Consti 2 Digest

Narratives
Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola
2005
Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlie !"0 #hili$$ines license"
Some %i&hts %eserved"
'able o( Contents
)urtado vs" #eo$le o( State o( Cali(ornia *++0 ,"S" 5+-. ! March +//01 2 +
Ville&as v" )iu Chion& 'sai #ao )o *G% L-23-0-. +0 Nov +34/1 2 2
%ubi. et" al" vs" #rovincial 5oard o( Mindoro *G% +004/. 4 March +3+31 2 !
6$le v" 'orres * G% +24-/5. 2! 7ul8 +33/ 1 2 0
Lawrence and Garner vs" 'e9as *5!3 ,S 55/. 2- 7une 200!1 2 0
:strada v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0/5-0. +3 November 200+1 2 5
'anada v" 'uvera * G% L--!3+5. 23 ;ecember +3/-1 2 4
#hili$$ine International 'radin& Cor$" <#I'C= v" An&eles *G% +0/0-+. 2+ 6ctober +33-1 2 /
#ili$inas >ao v" CA *G% +050+0. +/ ;ecember 200+1 2 3
%e$ublic vs" :9$ress 'elecommunications Co" Inc" <:9telcom= *G% +0403-. +5 7anuar8 20021 2 +0
'anada v" #hili$$ine Atomic :ner&8 Commission *G% 40-!2. ++ ?ebruar8 +3/-1 2 ++
An@aldo v" Clave *G% L-50534. +5 ;ecember +3/21 2 +2
'ume8 vs" 6hio *24! ,S 5+0. 4 March +3241 2 +!
#eo$le v" CA *G% ++///2. 2- Se$tember +33-1 2 +0
'abuena v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0!50+-0!. +4 ?ebruar8 +3341A also #eralta v" Sandi&anba8an *G% +0!5041 2 +5
#eo$le v" Medenilla *G% +!+-!/-!3. 2- March 200+1 2 +-
ebb v" de Leon *G% +2+2!0. 2! Au&ust +3351. also Gatchalian v" de Leon *G% +2+2051 2 +-
#eo$le v" Sanche@ *G% +2+0!3-05. +/ 6ctober 200+1 2 +4
Summar8 ;ismissal 5oard v" 'orcita *G% +!0002. - A$ril 20001 """ +/
7ustice Secretar8 v" Lantion *G% +!30-5. +4 6ctober 20001 2 +3
#eo$le v" :strada *G% +!00/4. +3 7une 20001 2 2+
Lim vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +++!34. +2 Au&ust 20021 2 2+
%odri&ue@ vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +!024/. 4 Au&ust 20021 2 2!
%o9as vs" VasBue@ *G% ++0300. +3 7une 200+1 2 20
#hilcomsat v" Alcua@ *G% /0/+/. +/ ;ecember +3/31 2 25
Sunta8 v" #eo$le *G% L-30!0. 23 7une +3541 2 2-
;e 5isscho$ v" Galan& *G% +/!-5. !+ Ma8 +3-!1 2 24
Var-6rient Shi$$in& v" Achacoso *G% L-/+/05. !+ Ma8 +3//1 2 2/
An& 'iba8 v" CI% *G% 0-03-. 24 ?ebruar8 +3001 2 23
Montema8or v" Araneta ,niversit8 *G% L-0025+. !+ Ma8 +3441 2 !0
Meralco vs" #SC *G% L-+!-!/-00. !0 7une +3-01 2 !+
Ateneo v" CA *G% L-5-+/0. +- 6ctober +3/-1 2 !!
Alcua@ v" #S5A *G% 4-!5!. 2 Ma8 +3//1 2 !!
Non v" ;ames *G% /3!+4. 20 Ma8 +3301 2 !0
This collection contains thirty four (34) cases
summarized in this format by
Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student)
during the First emester! school year "##$%"##&
in the 'olitical (aw )e*iew class
under +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r.
at the -rellano .ni*ersity chool of (aw (-.().
/om0iled as '+F! e0tember "#1".
2erne Guerrero entered -.( in ,une "##"
and e*entually graduated from -.( in "##&.
3e 0assed the 'hili00ine bar e4aminations immediately after (-0ril "##5).
berne&uerrero"word$ress"com
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
62 Hurtado vs. People of State of California [110 U.S. 516, 3 Marc 1!!"#
Matthews (J)
$acts% The constitution of the state of California adopted in 1879, in article 1, 8, provides as follows:
"Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictent, shall be prosecuted by inforation, after
e!aination and coitent by a a"istrate, or by indictent, with or without such e!aination and
coitent, as ay be prescribed by law# $ "rand %ury shall be drawn and suoned at least once a year in
each county#" &n pursuance of the fore"oin" provision of the constitution, and of the several sections of the
penal Code of California, the district attorney of 'acraento county, on () *ebruary 188(, filed an
inforation a"ainst +oseph ,urtado, char"in" hi with the crie of urder in the -illin" of one +ose $ntonio
'tuardo# .pon this inforation, and without any previous investi"ation of the cause by any "rand %ury,
,urtado was arrai"ned on (( /arch 188(, and pleaded not "uilty# $ trial of the issue was thereafter had, and
on 7 /ay 188(, the %ury rendered its verdict, in which it found ,urtado "uilty of urder in the first de"ree#
On 0 +une 188(, the superior court of 'acraento county rendered its %ud"ent upon said verdict, that
,urtado be punished by the infliction of death, and the day of his e!ecution was fi!ed for () +uly 188(# *ro
this %ud"ent an appeal was ta-en, and the supree court of the 'tate of California affired the %ud"ent#
On 1 +uly 1882, the superior court of said county of 'acraento ordered that ,urtado be in court on 11 +uly
1882, in order that a day for the e!ecution of the %ud"ent in said cause should be fi!ed# &n pursuance of said
order, ,urtado, with his counsel, appeared in court, and upon the court3s inquiry, ob%ected to the e!ecution of
said %ud"ent and to any order which the court i"ht a-e fi!in" a day for the e!ecution of the sae, upon
the "rounds 415 that it appeared upon the face of the %ud"ent that ,urtado had never been le"ally, or
otherwise, indicted or presented by any "rand %ury, and that he was proceeded a"ainst by inforation ade
and filed by the district attorney of the county of 'acraento, after e!aination and coitent by a
a"istrate of the said county6 4(5 that the said proceedin"s, as well as the laws and constitution of California,
atteptin" to authori7e the, and the alle"ed verdict of the %ury, and %ud"ent of the said superior court of
said county of 'acraento, were in conflict with and prohibited by $endents 0 and 18 of the constitution
of the .nited 'tates, and that they were therefore void6 425 that ,urtado had been held to answer for the said
crie of urder by the district attorney of the said county of 'acraento, upon an inforation filed by hi,
and had been tried and ille"ally found "uilty of the said crie, without any presentent or indictent of any
"rand or other %ury, and that the %ud"ent rendered upon the alle"ed verdict of the %ury in such case was and
is void, and if e!ecuted would deprive ,urtado of his life or liberty without due process of law# Thereupon the
court overruled the said ob%ections, and fi!ed 12 $u"ust 1882, as the tie for the e!ecution of the sentence#
*ro this latter %ud"ent, ,urtado appealed to the supree court of the state# On 18 'epteber 1882, the
supree court of the state affired the said %ud"ent# $ review of which, by a writ of error, by the .'
