Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

WHEN DOES A LAW IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS: 1. If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance 2. If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed

NOTE: • A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts. • A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts. • The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general wellbeing of the community may require, or the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity. • The purpose of the impairment clause is to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule, they should be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the intention of the parties or modify their rights and obligations. The will of the obligor and the obligee must be observed; the obligation of their contract must not be impaired. However, the protection of the impairment clause is not absolute. There are instances when contracts valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid, or some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or illegal, by virtue of supervening legislation. Limitations:

3. If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. Civil Code, Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Nature of protection • Purpose: Safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference by the State. • General Rule: Contracts should be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the intention of the parties or modify their rights and obligations. The will of the parties to the contract must prevail. Contracts affected • valid. Affects legal, executed and executory contracts, which must be

1. Police power—prevails over contracts; 2. Eminent domain—may impair obligation of contracts; and

Limitations • A contract valid at the time of its execution may be legally modified or even completely invalidated by a subsequent law. • Strict construction. Charters, franchises and licenses granted by the Government are strictly construed against the grantees. • If a law is a proper exercise of the police power, it will prevail over the contract. This is because public welfare is superior to private rights (PNB v. Remigio, G.R. 78508, March 21, 1995). Into each contract are read the provisions of existing law and, always, a reservation of the police power as long as the agreement deals with a matter affecting the public welfare. • Eminent domain and taxation may also validly limit the impairment clause. Effect of emergency legislation on contracts • In a national emergency, such as a protracted economic depression, the police power may be exercised to the extent of impairing some of the rights of parties arising from contracts. However, such emergency laws are to remain in effect only during the continuance of the emergency. Currency legislation and contracts • The legislative department has complete authority to determine the currency of the state and to prescribe what articles shall be used and accepted as legal tender in the payment of lawful obligations. • Private parties are bound to observe this governmental authority over the nation's currency in the execution of their contracts. Impairment • In order to come within the meaning of the constitutional provision, the obligation of contract must be impaired by some legislative act (statute, ordinance, etc.). The act need not be by a legislative office; but it should be legislative in nature. Furthermore, the impairment must be substantial (Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Assoc. v. DILG Secretary, G.R. 143076, June 10, 2003). • A mere administrative order, not legislative in nature, may not be considered a cause of impairment within the scope of the constitutional guarantee. The guarantee is also not violated by court decisions. • The act of impairment is anything which diminishes the value of the contract. The legislature may, however, change the remedy or may prescribe new modes of procedure. The change does not impair the obligation of contracts so long as another remedy, just as efficacious, is provided for the adequate enforcement of the rights under the contract. (Manila Trading Co v. Reyes, 1935)

3. Taxation—cannot impair obligation of contracts. What may a law be said to have impaired the obligation of contracts? A law which changes the terms of legal contract between parties, either in time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is a law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is null & void. (Clements v Nolting) Impairment—anything that diminishes the efficacy of a contract There is impairment when there is change in the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. (Clemons vs. Nolting, No. 17959, January 24, 1922) Hon. Heherson Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 162243, November 29, 2006, in unequivocal terms, the SC have consistently held that such licenses concerning the harvesting of timber in the country’s forests cannot be considered contracts that would bind the Government regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare. Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.  The law relating to the obligation of contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To fall within the prohibition the change must impair the obligation of the existing contract, and the impairment must be substantial. A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is therefore null and void. (Clemons v. Nolting) Any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, necessarily impairs the contract itself. (U.S. v. Diaz Conde)

Government of the Philippine Islands v. Frank: The terms of a statute had been made a part of the contract between Frank and the Government. The Court said that a subsequent amendment of the statute could not have the effect of amending the terms of the contract.  To come under the prohibition, the law must effect a change on the rights of the parties with reference to each other and not with reference to non-parties. Moreover, what the prohibition envisions are enactments passed by a governmental law-making body.  An additional tax imposed upon goods already contracted to be sold does not impair the contract between the buyer and seller.

