerk complied with this order does notaffirmatively appear. The case proceeded in the CFI, and the defendant nothaving appeared, judgment was taken against him bydefault. July 3, 1908, decision was rendered in favor of the bank.It was ordered that the Tnaquinyeng should deliveramount owed to the clerk of the court, and it was declaredthat in case of failure to satisfy the judgment, the mortgageproperty should be exposed to public sale. The paymentcontmeplated in said order was never made.Court ordered the sale of the property which was bought inby the bank.7 years after confirmation of sale, motion was made byVicente Palanca, as administrator of Tanquinyeng,requesting the court to set aside the order of default andthe judgment rendered upon July 3, 1908, and to vacateall the proceedings subsequent thereto.Basis of motion: that the order of default and the judgmentrendered thereon were void because the court had neveracquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subjectof the action. The motion was denied.
Assume that the clerk of court failed to mail the papers which he was directed to send to the defendant in Amoy1)WON the court acquired the necessary jurisdiction toenable it to proceed with the foreclosure of themortgage. YES2)WON those proceedings were conducted in suchmanner as to constitute due process of law. YES
1. (note: not in Bernas)"jurisdiction," may have reference(1)to the authority of the court to entertain aparticular kind of action or to administer aparticular kind of relief, or it may refer to thepower of the court over the parties, or(2)over the property which is the subject to thelitigation. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntaryappearance of a party in court and his submission to itsauthority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legalprocess exerted over the person. Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of thelitigation may result either from a seizure of the propertyunder legal process, whereby it is brought into the actualcustody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein the power of the court over theproperty is recognized and made effective.In this Case: Tanquinyeng is a nonresident and, remaining beyond therange of the personal process of the court, refuses to comein voluntarily, the court never acquires jurisdiction overthe person at all. This, however, is not essential. The property itself is the sole thing which is impleaded andis the responsible object which is the subject of theexercise of judicial power. It follows that the jurisdiction of the court is based exclusively on the power which itpossesses over the property. The jurisdiction over the property based upon thefollowing:(1)that the property is located within the district;(2)that the purpose of the litigation is to subject theproperty by sale to an obligation fixed upon it bythe mortgage; and(3)that the court at a proper stage of the proceedingstakes the property into custody, if necessary, andexpose it to sale for the purpose of satisfying themortgage debt.Given that jurisdiction is exlusively over property, the relief granted by the court must be limited to such as can beenforced against the property itself.2. (this is the only issue included in Bernas)Requirement of due process is satisfied if;
consti 2 all stars
Consti Part 2: procedural due process
(1)There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matterbefore it;(2)jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over theperson of the defendant or over the property whichis the subject of the proceeding;(3)the defendant must be given an opportunity to beheard; and(4)judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.Issue in this case concerns (3).Opportunity to be heard:In a foreclosure case some notification of the proceedingsto the nonresident owner, prescribing the time within which appearance must be made is essential. To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for:1)publication2)personal notice thru mail, if his residence isknownPersonal Notice(aka constructive or substituted service)
Such notification does not constitute a service of process in any true sense.
It is merely a means provided by law whereby theowner may be admonished that his property is thesubject of judicial proceedings and that it isincumbent upon him to take such steps as he sees fitto protect it.
 This mode of notification does not involve any absoluteassurance that the absent owner shall thereby receiveactual notice.
 The provision of our law relative to the mailing of notice does not absolutely require the mailing of noticeunconditionally and in every event, but only in thecase where the defendant's residence is known.In the light of all these facts, it is evident that actual noticeto the defendant in cases of this kind is not, under the law,to be considered absolutely necessary.Assumption in recognizing the effectiveness of a means of notification which may fall short of actual notice is:Property is always assumed to be in the possession of itsowner, in person or by agent; and he may be safely held,under certain conditions, to be affected with knowledgethat proceedings have been instituted for its condemnationand sale.Right to due process has not been infringed.(further discussion on the irregularity of the non-performance of the clerk of court of delivering the notice isdiscussed in the case, but Bernas no longer includes.Procedural crap na ito…)
 Justice Laurel:A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Sol-Gen inbehalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations onthe case of National Labor Union Inc. praying that theirlabor case be remanded to the CIR for a new trial.Petitioner, Ang Tibay has filed an opposition for both themotion for reconsideration of CIR and the motion for anew trial by the National Labor Union. The National Labor Union’s case:
they alleged that Toribio Teodoro, who dominatedthe National Workers’ Brotherhood of Ang Tibay,made a false claim that there was a shortage of leather soles in ANg Tibay that made it necessaryfor him to lay off workers, however, claim wasunsupported by records of the Bureau of Customs& the accounts of native dealers of leather. Such was just a scheme adopted to systematicallydischarge all the members of the NLU, inc., from work.
unfair labor practice for discriminating against theNational Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoringthe National Workers' Brotherhood.