'upree Court was allowed#
&ssue% 9hether ,urtado was denied due process by bein" tried and found "uilty without bein" presented or
indicted by a "rand %ury#
Held% The clause of the 18th article of aendent to the constitution of the .nited 'tates, provides that ":or
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law#" The phrase is to be
construed by the usus loquendi of the constitution itself# The sae words are contained in the 0th aendent#
That article a-es specific and e!press provision for perpetuatin" the institution of the "rand %ury, so far as
relates to prosecutions for the ore a""ravated cries under the laws of the .nited 'tates# &t declares that "no
person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infaous crie, unless on a presentent or
indictent of a "rand %ury, e!cept in cases arisin" in the land or naval forces, or in the ilitia when in actual
service in tie of war or public dan"er6 nor shall any person be sub%ect for the sae offense to be twice put in
%eopardy of life or lib6 nor shall he be copelled in any criinal case to be a witness a"ainst hiself#" &t
then iediately adds: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law#" The natural
and obvious inference is that, in the sense of the constitution, "due process of law" was not eant or intended
to include, e! vi terini, the institution and procedure of a "rand %ury in any case# The conclusion is equally
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )
irresistible, that when the sae phrase was eployed in the 18th aendent to restrain the action of the
states, it was used in the sae sense and with no "reater e!tent6 and that if in the adoption of that aendent
it had been part of its purpose to perpetuate the institution of the "rand %ury in all the states, it would have
ebodied, as did the 0th aendent, e!press declarations to that effect# ;ue process of law in the latter refers
to that law of the land which derives its authority fro the le"islative powers conferred upon con"ress by the
constitution of the .nited 'tates, e!ercised within the liits therein prescribed, and interpreted accordin" to
the principles of the coon law# &n the fourteenth aendent, by parity of reason, it refers to that law of the
land in each state which derives its authority fro the inherent and reserved powers of the state, e!erted
within the liits of those fundaental principles of liberty and %ustice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, and the "reatest security for which resides in the ri"ht of the people to a-e their own
laws, and alter the at their pleasure# The 18th aendent does not profess to secure to all persons in the
.nited 'tates the benefit of the sae laws and the sae reedies# <reat diversities in these respects ay e!ist
in two states separated only by an ia"inary line# On one side of this line there ay be a ri"ht of trial by %ury,
and on the other side no such ri"ht# =ach state prescribes its own odes of %udicial proceedin"# *urther, any
le"al proceedin" enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by a"e and custo, or newly devised in the
discretion of the le"islative power in furtherance of the "eneral public "ood, which re"ards and preserves
these principles of liberty and %ustice, ust be held to be due process of law# ,erein, the Court is unable to say
that the substitution for a presentent or indictent by a "rand %ury of the proceedin" by inforation after
e!aination and coitent by a a"istrate, certifyin" to the probable "uilt of the defendant, with the ri"ht
on his part to the aid of counsel, and to the cross>e!aination of the witnesses produced for the prosecution,
is not due process of law# The Court found no error and thus affired the %ud"ent of the supree court of
California#
63 'ille(as v. Hiu Cion( )sai Pao Ho [*+ ,-2.6"6, 10 /ov 1.0!#
En Banc, Fernandez (J) : 4 concur, 3 concur in result, 1 took no part
$acts% On (( *ebruary 1918, Ordinance 1027 4$n ordinance a-in" it unlawful for any person not a citi7en
of the ?hilippines to be eployed in any place of eployent or to be en"a"ed in any -ind of trade, business
or occupation within the City of /anila without first securin" an eployent perit fro the ayor of
/anila6 and for other purposes5 was passed by the /unicipal @oard of /anila and si"ned by /anila /ayor
$ntonio +# Aille"as on (7 /arch 1918# The Ordinance prohibits aliens fro eployent and trade in the City
of /anila without the requisite ayorBs perit6 but e!ceptin" persons eployed in the diploatic or consular
issions of forei"n countries, or in the technical assistance pro"ras of both the ?hilippine <overnent and
any forei"n "overnent, and those wor-in" in their respective households, and ebers of reli"ious orders
or con"re"ations, sect or denoination, who are not paid onetarily or in -ind# The perit fee is ?0), and
the penalty is iprisonent of 2 to 1 onths or fine of ?1))>()), or both# On 8 /ay 1918, ,iu Chion" Tsai
?ao ,o, who was eployed in /anila, filed a petition, with the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 of /anila 4Civil
Case 7(7975, prayin" for 415 the issuance of the writ of preliinary in%unction and restrainin" order to stop
the ipleentation of the ordinance, and 4(5 %ud"ent to declare the ordinance null and void# On (8 /ay
1918, +ud"e *rancisco $rca 4C*& /anila, @ranch &5 issued the writ of preliinary in%unction and on 17
'epteber 1918, the +ud"e rendered a decision declarin" the ordinance null and void, and the preliinary
in%unction is ade peranent# /ayor Aille"as filed a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the C*&#
&ssue% 9hether the Ordinance, requirin" aliens > however econoically situated > to secure wor-in" perits
fro the City of /anila at a unifor fee of ?0), is reasonable#
Held% The ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, bein" applied only to aliens who are thus,
deprived of their ri"hts to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Constitution# Cequirin" a person, before he can be eployed, to "et a perit fro
the City /ayor of /anila, who ay withhold or refuse it at will is tantaount to denyin" hi the basic ri"ht
of the people in the ?hilippines to en"a"e in a eans of livelihood# The shelter of protection under the due
process and equal protection clause is "iven to all persons, both aliens and citi7ens# The ordinance does not
lay down any criterion or standard to "uide the /ayor in the e!ercise of his discretion, thus conferrin" upon
the ayor arbitrary and unrestricted powers# The ordinanceBs purpose is clearly to raise oney under the
"uise of re"ulation by e!actin" ?0) fro aliens who have been cleared for eployent# The aount is
unreasonable and e!cessive because it fails to consider differences in situation aon" aliens required to pay
it, i#e# bein" casual, peranent, full>tie, part>tie, ran->an>file or e!ecutive#
6" +u1i, et. al. vs. Provincial 2oard of Mindoro [*+ 1"00!, 0 Marc 1.1.#
En Banc, Malcolm (J): 3 concur
$acts% On 1 *ebruary 1917, the ?rovincial @oard of /indoro adopted Cesolution (0 creatin" a reservation D
peranent settleent for /an"yans 4/an"yanes5 in an 8))>hectare public land in the sitio of Ti"bao on
:au%an Ea-e, and resolvin" that /an"yans ay only solicit hoesteads on the reservation provided that said