In other words this defendant insists that the application of the payments from time to time made by the principal debtor should be revised and that said payments should be reapplied exclusively to the stipulated price of the cigarettes. (Pangasinan Transportation Co. and the liability for said tax naturally fell in the present case upon the plaintiff. upon the showing of the plaintiff's books and assuming that Nubla had been properly charged with the increased tax. therefore. It appears that when the contract above-mentioned was executed cigarettes were subject to a specific tax of the peso for each thousand cigarettes. and in the manner. 1915. which the plaintiff had paid upon said cigarettes. To the extent. This . ed. 2432. Court of Agrarian Relations: The security of tenure guaranteed to an agricultural tenant by a statute was challenged as impairing existing tenancy relations. payment to be made within the first five days of the month next following the successive deliveries. assuming that said defendant is liable for the tax at all. form July 15. Foster Wheeler Corporation. being a proper exercise by the state of police power. 680.. fifty-six cases of cigarettes were taken by Nubla. rendered against this defendant. morals and general welfare. post).  The non-impairment clause is a limit on the exercise of legislative power and not of judicial or quasi-judicial power. under the law then prevailing. and no farther. it was declared that. After this provision become effective. beyond the terms of his contract. as regards contracts already made for future delivery. they were credited by the plaintiff upon account. to September 6. Cho Jan Ling 27 Phil. (Co v. in upholding a statute granting to workers rights which they did not have under existing contracts. These proportions will be considered in turn. 2432. 189): Nothing can be clearer. whereby the plaintiff became obliged to supply cigarettes daily to Manuel Nubla CoSiong in a quantity of not less than two nor more than five boxes of two thousand packages each The price was fixed at P172 per box. 6 L. dollars by the payment of Philippine pesos at the rate of P2 = $1 when the commercial value of the U. Judgment having been there rendered in favor of the plaintiff. without reference to the additional P10 per case paid after January 1. and the rule is settled that the obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond its specified limits. and that the obligation of the surety is therefore discharged. The first is that. jointly and severally with his codefendant. is P10. the trial court held that the liability of the surety did not extend to the reimbursement of the plaintiff for the amount paid out by its satisfaction of the increased internal-revenue tax on the fifty six cases of cigarettes bought in August and September 1916. RAFAEL MACHUCA GO-TAUCO and MANUEL NUBLA CO-SIONG The plaintiff in this action. the trial court held that. the case presents one or two additional features which require discussion. as before. Rep. For the cigarettes so supplied payment was from time to time made by the defendant Nubla Co-Siong upon bills presented by the plaintiff. The dispute is upon the point of liability for the increased tax imposed by Act No. paid by the manufacturer. the case is determined adversely to his contention by the decision of this court in Mitsui Bussan Kaisaha vs. As already noted. Article 1827 of the Civil Code so declares (Uy Aloc vs.  New regulations on loans making redemption of property sold on foreclosure more strict were not allowed to apply retroactively. and upon this branch of the present case we are content to refer to the opinion therein as embracing a sufficient statement of the grounds of the decision. but likewise to those already established and in operation. Judgment was. the Court said that the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment is limited by the exercise of police power of the State. the burden of the increased tax should.     Primero v. furthermore. La Insular. zoning regulations are superior to contractual restrictions on the use of property. a contract was entered into between its general agent and the two defendants. As against the surety.   A license or permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or permittee. As the plaintiff did not appeal from this judgment. FEATI Bank) Contracts also yield to the requirements of freedom of worship. had been fully paid for. when applied to contractual debts. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company (p. and for the recovery of the amount alleged to be due for these cigarettes this action was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. As was said by Justice Story in Miller vs. unless the parties should have otherwise agreed. Pursuant to the provisions of this agreement cigarettes were supplied by the plaintiff to Nubla Co-Siong during the year 1913 to 1916. 2445 to be valid. and under the circumstances pointed out in his obligation. The monthly statements thereafter submitted to the purchaser by the plaintiff showed this increase. v. was deemed an impairment of the contractual obligation. It is. both defendants have appealed. Philippine National Bank) Limitations on the use of land imposed by contract yield to a reasonable exercise of police power and. supposing Act No. as to which the constitutional prescription against the impairment of contracts may extend. the Philippine Legislature increased the specific tax on cigarettes from P1 to P1. v. and with this doctrine the common law is accordant. amounting in value to nearly P350. 624. in the interest of public health. As to the defendant Rafael Machuca Go-Tauco.. therefore. it increases from P172 to P182 per box the price which Manuel Nubla Co-Siong was obligated to pay for the cigarettes. were sufficient fully to satisfy the price of P172 chargeable for the cigarettes under the contract. and by amendatory Act No. The second is that the payments made by Nubla to the plaintiff in the entire period during which cigarettes were supplied under the contract inquisition. the Court upheld the statute since it did not require the debtor to pay more nor the creditor to receive less than they were required to pay or receive under the former law. being a surety. effective from January 1. 1916. On July 15. (Gonzalo Sy Trading v.. to pay the internal-revenue taxes and in order to reimburse itself to the extent of the outlay incident to the increase in the tax added the amount of P10 per box to the price of the cigarettes. As regards the liability of the purchaser. here contended for the surety that the court erred in holding him liable for any part of the debtedness which is the basis of this action. It is undoubtedly true that the law looks upon the contract of surety ship with a jealous eye. The law. Manuel Nubla Co-Siong obligated himself as principal to pay for the cigarettes within said five says. both upon principle and authority. enacted December 23. hence. the propriety of the action of the trial court upon this point is not now in question. i. Rafael Machuca Go-Tuaco.S. a statute was passed providing that money judgments rendered in court should be stated in terms of the new Philippine currency in an amount equivalent to the value of the old. applied in the case just cited. are applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after its passage. or P172 per box. dollar was much more. Central Bank) LA INSULAR.S. jointly and severally with Nubla. that if any material alteration or change in the obligation of the Clemons v. 1915. and the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant Nubla Co-Siong. 1916.20 per thousand cigarettes. safety. and as payments were from time to time made by Nubla.632 only. 1913. absolved from liability for the sum of P560. however. all cigarettes delivered prior to August 1. his liability was limited to the payment of the price stipulated in the original contract. for the sum of P9. tax was.000. in the sum of P25. while Rafael Machuca Go-Tuaco bound himself as surety. to satisfy an indebtedness contracted for cigarettes thus supplied. 1914. than the doctrine that the liability of a surety is not to be extended. vs. and that he was not liable for the additional amount of P10 per box representing the increase in the tax. in satisfaction of the increased internal-revenue tax.000.192 — the amount for which judgment was rendered against him by the trial court. By Act No. In Gaspar v. Public Service Commission) In Abe v.  During the period of transition. which alteration in the contract has the effect of releasing the surety. (Ortigas & Co. This defendant was. for which no payment has been made. The Court ruled that the law was unquestionably a remedial legislation promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the police power of the State to promote the common weal. was challenged as an impairment of the obligation of contracts. Stewart (9 Wheat. the plaintiff continued. be borne by the person to whom the article taxed should be furnished.e. Molina. plaintiff-appellee. 2445. 427). he is bound. It is. 1913. is a commercial partnership engaged in the manufacture of cigars and cigarettes in the city of Manila. A change in the Catholic Church’s canon law which affects the contractual relation between parties with reference to internal affairs of the church is not covered by the prohibition. During the months of August and September. Nubla Co-Siong. by implication. Police power is superior over the sanctity of contracts. however. and is not a property in the constitutional sense. with the result that. Nolting: An attempt by the government to satisfy an obligation to pay in U. Statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities. This contention is based upon two distinct arguments. Manuel Nubla Co-Siong and Rafael Machuca Go-Tauco. The contract clause did not preclude remedial legislation in the interest of the general welfare. a well-recognized rule of jurisprudence.