That the exhibits hereto attached are soinaccessible to the respondents that even with theexercise of due diligence they could not beexpected to have obtained them and offered asevidence in the Court of Industrial Relations.
 That the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that theiradmission would necessarily mean themodification and reversal of the judgmentrendered herein.HELD: motion for reconsideration denied, motion for newtrial granted.Discussion of the Nature of the CIR to emphasize certainguiding principles which should be observed in the trial of cases brought before it.Court of Industrial Relations – an administrative court- exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions inthe determination of disputes between employers andemployees- has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, toconsider, investigate, decide, and settle any question,matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/oraffecting employers and employees or laborers, andregulate the relations between them, subject to, and inaccordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act No.103 (section 1). There is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicialfunctions, which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.
consti 2 all stars
Consti Part 2: procedural due process
In the case of 
Goseco vs. Court of Industrial 
Court of Industrial Relations is not
narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure
, and the Act requires itto
"act according to justice and equity and substantialmerits of the case, without regard to technicalities orlegal forms
and shall not be bound by any technicalitiesor legal forms and shall
not be bound by any technicalrules of legal evidence
but may inform its mind in suchmanner as it may deem just and equitable." (Section 20,Commonwealth Act No. 103.)requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.1. right to a hearing, which includes the right of theparty interested or affected to present his own case andsubmit evidence in support thereof.2. tribunal
must consider 
the evidence presented.3. have something to support the decision4. evidence must be "substantial." - such relevantevidence as a reasonable mind accepts as adequate tosupport a conclusion." The statute provides that "therules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equityshall not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this andsimilar provisions is to free administrative boards fromthe compulsion of technical rules so that the mereadmission of matter which would be deemedincompetent inn judicial proceedings would notinvalidate the administrative order. But this assuranceof a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure doesnot go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidencehaving rational probative force. Mere uncorroboratedhearsay or rumor does not constitute substantialevidence5. The decision must be rendered on the evidencepresented at the hearing, or at least contained in therecord and disclosed to the parties affected. Only byconfining the administrative tribunal to the evidencedisclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected intheir right to know and meet the case against them. Itshould not, however, detract from their duty actively tosee that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to usethe authorized legal methods of securing evidence andinforming itself of facts material and relevant to thecontroversy.Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case,but their report and decision are only advisory, suchdelegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers.6. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges,therefore, must act on its or his own independentconsideration of the law and facts of the controversy, andnot simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving ata decision. It may be that the volume of work is such thatit is literally Relations personally to decide all controversiescoming before them.8.The Court of Industrial Relations should, in allcontroversial questions, render its decision in such amanner that the parties to the proceeding can know thevarious issues involved, and the reasons for the decisionrendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable fromthe authority conferred upon it. The court observed that, except as to the allegedagreement between the Ang Tibay and the NationalWorker's Brotherhood, the record is barren and does notsatisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which topredicate, in a national way, a conclusion of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a new trial shouldcommence giving the movant the opportunity to presentnew evidence.
By virtue of R.A No. 5514, philcomsat was granted afranchise to establish, construct, maintain and operate inthe Philippines, at such places the grantee may select,station or stations and or associated equipment andinternational satellite communications. under thisfranchise, it was likewise granted the authority to"construct and operate such ground facilities as needed todeliver telecommunications services from thecommunications satellite system and the groundterminals.
 The satellite service thus provided by petitioner enableinternational carriers to serve the public withindespensible communications service
Under sec. 5 of RA 5514, petitioner was exempt from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service commission. nowrespondent NTC
Pursuant EO 196 petitioner was
placed under the jurisdiction and control and regulation
of therespondent NTC
Respondent NTC ordered the petitoner to apply for therequisite certificate of public convenience and ncessitycovering its facilities and the services it renders, as well asthe corresponding authority to charge rates
September 9, 1987, pending hearing, petitioner filed withthe NTC an application to continue operating andmaintaining its facilities including a provisional authorityto continue to provide the services and the charges it wasthen charging
September 16, 1988 the petitioner was granted aprovisional authority and was valid for 6 months, when theprovisional authority expired, it was extended for another6 months.
However the NTC directed the petitioner to chargemodified reduced rates through a reduction of 15% onthe authorized rates
Issues:1. WON EO 546 and EO 196 are unconstitutional on the
consti 2 all stars

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->