hoestead applications be previously recoended by the provincial "overnor# On (1 *ebruary 1917, the
'ecretary of &nterior approved Cesolution (0# On 8 ;eceber 1917, the provincial "overnor of /indoro
issued =!ecutive Order ( which directed all /an"yans in the vicinities of the townships of :au%an and ?ola
and the /an"yans east of the @aco Civer includin" those in the districts of ;ulan"an and Cubi3s place in
Calapan, to ta-e up their habitation on the site of Ti"bao, :au%an Ea-e, not later than 21 ;eceber 1917, and
penali7in" any /an"yan who refused to coply with the order with iprisonent of not e!ceedin" 1) days,
in accordance with section (709 of the Cevised $dinistrative Code# Cubi and those livin" in his rancheria
have not fi!ed their dwellin"s within the reservation of Ti"bao and are prosecuted in accordance with section
(709 of $ct :o# (711# On the other hand, ;oroteo ;abalos, was detained by the sheriff of /indoro by virtue
of the provisions of $rticles (180 and (709 of $ct (711, for havin" run away fro the reservation# Cubi and
other /an"uianes of the ?rovince of /indoro applied for writs of habeas corpus, alle"in" that the
/an"uianes are bein" ille"ally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province#
&ssue% 9hether due process was followed in the restraint of the /an"uianesB liberty, either on their
confineent in reservations andDor iprisonent due to violation of 'ection (180 of the $dinistrative Code
#
Held% :one of the ri"hts of the citi7en can be ta-en away e!cept by due process of law# The eanin" of "due
process of law" is, that "every citi7en shall hold his life, liberty, property, and iunities under the protection
of the "eneral rules which "overn society#" To constitute "due process of law," a %udicial proceedin" is not
always necessary# &n soe instances, even a hearin" and notice are not requisite, a rule which is especially
true where uch ust be left to the discretion of the adinistrative officers in applyin" a law to particular
cases# :either is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty# $ny le"al proceedin" enforced by
public authority, whether sanctioned by a"e and custo, or newly devised in the discretion of the le"islative
power, in furtherance of the public "ood, which re"ards and preserves these principles of liberty and %ustice,
ust be held to be due process of law# ;ue process of law" eans siply that "first, that there shall be a law
prescribed in harony with the "eneral powers of the le"islative departent of the <overnent6 second, that
this law shall be reasonable in its operation6 third, that it shall be enforced accordin" to the re"ular ethods of
procedure prescribed6 and fourth, that it shall be applicable ali-e to all the citi7ens of the state or to all of a
class#" 9hat is due process of law depends on circustances# &t varies with the sub%ect>atter and necessities
of the situation# The pled"e that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infrin"ed by
a statute which is applicable to all of a class# The classification ust have a reasonable basis and cannot be
purely arbitrary in nature# ,erein, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citi7en is unduly interfered with
when the de"ree of civili7ation of the /an"uianes is considered# They are restrained for their own "ood and
the "eneral "ood of the ?hilippines# :or can one say that due process of law has not been followed# To "o
bac- to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws# There e!ists a law6 the law
sees to be reasonable6 it is enforced accordin" to the re"ular ethods of procedure prescribed6 and it applies
ali-e to all of a class# $ction pursuant to 'ection (180 of the $dinistrative Code does not deprive a person
of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to hi the equal protection of the laws, and that
confineent in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary
servitude# 9e are further of the opinion that 'ection (180 of the $dinistrative Code is a le"itiate e!ertion
of the police power, soewhat analo"ous to the &ndian policy of the .nited 'tates# Cubi and the other
/an"uianes are not unlawfully iprisoned or restrained of their liberty# ,abeas corpus can, therefore, not
issue#
65 3ple v. )orres [ *+ 1206!5, 23 4ul5 1..! #
En Banc, uno (J) : ! concur, 1 concurs in result
$acts% On 1( ;eceber 1991, ?resident *idel A# Caos issued $dinistrative Order 2)8, entitled "$doption
of a :ational Coputeri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste#" &t was published in 8 newspapers of "eneral
circulation on (( and (2 +anuary 1997# On (8 +anuary 1997, 'enator @las *# Ople, as a 'enator, ta!payer and
eber of the <overnent 'ervice &nsurance 'yste 4<'&'5, filed instant petition a"ainst then =!ecutive
'ecretary Cuben Torres and the heads of the "overnent a"encies, who as ebers of the &nter>$"ency
Coordinatin" Coittee are char"ed with the ipleentation of $dinistrative Order 2)8#
&ssue% 9hether the ?hilippine ?resident can issue an $dinistrative Order for the adoption of a :ational
Coputeri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste, independent of a le"islative act#
Held% $dinistrative Order 2)8 establishes a syste of identification that is all>encopassin" in scope,
affects the life and liberty of every *ilipino citi7en and forei"n resident, and ore particularly, violates their
ri"ht to privacy# 'uch a syste requires a delicate ad%ustent of various contendin" state policies: the
priacy of national security, the e!tent of privacy interest a"ainst dossier>"atherin" by "overnent, the
choice of policies, etc# $s said adinistrative order redefines the paraeters of soe basic ri"hts of our
citi7enry vis>a>vis the 'tate as well as the line that separates the adinistrative power of the ?resident to a-e
rules and the le"islative power of Con"ress, it ou"ht to be evident that it deals with a sub%ect that should be
covered by law# The Order is a law, ne"atin" clais that it confers no ri"ht, iposes no duty, affords no
protection, and creates no office# .nder it, a citi7en cannot transact business with "overnent a"encies
deliverin" basic services to the people without the conteplated identification card# :o citi7en will refuse to
"et this identification card for no one can avoid dealin" with "overnent# &t is thus clear that without the &;, a
citi7en will have difficulty e!ercisin" his ri"hts and en%oyin" his privile"es# $dinistrative Order 2)8 does
not erely ipleents the $dinistrative Code of 1987, but establishes for the first tie a :ational
Coputeri7ed &dentification Ceference 'yste# $n adinistrative order is an ordinance issued by the
?resident which relates to specific aspects in the adinistrative operation of "overnent# &t ust be in
harony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of ipleentin" the law and carryin" out the
le"islative policy# The authority to prescribe rules and re"ulations is not an independent source of power to
a-e laws# $O 2)8 was beyond the power of the ?resident to issue#
66 ,a6rence and *arner vs. )e7as [53. US 55!, 26 4une 2003#
"enned# (J): 4 concur, 1 $iled concurrin% opinion, ! $iled dissentin% opinions where ! &oined the
dissentin% opinion o$ 'calia (J)(
$acts% Cespondin" to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, ,ouston police entered +ohn