MaGuire. of which Roman vs. Speaking generally. It is not necessary here to express an opinion upon the point whether the case referred to was or was not correctly decided. from one contract to another. and to hold the sureties answerable for the performance of such parts as were not altered. did not in any wise affect the obligation of the contract as between the parties. supervening upon the situation created by the contract . the amount of the rent was reduced $25 per month. that. made it impossible for the purchaser to realize the benefit which would have accrued to him if the seller had been required to pay the tax. be made by any other person than the actual parties thereto. The court overruled this contention and held that the statute merely imposed a tax upon the property of the depositors in the exercise of a power subject to which the contracts of deposits were made. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company. it must also follow that the contract was not changed in the sense necessary to release the surety. and will not countenance any transactions between the parties. 139). and it is . in the absence of any action by Congress. 38 Am. this was an act done by a stranger to the contract. and when the Legislature. will not discharge the latter. redeemable in cash or merchandise. Said the court: The law is particularly watchful over the rights of sureties. It appeared in the case just cited. an Act of the Legislature was passed curtailing the duties and emoluments of the office. Huntington (67 Mich. generally speaking. It is thus seen that all contracts are made subject to the taxing powers of the state and territorial governments. We observe. Little (240 U. 369. the surety is thereby discharged. by the modification and alternation.. It is not necessary here to express an opinion upon the point whether the case referred to was or was not correctly speaking. placing the burden of the tax on the purchaser. that shall lessen the ability of the principal to comply with his contract. without their consent. A recognized exception — more apparent than real — is found in cases where sureties on official bonds have been held to be released as a result of changes effected by the Legislature in the duration of the official term or in the duties of the officer whose fidelity is intended to be secured by the bond.. State of Vermont (231 U. 222). ed. xxx xxx xxx asserted that any change produced in the contract by the agency of a third person. and it is readily seen that when the Legislature of these Islands increased the internal revenue tax upon cigarettes. causing an increased responsibility of the surety. or enlarge the demand to the prejudice of the sureties. A line of decisions.. it is enough to release the surety that the contract was changed without his assent. 197 U. even though such taxation may affect particular contracts. tickets. if the creditor has merely been inactive or passive. subsequent to the execution of the official bond of a sheriff. 2432 and 2445 is not under discussion in this decision.) In Clemente National Bank vs. of which Roman vs. ed. impairing their obligation. ed. A line of decisions. nor can it be said that it impairs the obligation of any existing contract in its true legal sense. It was merely an external factor which. is named as the obligee in an official bond — was a party to the contract.. These principles are not denied by the opposite party. one of the most common illustrations being found in the situation where the creditor. as pertinent.. and in this connection we think it well to refer to some of the American cases in which the constitutionality of such Acts as these has been discussed. 222). 2432 and 2445. In Tanner vs. that. already referred to. as one of the arms of the State.S. or may impose additional burdens upon one class and release the burdens of another. holds that the surety is discharged by such change in the law.. 46. The point was made in this case that the statute levying the tax interfered with existing contracts between the bank and its depositors. as a general rule. that question was effectually settled by the Act of Congress legalizing Acts No. In the case at bar the Government of the Philippine Islands was in no sense a party to the contract of July 15. without their consent. 479. by the modification and alternation. this last observation may be accepted. it should be noted. or coupons. however. holds that the surety is discharged by such change in the law. and one for which the sureties never become responsible. is an illustration. is an illustration.]. In this case it was held. To permit parties to their and modify their contracts as they please. be made by the principal parties to the contract. and not by any person in privity therewith.) A statement is not infrequently found in the cases to the effect that it makes no difference whether the change in the obligation of the contract may be favorable to the surety.. for as will be seen by reference to Mitsui Bussan Kaisaha vs. 22 L. causing an increased responsibility of the surety. or an increased tax on an old one. such change was in fact effected by the State itself. But we cannot regard the state as a stranger to this contract. in order to secure the collection of a valid tax upon such credits. Co. Upon this point we quote.]. but none of them show that a lawful tax on a new subject. A recognized exception — more apparent than real — is found in cases where sureties on official bonds have been held to be released as a result of changes effected by the Legislature in the duration of the official term or in the duties of the officer whose fidelity is intended to be secured by the bond. without the assent of the surety. or that shall alter the rights of the parties. Nearly all changes in taxation affect existing contracts in some way or other. no valid or effective change in the contract can. intervened to change the obligation. vs. The contract. 691).) It is has been held by the same high Tribunal that the imposition of a license tax on the resident agent of a foreign manufacturing company does not impair the obligation of the contract between the agent and his principal. and will not countenance any transactions between the parties. does not unconstitutionally impair the contract These principles are not denied by the opposite party. (The North Missouri R. that the closing words of the passage quoted shows that the court placed the decision on the ground that the State — which entity. be made by any other person than the actual parties thereto. though of course the liability of the surety was held to be reduced to the same extent. interferes with a contract or impairs its obligation. by a valid agreement between the landlord and his tenant (the principal obligor). ed. would be transferring their responsibility. although its immediate consequence is to make that contract less profitable to the agent. but authorities are to be found which raise a doubt as to the universality of such rule. but their application to official bonds given to the state by public officers is contested. 1913. still the tax must be paid unless prohibited by the Constitutional. The question of the constitutional validity of Acts Nos. between the plaintiff and the defendants. it was held that a state license tax on merchants using stamps. 120. as it may increase the debt of one person and lessen the security of another.. if the creditor has merely been inactive or passive. Peters (2 Rob [La. an Act of the Legislature was passed curtailing the duties and emoluments of the office. the state could provide. without the asset of the surety. 663. by a valid and binding agreement gives further time to the principal debtor for payment or performance..principal obligator is effected by the immediate parties to the contract. 60 L. 60: 49 L. 148). Indeed. form one contract to another. Thus. To permit parties to alter and modify their contracts as they please.S. of impairing the contract in the constitutional sense. the latter is discharged. Peters (2 Rob. As is well known. for garnishment or trustee process against the bank. The consequence is that. and to hold the sureties answerable for the performance of such parts as were not altered. it was held that the obligations of existing contracts between a national bank and its depositors were not constitutionally impaired by a tax imposed by the legislature of the State of Vermont upon interest bearing deposits which the bank was authorized to pay and charge to the depositors. But it is insisted that the Legislative Acts las mentioned so altered the obligation of the contract in question as to release the surety. becomes a new and different contract. Stewart. Cases could be cited to this proposition without number. But we cannot regard the state as a stranger to this contract. The contract. or that shall alter the rights of the parties. properly speaking. will not discharge the latter.S. that shall lessen the ability of the principal to comply with his contract. the following language used by the Supreme Court of the United States: Authorities from numerous sources are cited by the plaintiffs.. The court considered the reduction of rent as being in the nature of a release pro tanto only It is to be noted that in order to effect a release of the surety.. the legislative fiat. (Kehrer vs. 87 U. It appeared in the case cited. Said the court: The law is particularly watchful over the rights of sureties. but their application to official bonds given to the state by public officers is contested. at page 140: It cannot be doubted that the property being taxable. for it is evident that if the imposition of the increased tax on cigarettes in the case before us could not have had the effect. 38 Am. or in effect constitute the bank its agent to collect the tax from the individual depositors. or enlarge the demand to the prejudice of the sureties. becomes a new and different contract. but this does not necessarily change such contracts in a legal sense. Dec.. (32 Cyc. 191.S. [La. would be transferring their responsibility. the change in the contract must. and it is asserted that any change produced in the contract by the agency of a third person. it was held that a surety who had obligated himself to answer for the rent reserved in a lease at the rate of $75 per month was not discharged from the obligation by the circumstances that. and one for which the sureties never became responsible. or obligee. 294.R. 58 L. in Preston vs. Dec. subsequent to the execution of the official bond of a sheriff. within the meaning of the Constitution. 479.

” except to the COMELEC. he authorized a certain Andrew So to use his name and image for 96° North. wherein it ordered him to remove or cause the removal of the billboards. mere product endorsements and not election propaganda. This Court takes a contrary view. we think. streamers. Activities included under this definition are: (1) Forming organizations. ed. it was held that a contract between a city and a railroad company to participate in the construction of a viaduct in view of their mutual duty to the public is not violated by a statute and ordinance compelling the railroad company to repair it. vs. Prohibiting. 2003 and November 10. One more billboard was set up along Roxas Boulevard showing petitioner promoting the game and amusement parlors of G-Box. and by the prevalence of poverty. Francisco I. entered into formal agreements with certain establishments to endorse their products. peace. morals. “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” is defined as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office. respondents. National Capital Judicial Region. ESMERALDA AMORA-LADRA. with costs against the appellants. the provision assailed herein. as stated in his complaint. by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. 55 L. associations. 2004. In this petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. two questions must be asked: (1) Does the interest of the public in general. Pursuant to these agreements. 2003. image. while they exhibit his name and image. . and all advertisements on print. stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the picture. REPORMA. COMELEC. We are not impressed by the suggestion contained in the appellant's brief to the effect that as the bill appear to have been rendered only for cigarettes supplied. as an inherent attribute of sovereignty. which are sufficiently put in issue in the complaint and answer. In Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. represented by its Chairman. Railroad Commission of Indiana (221 U. he concludes. petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Senator under Alyansa ng Pag-asa. clubs. ABALOS.e. he claims.. on January 29. vs.. and the general welfare of the people. like ours. the obligation of the contract which is the basis of this action nor changed that obligation in such sense as to occasion the discharge of the surety. On August 18. The obvious intention of this provision is to equalize. petitioner Chavez asks this Court that the COMELEC be enjoined from enforcing the assailed provision. 2004. On January 6. showed an increased of P10 per case in the price of the cigarettes. their exhibition to the public is not within the scope of the powers of the COMELEC. which prohibited the sale or donation of print space and air time “for campaigning or other political purposes. 2003. require the exercise of police power? and (2) Are the means employed reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals? A close examination of the assailed provision reveals that its primary objectives are to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public office. On December 30. and lesser-known or poorer candidates. petitioner was directed to comply with the said provision by the COMELEC’s Law Department. He sent another letter dated February 23. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Moreover. petitioner cannot claim that the subject billboards are purely product endorsements and do not announce nor solicit any support for his candidacy. These last two agreements were entered into on October 14. Burlington & Quincy Railroad co. State of Nebraska (170 U. a clothing company. as follows: Section 32. do not at all announce his candidacy for any public office nor solicit support for such candidacy from the electorate. He replied. the situations of rich and poor candidates by preventing the former from enjoying the undue advantage offered by huge campaign “war chests. **Does the law impair the obligation of the contract? No. as distinguished from those of a particular class. the same is accordingly affirmed. These authorities. Commission on Elections. 2004. by requesting the COMELEC that he be informed as to how he may have violated the assailed provision. respectively. in radio or on television showing the image or mentioning the name of a person. the law does not change the relation between the parties. The COMELEC answered petitioner’s request by issuing another letter. All propaganda materials such as posters. is to establish an obligation of the seller to one not a party to the contract. good order. The surety is clearly bound by the application of the payments made by the creditor wit the assent of the principal debtor. In Chicago. he and said radio station. The fundamental rights of the parties. or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate FRANCISCO I. however. on one hand. print media or television station within 3 days after the effectivity of these implementing rules. 948). otherwise. in a constitutional sense. committees. dated February 27. on various dates. clearly show that the Acts of the Legislature by which the increased tax on cigarettes was imposed neither impaired. 2003. is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health. vs. to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates. in her capacity as Acting Director IV.S. 6646. dated January 6. i.[1] To determine the validity of a police measure. 2004. They are. One billboard showed petitioner promoting the plastic products of Konka International Plastics Manufacturing Corporation. CHAVEZ. the government. the payments must therefore be applied exclusively to the price of the cigarettes. 1915. Is Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. therefore. and the other two showed petitioner endorsing the clothes of 96° North. watchmen. and which. on the other. after January 1.obligations of such merchants with their customers or with third parties with whom they had contracted for the use of such stamps or coupons before the Act levying the tax was passed. ed. He urges this Court to declare the assailed provision unconstitutional as the same is allegedly (1) a gross violation of the non-impairment clause. Petitioner Chavez. or name of a person. considering that the billboards adverted to are mere product endorsements and cannot be construed as paraphernalia for premature campaigning under the rules. it was held that a contract between two intersecting railway companies imposing upon the junior road the duty of constructing and property maintaining the physical crossing of the two roads. BENJAMIN S. respondent COMELEC issued Resolution No. who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office shall be immediately removed by said candidate and radio station. Petitioner also signed Endorsement Agreements with Konka International Plastics Manufacturing Corporation and another corporation involved in the amusement and video games business. 2004. and the SOLICITOR GENERAL. (4) contrary to the Fair Elections Act. Under the Omnibus Election Code. 6520. 6520. a tripartite alliance of three political parties: PROMDI. three billboards were set up along the Balintawak Interchange of the North Expressway. he very well knew that this additional amount was due to the inclusion of the new tax paid by the plaintiff. which contained Section 32. are not in our opinion affected by the form in which the accounts were rendered nor by the circumstances that the plaintiff's cause of action. etc. The point raised in behalf of the surety with respect to the application of the payments must in our opinion be likewise resolved adversely to him. education.. this time asking the COMELEC that he be exempted from the application of Section 32. and not for cigarettes plus the amount paid upon account of internal-revenue tax.” This Court ruled therein that this objective is of special importance and urgency in a country which. and providing and maintaining semaphores. So ordered.S.[2] wherein the petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. The assailed provision is. is not constitutionally impaired by an order of the state railroad commission prescribing other and additional duties such as the installation and use of an interlocking plant and apportioning between the two companies the expense of executing the order. Feeling aggrieved. Chavez stands as a taxpayer and a citizen asking this Court to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from enforcing Section 32 of its Resolution No. The latter is a valid reason for the exercise of police power as held in National Press Club v. The court further held in this case that the maintenance of safe viaducts over railroad tracts at important street crossings cannot be taken out of the police power of the legislature by a contract between a city and a railroad company. is characterized by extreme disparity in income distribution between the economic elite and the rest of society. Our conclusion is that there is no error in the judgment appealed from.. On January 21. with so many of our population falling below the poverty line. 400. print media or television station shall be presumed to have conducted premature campaigning in violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. as far as practicable. and Aksyon Demokratiko. 6520 an invalid exercise of police power? Petitioner argues that the billboards. purports to be based merely upon a claim for cigarettes sold. petitioner. 2004.. or safety. G-Box. 786). What it does. 57. 42 L. (2) an invalid exercise of police power. Police power. and (5) invalid due to overbreadth. (3) in the nature of an ex-post facto law. or to cover them from public view pending the approval of his request. and we entertain no doubt that when Manuel Nubla Co-Siong from time to time paid the bills submitted by the plaintiff.