<eddes EawrenceBs apartent and saw hi and another adult an, Tyron <arner, en"a"in" in a private,
consensual se!ual act# ?etitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate se!ual intercourse in violation of a
Te!as statute forbiddin" two persons of the sae se! to en"a"e in certain intiate se!ual conduct# The two
were arrested, held in custody over ni"ht, and char"ed and convicted before a +ustice of the ?eace# The two
e!ercised their ri"ht to a trial de novo in ,arris County Criinal Court# They challen"ed the statute as a
violation of the =qual ?rotection Clause of the 18th $endent and of a li-e provision of the Te!as
Constitution# Those contentions were re%ected# The two, havin" entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each
fined F()) and assessed court costs of F181#(0# The Court of $ppeals for the Te!as *ourteenth ;istrict
considered the two accusedBs federal constitutional ar"uents under both the =qual ?rotection and ;ue
?rocess Clauses of the *ourteenth $endent# $fter hearin" the case en banc the court, in a divided opinion,
re%ected the constitutional ar"uents and affired the convictions# The a%ority opinion indicated that the
Court of $ppeals considered the .' 'upree Court decision in @owers v# ,ardwic- 4878 .' 181 G1981H5, to
be controllin" on the federal due process aspect of the case# The .' 'upree Court "ranted certiorari 4027
.# '# 1)88 G())(H, to consider 2 questions: 415 whether the criinal convictions under the Te!as
I,oose!ual ConductJ law violate the 18th $endent "uarantee of equal protection of laws6 4(5 9hether
the criinal convictions for adult consensual se!ual intiacy in the hoe violate their vital interests in liberty
and privacy protected by the ;ue ?rocess Clause of the 18th $endent6 and 425 9hether @owers v#
,ardwic- 4878 .' 181 G1981H5, should be overruled#
&ssue% 9hether the statute and the @ower decision denies hoose!ual persons the autonoy of decisions
involvin" relationships available to heterose!ual ones#
Held% The laws involved in @owers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no ore than prohibit
a particular se!ual act# Their penalties and purposes, thou"h, have ore far>reachin" consequences, touchin"
upon the ost private huan conduct, se!ual behavior, and in the ost private of places, the hoe# The
statutes do see- to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to foral reco"nition in the law,
is within the liberty of persons to choose without bein" punished as criinals# This, as a "eneral rule, should
counsel a"ainst attepts by the 'tate, or a court, to define the eanin" of the relationship or to set its
boundaries absent in%ury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects# &t suffices for us to
ac-nowled"e that adults ay choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their hoes and their
own private lives and still retain their di"nity as free persons# 9hen se!uality finds overt e!pression in
intiate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one eleent in a personal bond that is ore
endurin"# The liberty protected by the Constitution allows hoose!ual persons the ri"ht to a-e this choice#
Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relatin" to arria"e, procreation,
contraception, faily relationships, child rearin", and education# These atters, involvin" the ost intiate
and personal choices a person ay a-e in a lifetie, choices central to personal di"nity and autonoy, are
central to the liberty protected by the 18th $endent# $t the heart of liberty is the ri"ht to define oneBs own
concept of e!istence, of eanin", of the universe, and of the ystery of huan life# @eliefs about these
atters could not define the attributes of personhood were they fored under copulsion of the 'tate#
?ersons in a hoose!ual relationship ay see- autonoy for these purposes, %ust as heterose!ual persons do#
The decision in @owers would deny the this ri"ht# The case of @owers was not correct when it was decided,
and it is not correct today# &t ou"ht not to reain bindin" precedent# @owers v# ,ardwic- should be and now is
overruled# Thus, the %ud"ent of the Court of $ppeals for the Te!as *ourteenth ;istrict is reversed, and the
case is reanded for further proceedin"s not inconsistent with the present opinion#
60 8strada v. Sandi(an1a5an [*+ 1"!560, 1. /ove91er 2001#
En Banc, Bellosillo (J) : ! concur, ! $iled separate concurrin% opinions, ) &oined the concurrin% opinion o$
Mendoza, 3 dissented in a separate opinion, 1 took no part
$acts% On 8 $pril ())1, the Office of the Obudsan filed before the 'andi"anbayan 8 separate
&nforations, doc-eted as: 4a5 Criinal Case (1008, for violation of Cepublic $ct 4C$5 7)8), as aended by
C$ 71096 4b5 Criinal Cases (1009 to (101(, inclusive, for violation of 'ections 2, para"raph 4a5, 2,
para"raph 4a5, 2, para"raph 4e5, and 2, para"raph 4e5 of C$ 2)19 4$nti><raft and Corrupt ?ractices $ct5,
respectively6 4c5 Criinal Case (1012, for violation of 'ection 7, para"raph 4d5, of C$ 1712 4The Code of
Conduct and =thical 'tandards for ?ublic Officials and =ployees56 4d5 Criinal Case (1018, for ?er%ury
4$rticle# 182 of The Cevised ?enal Code56 and, 4e5 Criinal Case (1010, for &lle"al .se Of $n $lias
4Coonwealth $ct 18(, as aended by C$ 1)805# On 11 $pril ())1, +oseph =strada filed an Onibus
/otion for the reand of the case to the Obudsan for preliinary investi"ation with respect to
specification "d" of the char"es in the &nforation in Criinal Case (10086 and, for reconsideration D
reinvesti"ation of the offenses under specifications "a," "b," and "c" to "ive the accused an opportunity to file
counter>affidavits and other docuents necessary to prove lac- of probable cause# The "rounds raised were
only lac- of preliinary investi"ation, reconsideration D reinvesti"ation of offenses, and opportunity to prove
lac- of probable cause# The purported abi"uity of the char"es and the va"ueness of the law under which
they are char"ed were never raised in that Onibus /otion thus indicatin" the e!plicitness and
coprehensibility of the ?lunder Eaw# On (0 $pril ())1, the 'andi"anbayan, Third ;ivision, issued a
Cesolution in Criinal Case :o# (1008 findin" that "a probable cause for the offense of plunder e!ists to
%ustify the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused#" On (0 +une ())1 petitioner3s otion for
reconsideration was denied by the 'andi"anbayan# On 18 +une ())1, =strada oved to quash the &nforation
in Criinal Case (1008 on the "round that the facts alle"ed therein did not constitute an indictable offense
since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for va"ueness, and that the $ended &nforation
for ?lunder char"ed ore than one 415 offense# On 9 +uly ())1, the 'andi"anbayan denied petitioner3s /otion
to Kuash#
&ssue% 9hether the ?lunder law, and the inforation, are clear to infor =strada of the accusations a"ainst
hi as to enable hi to prepare for an intelli"ent defense#
Held% $s it is written, the ?lunder Eaw contains ascertainable standards and well>defined paraeters which
would enable the accused to deterine the nature of his violation# 'ection ( is sufficiently e!plicit in its
description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the eleents of the crie
with reasonable certainty and particularity# $s lon" as the law affords soe coprehensible "uide or rule that
would infor those who are sub%ect to it what conduct would render the liable to its penalties, its validity
will be sustained# &t ust sufficiently "uide the %ud"e in its application6 the counsel, in defendin" one char"ed
with its violation6 and ore iportantly, the accused, in identifyin" the real of the proscribed conduct#
&ndeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a public
officer in aassin" or accuulatin" ill>"otten wealth of at least ?0),))),)))#)) throu"h a series or
cobination of acts enuerated in 'ection 1, para"raph 4d5, of the ?lunder Eaw# ,erein, the aended
&nforation itself closely trac-s the lan"ua"e of the law, indicatin" with reasonable certainty the various
eleents of the offense which =strada is alle"ed to have coitted# There was nothin" that is va"ue or
abi"uous that will confuse =strada in his defense# *actual assertions clearly show that the eleents of the
crie are easily understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts# .pon
such unequivocal assertions, =strada is copletely infored of the accusations a"ainst hi as to enable hi
to prepare for an intelli"ent defense#
There is no basis for =strada3s clai that the 'upree Court review the $nti>?lunder Eaw on its face and in its
entirety# $ facial challen"e is allowed to be ade to a va"ue statute and to one which is overbroad because of
possible "chillin" effect" upon protected speech# The theory is that "GwHhen statutes re"ulate or proscribe
speech and no readily apparent construction su""ests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitatin" the statutes in a
sin"le prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected e!pression is deeed to
%ustify allowin" attac-s on overly broad statutes with no requireent that the person a-in" the attac-
deonstrate that his own conduct could not be re"ulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity#" This
rationale does not apply to penal statutes# Criinal statutes have "eneral in terrore effect resultin" fro their
very e!istence, and, if facial challen"e is allowed for this reason alone, the 'tate ay well be prevented fro
enactin" laws a"ainst socially harful conduct# &n the area of criinal law, the law cannot ta-e chances as in
the area of free speech# The void>for>va"ueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires
the doin" of an act in ters so va"ue that en of coon intelli"ence ust necessarily "uess at its eanin"
and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law#" The overbreadth doctrine, on
the other hand, decrees that "a "overnental purpose ay not be achieved by eans which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedos#" The doctrines of strict scrutiny,
overbreadth, and va"ueness are analytical tools developed for testin" "on their faces" statutes in free speech
cases# "On its face" invalidation of statutes has been described as "anifestly stron" edicine," to be
eployed "sparin"ly and only as a last resort," and is "enerally disfavored#
6! )anada v. )uvera [ *+ ,-63.15, 2. :ece91er 1.!6#
*esolution En Banc, +ruz (J) : , concur
$acts% &nvo-in" the people3s ri"ht to be infored on atters of public concern 4'ection 1, $rticle &A of the
1972 ?hilippine Constitution5 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable ust be published
in the Official <a7ette or otherwise effectively proul"ated, Eoren7o /# TaLada, $braha *# 'ariento, and
the /oveent of $ttorneys for @rotherhood, &nte"rity and :ationalis, &nc# G/$@&:&H sou"ht a writ of
andaus to copel ,on# +uan C# Tuvera, in his capacity as =!ecutive $ssistant to the ?resident, ,on#
+oaquin Aenus, in his capacity as ;eputy =!ecutive $ssistant to the ?resident, /elquiades ?# ;e Ea Cru7, in
his capacity as ;irector, /alacaLan" Cecords Office, and *lorendo '# ?ablo, in his capacity as ;irector,
@ureau of ?rintin", to publish, and or cause the publication in the Official <a7ette of various presidential
decrees, letters of instructions, "eneral orders, proclaations, e!ecutive orders, letter of ipleentation and
adinistrative orders# On (8 $pril 1980, the Court affired the necessity for the publication to the Official
<a7ette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of "eneral application, and unless so published, they
shall have no bindin" force and effect# The decision was concurred only by 2 %ustices# Tanada, et# al# ove for
reconsideration D clarification of the decision on various questions# They su""est that there should be no
distinction between laws of "eneral applicability and those which are not6 that publication eans coplete
publication6 and that the publication ust be ade forthwith in the Official <a7ette# The 'olicitor <eneral
avers that the otion is a request for advisory opinion# /eanwhile, the *ebruary =;'$ Cevolution too-
place, which subsequently required the new 'olicitor <eneral to file a re%oinder on the issue 4under Cule 2,
'ection 18 of the Cules of Court5#
&ssue% 9hether laws should be published in full and in the Official <a7ette only#
Held% Oission of publication would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public -nowled"e of the
laws that are supposed to "overn it# it is not unli-ely that persons not aware of it would be pre%udiced as a
result6 and they would be so not because of a failure to coply with it but siply because they did not -now
of its e!istence# ?ublication is required, even if their enactent is Iotherwise providedJ or effective
iediately# The ter "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of "eneral application, for strictly
spea-in" all laws relate to the people in "eneral albeit there are soe that do not apply to the directly# To be
valid, the law ust invariably affect the public interest even if it i"ht be directly applicable only to one
individual, or soe of the people only, and not to the public as a whole# ?ublication requireents applies to
415 all statutes, includin" those of local application and private laws6 4(5 presidential decrees and e!ecutive
orders proul"ated by the ?resident in the e!ercise of le"islative powers whenever the sae are validly
dele"ated by the le"islature or directly conferred by the Constitution6 425 $dinistrative rules and re"ulations
for the purpose of enforcin" or ipleentin" e!istin" law pursuant also to a valid dele"ation6 485 Charter of a
city notwithstandin" that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the
inhabitants of that place6 405 /onetary @oard circulars to "fill in the details" of the Central @an- $ct which
that body is supposed to enforce# ?ublication requireents does not apply to 415 interpretative re"ulations and
those erely internal in nature, i#e# re"ulatin" only the personnel of the adinistrative a"ency and not the
public6 4(5 Eetters of &nstructions issued by adinistrative superiors concernin" the rules or "uidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the perforance of their duties6 and 425 instructions of /inistry heads on
case studies# *urther, publication ust be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to infor the
public of the contents of the laws# &t should be published in the Official <a7ette and not elsewhere# =ven if