that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed. no ex post facto law in this case. Held: No. and the right to reply. the billboards featuring his name and image assumed partisan political character because the same indirectly promoted his candidacy. morals and law. reasonableness. without regard to the level of financial resources one may have at his disposal. time. during the election period. is indeed of vital interest to the public. All buildings and other improvements (except the fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot must be. x x x [4] Article IX (C) (4) of the Constitution provides: Sec. mode and manner in keeping with norms of decency. the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. NO. peace. However. media of communication or information. as vendor. There is.L-24670.” Nor does it prohibit or consider an offense the entering of contracts for such propaganda materials by an individual who subsequently becomes a candidate for public office. stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller. Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity. The offense. (a) of strong materials and properly painted. **The municipal resolution. equal rates therefor. Similarly. Health. honest. whether or not a voter or candidate. stickers or paintings on walls and other materials showing the picture. The Commission may. (3) Making speeches.[3] (underscoring ours) It is true that when petitioner entered into the contracts or agreements to endorse certain products. in radio or on television showing the image or mentioning the name of a person. streamers. Laws of this nature must operate prospectively. orderly. particularly the Highway Hills Subdivision along EDSA. image or name of a person. or instrumentality thereof. EDSA. and all advertisements on print. All these are aimed at the holding of free. Section 32. the rule is not absolute. or for any party. 4. (b) provided with modern sanitary installations connected either to the public sewer or to an approved septic tank. Indeed. which is subject to and limited by the paramount police power. Hence. good order and general welfare of the people in the locality are justifications for this.[5] Equal opportunity to proffer oneself for public office.”[7] and in whatever form. a main traffic artery which runs through several cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila area. 14 DEC 1979] Facts: Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business.[6] Furthermore. FEATI BANK [94 SCRA 533. this Court has said that contracts affecting public interest contain an implied reservation of the police power as a postulate of the existing legal order. pledges or support for or against a candidate.(2) Holding political caucuses. peaceful. upholding police power. including reasonable. except when they are favorable to the accused. The State has the duty to enact and implement rules to safeguard this interest. 2. On March 4. Both the agreements (of sale on installment) and the deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that: 1. this Court notes that the very contracts entered into by petitioner provide that the endorser’s photograph and image shall be utilized in whatever form.”[8] and “in whatever form. It should be stressed. safety. to the disadvantage of other candidates who do not have the same chance of lending their faces and names to endorse popular commercial products as image models. Motion for recon was denied. defines an offense and prescribes a penalty for said offense. entered into separateagreements of sale on installments over two parcels of land of the Subdivision. or (5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes. One definitely does not commit an offense by entering into a contract with private parties to use his name and image to endorse certain products prior to his becoming a candidate for public office. for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate. it is superior to the obligation of contracts. however. parades. or association of persons. to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period. including any government-owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary. he shall be liable under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code for premature campaigning. and Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles. reasonableness. – It shall be unlawful for any person. and credible elections. and space. . supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities. announcements or commentaries. would be a circumvention of the rule against premature campaigning: Sec. who subsequent to the placement or display thereof becomes a candidate for public office.[10] A close scrutiny of this rationale. all grants. an individual intending to run for public office within the next few months. 80. Plaintiff demand to stop it. as vendees. Such an act will not militate against the impairment clause. safety or welfare of the residents in its route. without a doubt.”[9] Petitioner also claims that Section 32 of Resolution No. peaceful. (4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate. and (c) shall not be at a distance of less than two (2) meters from its boundary lines. plaintiff. Defendant began constructing a commercial bank building. the petition is DISMISSED ORTIGAS VS. therefore. however. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes. Time and again. the COMELEC is expressly authorized to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all media communication or information to ensure equal opportunity. it makes a person. demonstrates its lack of persuasiveness. as expressly prescribed in the assailed provision. He urges this Court to believe that the assailed provision makes an individual criminally liable for an election offense for not removing such advertisement. It should be noted. Upon completion of payment of the purchase price. hence the appeal. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. with same restrictions. that the offense defined in the assailed provision is not the putting up of “propaganda materials such as posters. morals and law. agency. Resolution is a valid exercise of police power. whose name or image is featured in any such advertisement. Neither is Section 32 of Resolution No. is the non-removal of the described propaganda materials three (3) days after the effectivity of COMELEC Resolution No. orderly. could pay private corporations to use him as their image model with the intention of familiarizing the public with his name and image even before the start of the campaign period. although not strictly an ordinance. he acted as a private individual and had all the right to lend his name and image to these products. special privileges. Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. meetings. conferences. 6520 is in the nature of an ex post facto law. As a reasonable exercise of police power. the COMELEC was acting well within its scope of powers when it required petitioner to discontinue the display of the subject billboards. noise and pollution are hardly conducive to the health. This. even if at the time the said advertisement was exhibited. Lot 5 directly from Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills by deed of exchange. for public information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the objective of holding free. the same was clearly legal. mode and manner “in keeping with norms of decency. WHEREFORE. nowhere is it indicated in the assailed provision that it shall operate retroactively. which forced him to file a case. or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office. mode and manner not contrary to law and norms of decency. although not penal in nature. or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision. If the candidate for public office fails to remove such propaganda materials after the given period. The non-impairment clause of the Constitution must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government. developing and selling lots to the public. It is a police measure and prevails over a restriction contained in the title to property. supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity. or even abrogate it entirely. Under the abovementioned Constitutional provision. If the subject billboards were to be allowed. honest. since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. or other similar assemblies. the plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of Emma Chavez. candidates for public office whose name and image are used to advertise commercial products would have more opportunity to make themselves known to the electorate. and credible elections. time. On July 19. Therefore. Issue: Whether or Not non-impairment clause violated. rallies. 1962. and space. for the promotion or protection of the general welfare. liable for premature campaigning under the Omnibus Election Code. 6520. when he filed his certificate of candidacy for Senator. which was later dismissed. 1952. Plaintiff claims that restriction is for the beautification of the subdivision. This power can be activated at anytime to change the provisions of the contract. is a zoning regulation which is a police power measure which the municipality has the power to pass under the Local Autonomy Act. Defendant claimed of the commercialization of western part of EDSA. 6520 a gross violation of the non-impairment clause. and she shall not be entitled to take or remove soil.