newspapers of "eneral circulation could better perfor the function of counicatin" the laws to the people
as such periodicals are ore easily available, have a wider readership, and coe out re"ularly, this -ind of
publication is not the one required or authori7ed by e!istin" law#
6. Pilippine &nternational )radin( Corp. ;P&)C< v. =n(eles [*+ 10!"61, 21 3cto1er 1..6#
'econd -i.ision, /orres (J) : 4 concur
*acts: On 1 $u"ust 1972, the ?hilippine &nternational Tradin" Corporation 4?&TC5 was created as a
"overnent owned or controlled corporation under ?residential ;ecree 4?;5 (0(# On 9 /ay 1977, ?; 1)71
revised the provisions of ?; (0(, where the purposes and powers of the said "overnental entity were
enuerated under 'ections 0 and 1 thereof# On 9 $u"ust 1971, the late ?resident *erdinand /arcos issued
Eetter of &nstruction 4EO&5 888, directin", inter alia, that trade 4e!port or iport of all coodities5 between
the ?hilippines and any of the 'ocialist and other Centrally ?lanned =conoy Countries 4'OC?=C5,
includin" the ?eople3s Cepublic of China 4?COC5 shall be underta-en or coursed throu"h the ?&TC# $fter the
=;'$ Cevolution, or ore specifically on (7 *ebruary 1987, then ?resident Cora7on C# $quino proul"ated
=!ecutive Order 4=O5 122 reor"ani7in" the ;T& epowerin" the said departent to be the "priary
coordinative, prootive, facilitative and re"ulatory ar of the "overnent for the country3s trade, industry
and investent activities#" The ?&TC was ade one of ;T&3s line a"encies# 'oetie in $pril 1988,
followin" the 'tate visit of ?resident $quino to the ?COC, the ?hilippines and ?COC entered into a
/eorandu of .nderstandin" 4/O.5 wherein the two countries a"reed to a-e %oint efforts within the
ne!t five years to e!pand bilateral trade and to strive for a steady pro"ress towards achievin" a balance
between the value of their iports and e!ports durin" the period# Conforably with the /O., the ?hilippines
and ?COC entered into a Trade ?rotocol for the years 1989, 199) and 1991, under which was specified the
coodities to be traded between the# On $u"ust 1989, ?&TC issued $dinistrative Order 4$O5 'OC?=C
89>)8>)1 under which, applications to the ?&TC for iportation fro China 4?COC5 ust be accopanied by
a viable and confired =!port ?ro"ra of ?hilippine ?roducts to ?COC carried out by the iporter hiself
or throu"h a tie>up with a le"itiate iporter in an aount equivalent to the value of the iportation fro
?COC bein" applied for or 1:1 ratio# Cein"ton &ndustrial 'ales Corp# and *irestone Ceraics, both doestic
corporations, or"ani7ed and e!istin" under ?hilippine>laws, individually applied for authority to iport fro
?COC with ?&TC# They were "ranted such authority# 'ubsequently, for failin" to coply with their
underta-in"s to subit e!port credits equivalent to the value of their iportations, further iport applications
were withheld by ?&TC fro Cein"ton and *irestone, such that the latter were both barred fro iportin"
"oods fro ?COC# On () +anuary 199(, Cein"ton filed a ?etition for ?rohibition and /andaus, with
prayer for issuance of Teporary Cestrainin" Order andDor 9rit of ?reliinary &n%unction a"ainst ?&TC in the
Ce"ional Trial Court 4CTC, /a-ati @ranch 085# On 8 +anuary 1992, +ud"e Mosio M# $n"eles 4?residin"
+ud"e5 upheld the petition for prohibition and andaus of Cein"ton and *irestone 4Civil Case 9(>1085,
and declarin" ?&TC $O 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 and its re"ulations null, void, and unconstitutional# ?&TC filed the
petition see-in" the reversal of $n"elesB decision#
&ssue% 9hether $O 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 binds Cein"ton and *irestone#
Held% The ?&TC was le"ally epowered to issue $dinistrative Orders, as a valid e!ercise of a power
ancillary to le"islation# $dinistrative Order 'OC?=C 89>)8>)1 is not, however, a valid e!ercise of such
quasi>le"islative power# The ori"inal $O issued on 2) $u"ust 1989, under which the respondents filed their
applications for iportation, was not published in the Official <a7ette or in a newspaper of "eneral
circulation# The questioned $dinistrative Order, le"ally, until it is published, is invalid within the conte!t of
$rticle ( of Civil Code# The $O under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for
its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and ipleent an e!istin" law pursuant to a valid dele"ation, i#e#,
?; 1)71, in relation to EO& 888 and =O 122# &t was only on 2) /arch 199( when the aendents to the said
$dinistrative Order were filed in the .? Eaw Center, and published in the :ational $dinistrative Ce"ister
as required by the $dinistrative Code of 1987#The fact that the aendents to $O 'OC?=C 89 )8>)1 were
filed with, and published by the .? Eaw Center in the :ational $dinistrative Ce"ister, does not cure the
defect related to the effectivity of the $dinistrative Order# *urther, the $dinistrative Order, without force
and effect due to the lac- of publication, thus cannot e!act any obli"ation fro Cein"ton and *irestone,
specifically, char"es for the )#0N Counter =!port ;evelopent 'ervice#
00 Pilipinas >ao v. C= [*+ 10501", 1! :ece91er 2001#
First -i.ision, "apunan (J) : 4 concur
$acts% ?ilipinas Oao, &nc# is a corporation or"ani7ed and e!istin" under the laws of the ?hilippines, en"a"ed
in ultiple areas of re"istered activity, or has a nuber of pro%ects re"istered with the @oard of &nvestents
4@O&5# @atas ?abansa 291 4&nvestent ?olicy $ct of 19825 was enacted in 1982, providin", aon" others,
for ta! incentives for new and e!pandin" e!port producer# To avail itself of these ta! incentives, the copany
applied with @O& for re"istration of its e!panded production capacity, which @O& approved on 8 +anuary
1987# =ach pro%ect was entitled to a certain set of incentives dependin" upon, aon" others, the law of
re"istration and the status and type of re"istration# These ta! incentives apply only to the copanyBs
Certificate of Ce"istration 87>1871 4?ro%ect 85 as new e!port producer, and Certificate of Ce"istration 87>
1(87 4?ro%ect 25 as an e!pandin" e!port producer 4an e!pansion of the copany3s e!istin" pro%ects re"istered
under C$ P11205# The initial application by copany for ta! credit incentives for the year 1987 was approved
by @O& substantially as applied for# @ut those applied for in 1988 and onwards were drastically reduced by
@O& with the adoption and application of a deductible "base fi"ure" provided in its Ta! Credit on :et Eocal
Content 4:EC5 and :et Aalue =arned 4:A=5 /anual of Operations# On 21 /arch 1989, copany filed
applications for its 1988 ta! credits on the :A= for ?8,082,2(8#)) and on the :EC for ?(0,9(8,172#)) for a
"rand total of ?28,01(,)))#))# On 1) /ay 199), the @O& &ssued @oard Cesolution 188, series of 199),
"rantin" copany3s application for ta! credit but only in the reduced aounts of ?1,01(,708 for :A= and
?(,121,)18 for :EC for a "rand total of ?8,((2,771# :otified of the @O& s decision, copany requested for a
reconsideration# @ut before the @O& could act thereon, copany a"ain filed on 2 +uly 199) its applications for
1989 ta! credits on the :A= in the aount of ?9,189,809 and on the :EC, ?(0,188,8)1, for a "rand total of
?20,(97,81)# On (7 +uly 199), the @O& denied copany3s request for reconsideration anent its 1988 ta!
credit, the denial bein" counicated to copany in a letter dated 1 $u"ust 199) and received by the latter
on 10 $u"ust 199)#On 17 ;eceber 199), copany a"ain oved for reconsideration of the @O& s letter
dated 1 $u"ust 199), but the sae was denied by the @O& in a letter dated 11 /arch 1991# On 11 /arch
1991, the @O& also advised copany of the approval of its application for the year 1989 ta! credit but only in
the reduced aounts of ?2,881,872 4:A=5 and ?189,871 4:EC5 for a "rand total of ?8,)9),988# On 10 $pril
1991, and by re"istered ail, copany then filed with the ,onorable 'upree Court a otion for e!tension
of tie to file petition pursuant to $rticle 8( of the Onibus &nvestents Code6 it li-ewise filed a second
otion for e!tension of tie to file petition on 10 /ay 1991, both of which were not acted upon by the
,onorable 'upree Court# On 1 /ay 1991, however, the 'upree Court issued a resolution referrin" the
instant petition to the trial Court# The trial court, however, disissed the petition for review "on technical and
substantive "rounds"6 rulin" that the petition for review was filed beyond the 2) period of appeal set in $rticle
78 of ?; 1789, as aended by @? 291# The Court of $ppeals sustained the decision of the trial court and
sustained the reduction of credits on net value earned and net local content applied for by the copany in
1988 and 1989# Consequently, the copany filed petition to set aside decision of the Court of $ppeals with
the 'upree Court#
&ssue% 9hether the @oard of &nvestentBs /anual of Operation, especially as to the :EC and :A=, binds
?ilipinas Oao, or the public as a whole#
Held% The /anual of Operations is not e!epted fro publication as it is not erely internal in nature,
re"ulatin" only the personnel of the adinistrative a"ency and not the public, nor is it a letter of instruction
issued by adinistrative superiors concernin" the rules and "uidelines to be followed by their subordinates in
the perforance of their duties# The /anual of Operations affected the public in a substantial way#
$dinistrative rules and re"ulations ust be published if their purpose is to enforce or ipleent e!istin"
law pursuant to a valid dele"ation# The /anual of Operations was eant to enforce or ipleent @#?# @l"#
291, a law of "eneral application# The absence of publication is a fatal oission that renders the /anual of
Operations void and of no effect 4'ee Tanada v# Tuvera5# *urther, 'ection 17 of ?; 1789, as aended by @?
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )
291, e!plicitly provides that the rules and re"ulations ipleentin" the &nvestents Code ta-e effect only
after due publication# Thus, the 33Ta! Credit on :EC and :A= /anual of Operations" 4/anual of Operations5
of @O& has no le"al effect insofar as it adopts as a "base fi"ure" for net value earned 4:A=5 the "hi"hest
attained production volue" in the period precedin" the re"istration of petitioner3s additional or e!panded
capacity6 and 4(5 only the e!panded or additional capacity of petitioner re"istered under @? 1789, as aended
by @? 291, is entitled to the ta! credit provided therein, and not the pre>e!istin" re"istered capacity#
01 +epu1lic vs. 87press )eleco99unications Co. &nc. ;87telco9< [*+ 1"00.6, 15 4anuar5 2002#?