At the time the Almendrases bought their property in question from Makati Development Corporation. restaurants. 81-01. On January 20. In the Sangalang case. the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration. these contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions are annotated on the torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police power. No. it is still considered as a "(R-1) residential zone. therefore.. the demand for payment of attorney's fees is now without legal or factual basis. safety. 117) pursuant to its Ordinance No. Undoubtedly. as provided in Section 15 thereof. the petition is hereby GRANTED. 94 SCRA 533 [1979]). art. vs. in accordance with the ruling in the Sangalang case. peace. Art. ordinance. respondents.. it cannot contravene 'law. 81-01 passed by the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) on March 14. more specifically the Court's interpretation of Ordinance No. not only because of the fact that Jupiter Street is not covered by the restrictive easements based on the 'deed restrictions' but chiefly because the National Government itself. it sent a letter to the defendants asking them to desist from operating the store (Exh. pp.ENEDINA PRESLEY. Likewise. Makati. there is a violation of the non-impairment clause? The Court in the Sangalang case.55.' (Civil Code. there was no more reason for the latter to demand payment of such dues and assessments. particularly Jupiter Road which is owned by and registered in the name of BAVA. 30-31) After due hearing on the merits. public order. Only a consensual contract existed between the parties whereby Almendras regularly pays his dues and assessments to BAVA for such services as security. As far as the Bel-Air subdivision itself is concerned. needs. held: . (BAVA for short) against Teofilo Almendras and Rollo Almendras (now both deceased and substituted by defendant-appellant Enedina Presley) for violation of the Deed Restrictions of Bel-Air Subdivision that the subject house and lot shall be used only for residential and not for commercial purposes and for non-payment of association dues to plaintiff BAVA amounting to P3. we absolve the Ayala Corporation primarily owing to our finding that is not liable for the opening of Jupiter Street to the general public. It failed to present any proofs or convincing arguments to substantiate its claim that Jupiter Street is still classified as a residential zone. it implements the constitutional mandate for the State “to protect and promote the right to health of the people” and “to make essential goods. the prohibition against the use by doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of similar import in their prescription in the Generics Act is a lawful regulation. We reiterate the Court's pronouncements in the Sangalang case which are quite clear: It is not that we are saying that restrictive easements. the full text of Republic Act 6675 was published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. certification to the effect or jurisprudence for that matter was brought to the attention of this Court which would necessarily compel us to take a second look at the Sangalang Case. COURT OF APPEALS. the records reveal that this issue is now moot and academic after petitioner Presley purchased the property subject of lease from the Almendrases and settled all association dues. see no reason why the petitioner should be singled out and prohibited from putting up her hot pan de sal store. . It avers that due to the multitude of issues raised and the numerous pleadings filed by the different contending parties. is the owner and operator of 'Hot Pan de Sal Store' located in the same address. subject to the overriding demands. (p. are invalid or ineffective. the Deed Restrictions (Exh. Bel-Air Village Association. like all contracts.. Teofilo Almendras contended that there was no written contract between him and appellee BAVA. It has likewise been established that the Almendrases had not paid the BAVA membership dues and assessments which amounted to P3. the trial court rendered the decision in favor of BAVA which was affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals. they are valid and enforceable. Metro Manila. Bel-Air Village. morals. and THE HON. when the services were withdrawn by appellee BAVA. There is no constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act. It held that the provisions of the Deed of Restrictions are in the nature of contractual obligations freely entered into by the parties. But they are. and enhance the common good.803. at the expense of contractual rights. We. they were members of plaintiff BAVA pursuant to the Deed Restrictions annotated in their title (TCT No. The petition was captioned as an action for declaratory relief. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. the Court was misled and unfortunately erred in concluding that Jupiter Street was reclassified as a "high density commercial (C-3) zone" when in fact. the national organization of medical doctors in the Philippines. Officers of the Philippine Medical Association. Nevertheless. Feati Bank and Trust Co. The records indicate that commercial buildings. 1306). offices. as lessee of the property. Above all. Under the existing Deed Restrictions aforesaid. (p. whenever necessary. the Court decided to treat it as a petition for prohibition instead. 667. 1981. 1159) but while it is so. they are valid and can be enforced against the petitioner. Emphasis supplied) In the instant petition. 81-01 Hence. Phase 3 of Administrative Order 62 was amended by Administrative Order 76 dated 28 August 1989 by postponing to 1 January 1990 the effectivity of the sanctions and penalties for violations of the law.802. A complaint for specific performance and damages with preliminary injunction was filed by plaintiff-appellee. 667) Jupiter Street has been highly commercialized since the passage of Ordinance No. With respect to the demand for payment of association dues in the sum of P3. INC. II and Section 11. had reclassified Jupiter Street into a 'high density commercial (C-3) zone. We have carefully examined the pleadings but have found no reason to reconsider the Sangalang doctrine. However. the petitioners have no cause of action on the strength alone of the said deed restrictions.' (supra. Issue: WON. however.. the respondent court's decision has to be reversed. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost” (Section 15. and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the legitimate exercise of police power. garbage collection and maintenance and repair of Jupiter Street. . petitioner. the entire Bel-Air Subdivision is classified as a purely residential area. Thus. "D"). BAVA assails the Court's decision in the Sangalang case. The Court can not reverse a precedent and rule favorably for the private respondent on the strength of mere inferences. Inc. good customs. certainly. (See Filinvest v. The respondent court in the case at bar was not at all entirely wrong in upholding the Deed of Restrictions annotated in the title of the petitioners.. "C") was already annotated in their title (Exh. null and void. 1980. 1989. 71169. Id. the Court will certainly not hesitate to correct the situation and the case at bar would be the proper occasion to do so. provided in Sections 6 and 12 of the Generics Act and Sections 4 and 7 of the Administrative Order. Issue: WON. especially the easements herein in question. it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power. 73616) over the property in question and defendant Presley. Held: Yes. The prohibition against the use by doctors of “no substitution” and/or words of . supra. WHEREFORE. 15 days after its publication. G. we likewise exculpate the private respondents. "B") providing (among others) 'that the lot must be used only for residential purpose' When BAVA came to know of the existence of the 'Pan de sal' store. The Almendrases were at the time of the filing of the action the registered owners of a house and lot located at 102 Jupiter Street. hence." If indeed private respondent's observations were accurate.55 as of November 3. (Rollo. rather. filed a class suit requesting the Court to declare some provisions (specifically penal) of the Generics Act of 1988 and the implementing Administrative Order 62 issued pursuant thereto as unconstitutional. Section 7. the private respondent has come out with mere assertions and allegations. Insofar as these petitions are concerned. Art.' (See rollo. over which the Court does not exercise jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract and is said to be the 'law between the contracting parties. designed precisely to promote health. 1987 Constitution). (Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership v.R. In assailing the Court's decision. in view of the public interest involved. 182 SCRA 664 [1990]) No new zoning re-classification.803. The law took effect on 30 March 1989. or public policy. However. (same w/ Ortigas) DEL ROSARIO VS BENGZON Facts: On 15 March 1989. As such registered owners. through the Metro Manila Commission (MMC). XIII. Court of Appeals. on behalf of their professional brethren who are of kindred persuasion. art.55. and stores have already sprouted in this area.

1963. by the orders in question. 9. the present special civil action or certiorari and mandamus. that the aforementioned court authorize them to sue as pauper litigants. timely and far-reaching. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name drug with “no substitution. That the provisions of this section shall not apply to sugar centrals with an actual production of less than one hundred fifty thousand piculs. It secures to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his prescription form. A suit was filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental on February 21. The sole issue herein is whether petitioners were deprived. I of Art. 22. Among the provisions in our Constitution is one both. being laborers dependent solely on their daily wages for livehood and possessed of no properties. can not be classified as poor or paupers. Ramon Barata. does not fit with the purpose of the rules on suits in forma pauperis and the provision of the Constitution..500. printed record and printed brief. just as the patient may take or refuse the doctor’s advice or prescription. but equally effective. 22. 1963 by ten persons for their own behalf and that of 9. Sr.  This provision is the basis for Sec. plaintiffs asked thereunder as well as by separate motion. INOCENCIO ROSAL. like the accused in a criminal case who can ask for the assistance of counsel de officio. HON. Plaintiffs sought to recover their alleged participations or shares amounting to the aggregate sum of P14. A doctor may take in or refuse a patient." It is the one involved in this case. **those protected include low paid employees. particularly Sections 1 and 9 thereof: SECTION 1. and thirty per centum for the central in any milling district the maximum actual production of which exceeds one million two hundred thousand piculs. and forty per centum for the central in any milling district the maximum actual production of which is not more than SEC. Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of said order but reconsideration was denied in an order dated June 11. The benefits granted to laborers in sugar plantations under this Act and in the Minimum Wage Law shall not in any way be diminished by such labor contracts known as "by the piece. including representation in court. III: "Free access to the courts shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty." "by the area. or otherwise. A ll over the world. and similar services available from the DOJ to litigants who cannot afford retained counsel. unless the court otherwise provides. and thirty-five per centum for the central in any milling district the maximum actual production of which exceeds six hundred thousand piculs but does not exceed nine hundred thousand piculs. city or municipal treasurer. 1. molasses. And." or by any other system of "pakyaw. The IBP provides deserving indigents with free legal aid. We allowed petitioners herein to litigate in this Court as paupers and required respondent to answer. Such interpretation. the unrefined sugar produced in that district from the milling by any sugar central of the sugar-cane of any sugar-cane planter or plantation owner. III of the Constitution of the Philippines. shall be divided between them as follows: Sixty per centum for the planter. SEC. Sixty-seven and one-half per centum for the planter. is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. In denying petitioners' motion to litigate as paupers. of free access to the courts by reason of poverty. to our mind. respondent Judge adopted the definition at "pauper" in Black's Law Dictionary (at p. And in support of the foregoing. denying the same upon the ground that the plaintiffs have regular employment and sources of income and. in the Bill of Rights. — Any court may authorize a litigant to prosecute his action or defense as a pauper upon a proper showing that he has no means to that effect by affidavits. bagasse and other derivatives based on the provisions of Republic Act 809 (The Sugar Act of 1952). the proceeds of any increase in the participation granted the planters under this Act and above their present share shall be divided between the planter and his laborers in the plantation in the following proportion: Sixty per centum of the increased participation for the laborers and forty per centum for the planters. In the absence of written milling agreements between the majority of planters and the millers of sugarcane in any milling district in the Philippines. Sixty-five per centum for the planter. in the sugar. as a nation collectively and as persons individually. It is Subsec. Sec. the ten named plaintiffs submitted certificates of the municipal treasurers of their places of residence stating that they have no real property declared in their names in said municipalities. By actual production is meant the total production of the mill for the crop year immediately preceding." the Secretary of Labor being hereby authorized to issue the necessary orders for the enforcement of this provision. 1963. After hearing on February 10. Such authority once given shall include an exemption from payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond.031. on August 1. 1963. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court: SECTION 11: FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY. 22. The law aims to benefit the impoverished (and often sickly) majority of the population in a still developing country like ours. this rule has been implemented by several provisions of the Rules of Court in favor of the pauper litigant. Assailing said two CFI orders and asserting their alleged right not to be denied free access to the courts by reason of poverty. and thirty-seven and onehalf per centum for the central in any milling district the maximum actual production of which exceeds four hundred thousand piculs but does not exceed six hundred thousand piculs. should be done with a view to realizing this fundamental objective. 1964 this case was submitted for decision. 1284) as "a person so poor that he must be supported at public expense". that: "Free access to the courts shall not be denied to any person by . Petition to litigate as pauper in the instant case before Us was also filed. Central Azucarera de Bais. Those protected include low paid employees.74. It suffices that the plaintiff is indigent. Acting on the petition to litigate in forma pauperis. Seventy per centum for the planter. thus. subsec. ** There is no merit in the petitioner’s theory that the Generics Act impairs the obligation of contract between a physician and his patient. and thirty-two and onehalf per centum for the central in any milling district the maximum actual production of which exceeds nine hundred thousand piculs but does not exceed one million two hundred thousand piculs.000 other farm laborers working off and on in sugar cane plantations at the Bais milling district.similar import in their prescription. and Miguel Franco. generic equivalent would thereby be curtailed. 1963.” the patient’s option to buy a lower-priced. Aurelio Montinola. There are also private legal assistance organizations now functioning for the benefit of penurious clients who otherwise might be unable to resort to the courts of justice because only of their misfortune of being poor. certificate of the corresponding provincial. under Sec. therefore. for no contract ever results from a consultation between patient & physician. Constitutions share one purpose: to protect and enhance the people's interest. The distribution of the share corresponding to the laborers shall be made under the supervision of the Department of Labor. as afore-stated. Sixty-two and one-half per centum for the planter.00. Pauper litigant. domestic servants and laborers The new Constitution has expanded the right so that in addition to giving free access to courts it now guarantees free access also to “quasi-judicial bodies” and to “adequate legal assistance” FELIPE ACAR. Inspired by social justice policy and covered by the equal protection clause. not the affluent and generally healthy minority four hundred thousand piculs: Provided. Interpretation of its provisions. This provision makes them the equal of the rich before the law. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allowing litigation in forma pauperis. And on August 16. he ruled that petitioners are not that poor. The legal fees shall be a lien to any judgment rendered in the case favorably to the pauper." Furthermore. against Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas. Negros Oriental." "by the volume. ET AL vs. The Philippine Constitution is no exception. 1963. the Court of First Instance issued an order on May 27. They need not be persons so poor that they must be supported at public expense. Respondent's answer was filed on November 2. 21. Compañia Celulosa de Filipinas. plaintiffs in said case filed herein. In addition to the benefits granted by the Minimum Wage Law. They alleged that they had no means to pay the docket fee of P14. as it affects the people at large and relates to social justice problems of the day. (21) of Art. SECTION 11: FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY.836. invoking Sec. domestic servants and labourers. as well as all by-products and derivatives thereof.

[14] Msesm The only issue expressly raised by petitioner is whether a motion to litigate as pauper can be entertained by an appellate court. Case No. as plaintiffs in the suit before respondent Judge. where it is not practicable to bring all the other 9. the grant of a motion to litigate as pauper - Sec. as mentioned earlier. Class suit. Chavez himself. It suffices that plaintiff is indigent (Ibid. subsequent fees and charges would have to be paid. one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.000 of them. the same would be spread among them at about P1. 24 NE 830). appeal bond and similar requisites GHG3h. It must be remembered. is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food. 31). And as pointed out. But this procedural infirmity notwithstanding. therefore. logical and practical construction demanded by the free access clause of the Constitution.[9] Petitioner then filed a Manifestation on 28 October 1997 wherein he stated through counsel that he was transmitting the docket fees required of his client "under protest" and that the money remitted was advanced by his counsel. 16. the trial judge may enter an order entitling the party to appeal as pauper. The clerk shall transmit to the appellate court the entire record of the case.000 other laborers. and the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. Rule 3: SEC. 1284. that it ought to be reviewed by the appellate court. 21. Jur.000 laborers before the court.[6] On 23 August 1994 petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Motion to Litigate as Pauper attaching thereto supporting affidavits executed by petitioner himself and by two (2) ostensibly disinterested persons attesting to petitioner's eligibility to avail himself of this privilege.[4] On 21 When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect on 1 July 1997 the provision abovequoted was not reenacted. the fact that he is able-bodied and may earn the necessary money is no answer to his statement that he has not sufficient means to prosecute the action or to secure the costs" (14 Am. for non-payment of docket fee. outlines the procedure for. the not a public charge. So that in the suit before respondent Judge the ten named petitioners herein are the ones suing. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. the right not to be denied free access to the courts by reason of poverty.[13] However. p. showing in petitioners' favor.). On 8 August 1994 the court denied the motion for reconsideration. Appeal by pauper – Where a party desiring to appeal shall establish to the satisfaction of the trial court that he is a pauper and unable to pay the expenses of prosecuting the appeal. As regards the fact that the supporting certifications of indigence refer only to the ten named plaintiffs. though self-supporting when able to work and in employment" (Black's Law Dictionary. vs. as well as the effects of. Wherefore. claim or defense as an indigent if the court. however that the action in question was filed by way of a class suit. July 1994 the trial court issued an order overruling the objection. it ought to be reviewed by the appellate court. Chavez of the Public Attorney's Office of Butuan City objected to petitioner's motion to be allowed to litigate as pauper and moved instead to strike out the entire testimony of the first witness for the prosecution on the ground that it was inadmissible for being violative of the testimonial privilege afforded to children in cases involving their parents.00. the term has a broader meaning. suffice it to reiterate that this involves a class suit. not upon the unnamed "9. the Court of Appeals in the second assailed Resolution of 21 January 1998 denied this latest motion on the ground that.[10] The transmittal of the amount was evidenced by two (2) postal money orders attached to the Motion to Litigate as Pauper. Atty. Esmso A petition to be allowed to appeal as pauper shall not be entertained by the appellate court. albeit for the benefit of all the others. which provides- Sec. Indigent party. citing People vs. including the evidence taken on trial and the record on appeal.[11] In the assailed Resolution of 10 November 1997 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. erroneously filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This Court finds the supporting evidence of indigence adequate. and perfecting an appeal would have presented the same question of exemption from legal fees. mandamus lies to enforce it. 12.000 other laborers should later bear the payment of said docket fee of P14.500 would very well be shouldered by petitioners since there are around 9. 16.[5] This prompted petitioner to go to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed orders. and the case shall be heard in the appellate court upon the original record so transmitted without printing the same. And the Rules of Court allowing such procedure state under Sec. citing petitioner’s failure to pay the required docket fee. And the difference between "paupers" and "indigent" persons is that the latter are "persons who have no property or source of income sufficient for their support aside from their own labor. 12.[12] Petitioner moved for reconsideration citing his compliance with the docket fee requirement as alleged in his Manifestation adverted to above. a substantial imposition on a seasonal farm laborer earning barely subsistent wages. . and whether the case is of such importance that. the amount remitted by petitioner as docket fee was short of 150. It is therefore in this sense of being indigent that "pauper" is taken when referring to suits in forma pauperis. this is only the initial fee.60 each is. . also a suitor who. Said cost of pressing their respective average demand of P1. as now worded.[8] On 7 April 1997 petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying his motion to litigate as a pauper. — When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons. and that the case is of such importance. Black's Law Dictionary in fact defines pauper.[7] The appellate court subsequently issued its resolution dated 21 March 1997 denying the motion and directing petitioner to remit the docketing fees in the total amount of P420. since they were not even accorded the status of litigants." As applied to statutes or provisions on the right to sue in forma pauperis.reason of poverty. petitioner. but this was similarly denied in the resolution of 8 October 1997. per verification by the Judicial Records Division. emphasis supplied) WGvU0eCxN. Any party in interest shall have a right to intervene in protection of his individual interest. But in such case the court shall make sure that the parties actually before it are sufficiently numerous and representative so that all interest concerned are fully protected. to Our mind. 121 NY 345. 5753 before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City. Appeal was unavailing.[15] The antecedents: Petitioner was accused of homicide in Crim. When petitioner filed on 23 August 1994 his original motion to appeal as pauper before the appellate court the applicable rule was the second paragraph of Sec.[2] During the hearing on 23 June 1994 petitioner represented by Atty. We find this course the most sensible.[1] Even prior to the adoption of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. upon an ex parte application and hearing. Schoharie County. is allowed to sue or defend without being chargeable with costs" (p. or the nature of the question raised. holding that the question of whether a party-litigant is so poor as to qualify him to litigate as pauper is a question of fact which is best determined by the trial court.60 each. petitioners are declared entitled to litigate as paupers in their class suit before respondent Judge and the latter is hereby ordered to grant their petition to litigate in forma pauperis. we have decided to give it due course to resolve the question whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to appeal as a pauper litigant. shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.500. Since they were excluded from the use and enjoyment of said right. TEOFILO MARTINEZ. Jesus G. The trial court is the court which may properly decide or pass upon the question of fact which may require presentation of evidence whether the appellant is an indigent and may appeal as such. the Court had uniformly frowned upon appellate courts entertaining petitions to litigate as pauper. The philosophy underlying the constitutional mandate of free access to the courts notwithstanding poverty. by reason of the amount involved. of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court.00 within five (5) days from notice. calls for exemption of herein petitioners from payment of the aforesaid legal fees in their assertion and claim of substantial rights under the Sugar Act of 1952. Jesus G. It follows that the payment of docket fee would be directly charged upon them. thus: "A person so poor that he must be supported at public expense. Returning to the purpose of all Constitutions.A party may be authorized to litigate his action. 913. It has thus been recognized that: "An applicant for leave to sue in forma pauperis need not be a pauper. on account of poverty. The Presiding Judge[3] deferred his ruling on the objection and allowed the testimony to be continued. Section 21 of Rule 3. "Indigent"." And even if the 9. For a contrary interpretation could not make said provision the living reality that it is designed to be. It is further argued that the docket fee of P14. by reason not only of the amount involved but of the nature of the question raised in the court below. rule 41.

[18] Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court."[17] Our espousal of the democratization of appellate remedies is shared by the United States Supreme Court. supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigant's affidavit. Jksm We believe that this interpretation of the present rules is more in keeping with our Bill of Rights. speaking through Mr.[16] We therefore hold that a motion to litigate as an indigent can be made even before the appellate courts. Sec. To be entitled to the exemption herein provided. in petitions for review or in special civil actions. Nowhere can we find a provision to the effect that "(a) petition to be allowed to appeal as pauper shall not be entertained by the appellate court." We resolve to apply the present rules on petitioner retrospectively. . Justice Hugo L.000. the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. This interpretation of the present rules is more in keeping with or Bill of Rights. Any falsity in the affidavit of a litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient cause to strike out the pleading of that party. Pauper-litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court. There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. this case is REMANDED for appropriate action to the Court of Appeals which is further ordered to allow petitioner to litigate as pauper and to return to him the amount of P420. nor do they own any real property with the assessed value aforementioned. **Statues regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending & undetermined at the time of their passage. and three thousand (P3. unless the court otherwise provides.00) pesos a month if residing outside Metro Manila.00 a month. either for the prosecution of appeals.00 representing the docket fees he paid. the Court finds that petitioner is qualified to litigate as an indigent. the litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn the gross income abovementioned. Chief On the other hand. cannot be worth more than P10. without prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred.Pauperlitigants (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed four thousand (P4. who generally attested to the same allegations contained in petitioner's own affidavit. and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. which decrees that.[19] He has also submitted a joint affidavit executed by Florencia L. the questioned Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 10 November 1997 dismissing the petition for certiorari of petitioner Teofilo Martinez and its Resolution dated 21 January 1998 denying reconsideration are SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.00) pesos a month if residing in Metro Manila. execution shall issue or the payment thereof.000. procedural laws are retroactive.000. and that their only real property.Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees. and (b) who do not own real property with an assessed value of more than fifty thousand (P50. "(f)ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. Esmsc The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorably to the pauper-litigant. 16. without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. which decrees that. Esm It cannot be inferred from any of the aforementioned provisions that the restrictive policy enunciated by Sec. a hut. Rule 41.000. In that sense and to that extent procedural laws are retroactive. both residents of Butuan City. “FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON BY REASON OF POVERTY.00) pesos shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees. Ongtico and Helen Maur.000. Esmmis country dedicated to affording equal justice to all and special privileges to none in the administration of its criminal law. 18 of Rule 141 prescribes the evidentiary requirements for the exemption of pauper litigants from payment of legal fees - WHEREFORE. of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court was carried over to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He has executed an affidavit attesting to the fact that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income of more than P3.00.” Sec. In that sense & to that extent. Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. unless the court otherwise provides. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent. Black - There is no meaningful distinction between a rule which would deny the poor the right to defend themselves in a trial court and one which effectively denies the poor an adequate appellate review accorded to all who have money enough to pay the costs in advance x x x x Such a denial is a misfit in a . 18. A perusal of the records shows that petitioner has complied with all the evidentiary requirements for prosecuting a motion to appear in court as a pauper. Accordingly. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property.[20] Based on this evidence.