also 2a5an )eleco99unications ;2a5antel< &nc., vs. 87press )eleco99unications Co. [*+
1"0210#
First -i.ision, 0nares1'antia%o (J): 4 concur
$acts% On (9 ;eceber 199(, the &nternational Counications Corporation 4now @ayan
Telecounications, &nc# or @ayantel5 filed an application with the :ational Telecounications
Coission 4:TC5 for a Certificate of ?ublic Convenience or :ecessity 4C?C:, :TC Case 9(>8815 to
install, operate and aintain a di"ital Cellular /obile Telephone 'ysteD'ervice 4C/T'5 with prayer for a
?rovisional $uthority 4?$5# 'hortly thereafter, or on (( +anuary 1992, the :TC issued /eorandu Circular
8>1>92 directin" all interested applicants for nationwide or re"ional C/T' to file their respective applications
before the Coission on or before 10 *ebruary 1992, and deferrin" the acceptance of any application filed
after said date until further orders# On 1 /ay 1992, and prior to the issuance of any notice of hearin" by the
:TC with respect to @ayantel3s ori"inal application, @ayantel filed an ur"ent e!>parte otion to adit an
aended application# On 17 /ay 1992, the notice of hearin" issued by the :TC with respect to this aended
application was published in the /anila Chronicle# Copies of the application as well as the notice of hearin"
were ailed to all affected parties# 'ubsequently, hearin"s were conducted on the aended application# @ut
before @ayantel could coplete the presentation of its evidence, the :TC issued an Order dated 19 ;eceber
1992 statin" that in view of the recent "rant of ( separate ?rovisional $uthorities in favor of &'E$CO/ and
</CC, &nc#, which resulted in the closin" out of all available frequencies for the service bein" applied for by
@ayantel, and in order that the case ay not reain pendin" for an indefinite period of tie, the case was
ordered archived without pre%udice to its reinstateent if and when the requisite frequency becoes available#
On 17 /ay 1999, @ayantel filed an =!>?arte /otion to Cevive Case, citin" the availability of new frequency
bands for C/T' operators# On 1 *ebruary ())), the :TC "ranted @ayanTel3s otion to revive the latter3s
application and set the case for hearin"s on *ebruary 9, 1), 10, 17 and ((, ()))# The :TC noted that the
application was ordered archived without pre%udice to its reinstateent if and when the requisite frequency
shall becoe available# =!press Telecounication Co#, &nc# 4=!telco5 filed in :TC Case 9(>881 an
Opposition 49ith /otion to ;isiss5 prayin" for the disissal of @ayantel3s application6 ar"uin" that
@ayantel3s otion sou"ht the revival of an archived application filed alost 8 years a"o, and thus, the
docuentary evidence and the alle"ations of @ayantel in said application are all outdated and should no
lon"er be used as basis of the necessity for the proposed C/T' service# On 2 /ay ())), the :TC issued an
Order "rantin" in favor of @ayantel a provisional authority to operate C/T' service, applyin" Cule 10,
'ection 2 of its 1978 Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure# =!telco filed with the Court of $ppeals a petition for
certiorari and prohibition 4C$><C '? 088925, see-in" the annulent of the Order revivin" the application of
@ayantel, the Order "rantin" @ayantel a provisional authority to construct, install, operate and aintain a
nationwide C/T', and /eorandu Circular 9>2>())) allocatin" frequency bands to new public
telecounication entities which are authori7ed to install, operate and aintain C/T'# On 12 'epteber
())), the Court of $ppeals "ranted the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for, annullin" and settin"
aside the :TC orders dated 1 *ebruary and 2 /ay ())) in :TC Case 9(>881, disissin" @ayantel3s $ended
$pplication without pre%udice to the filin" of a new C/T' application# @ayantel and the :TC, the latter
bein" represented by the Office of the 'olicitor <eneral 4O'<5, filed a otion for reconsideration of the
above decision# On the other hand, =!telco filed a /otion for ?artial Ceconsideration, prayin" that :TC
/eorandu Circular 9>2>())) be also declared null and void# On 9 *ebruary ())1, the Court of $ppeals
issued a resolution denyin" all of the otions for reconsideration of the parties for lac- of erit# ,ence, the
:TC and @ayantel filed their petitions for review on certiorari 4<C 187)91, and <C 187(1) respectively5# &n
the present petition, =!telco contends, aon" others, that the :TC should have applied the Cevised Cules
which were filed with the Office of the :ational $dinistrative Ce"ister on 2 *ebruary 1992# These Cevised
Cules deleted the phrase "on its own initiative6" accordin"ly, a provisional authority ay be issued only upon
filin" of the proper otion before the Coission# The :TC, on the other hand, issued a certification to the
effect that inasuch as the 1992 Cevised Cules have not been published in a newspaper of "eneral circulation,
the :TC has been applyin" the 1978 Cules#
&ssue% 9hether the 1978 or 1992 :TC Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure should "overn in the approval of
@ayantelBs application#
Held% The absence of publication, coupled with the certification by the Coissioner of the :TC statin" that
the :TC was still "overned by the 1978 Cules, clearly indicate that the 1992 Cevised Cules have not ta-en
effect at the tie of the "rant of the provisional authority to @ayantel# The fact that the 1992 Cevised Cules
were filed with the .? Eaw Center on *ebruary 2, 1992 is of no oent# There is nothin" in the
$dinistrative Code of 1987 which iplies that the filin" of the rules with the .? Eaw Center is the
operative act that "ives the rules force and effect# The :ational $dinistrative Ce"ister is erely a bulletin of
codified rules and it is furnished only to the Office of the ?resident, Con"ress, all appellate courts, the
:ational Eibrary, other public offices or a"encies as the Con"ress ay select, and to other persons at a price
sufficient to cover publication and ailin" or distribution costs# 'till, publication in the Official <a7ette or a
newspaper of "eneral circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or re"ulations can ta-e
effect# The Cules of ?ractice and ?rocedure of the :TC, which ipleents 'ection (9 of the ?ublic 'ervice
$ct 4Coonwealth $ct 181, as aended5, fall squarely within the scope of these laws, as e!plicitly
entioned in the case TaLada v# Tuvera# $dinistrative rules and re"ulations ust be published if their
purpose is to enforce or ipleent e!istin" law pursuant to a valid dele"ation# The only e!ceptions are
interpretative re"ulations, those erely internal in nature, or those so>called letters of instructions issued by
adinistrative superiors concernin" the rules and "uidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
perforance of their duties# ,ence, the 1992 Cevised Cules should be published in the Official <a7ette or in a
newspaper of "eneral circulation before it can ta-e effect# =ven the 1992 Cevised Cules itself andates that
said Cules shall ta-e effect only after their publication in a newspaper of "eneral circulation# &n the absence of
such publication, therefore, it is the 1978 Cules that "overns#
02 )anada v. Pilippine =to9ic 8ner(5 Co99ission [*+ 00632, 11 $e1ruar5 1.!6#? also /uclear
$ree Pilippines Coalition v. /apocor [ *+ ,-6!"0"#
*esolution En Banc, lana (J) : 2 concur, ! took no part
$acts% The Official ?hilippine $toic =ner"y Coission 4?$=C5 paphlet, entitled "The ?hilippine
:uclear ?ower ?lant>1" was published in 1980 when Coissioners /anuel =u"enio, Kuirino :avarro, and
$le%andro Aer $lbano had already been appointed to their present positions# Other paphlets entitled
":uclear ?ower Q 'afe, Clean, =conoical, and $vailable," and I:uclear ?ower ?lant and =nvironental
'afetyJ were issued earlier, but the a%ority of the Coissioners even then were already occupyin"
positions of responsibility in the ?$=C# Coissioner =u"enio was $ctin" Chief of the ?$=C ;epartent
on :uclear Technolo"y and =n"ineerin" fro +une, 198) to +uly, 19886 Coissioner :avarro was ?$=C
Chief 'cience Cesearch 'pecialist fro /ay, 198) to 'epteber, 19886 and Coissioner $lbano was ?$=C
;eputy Coissioner fro /arch, 198) to 'epteber, 1988# These paphlets continued to be distributed by
?$=C as late as /arch 1980# Their official distribution continued after the filin" of :ational ?ower
Corporation 4:apocor53s otion for conversion on (7 +une 1988 and even after ?$=C had issued its order
dated (1 *ebruary 1980 forally adittin" the said otion for conversion# &n <C 7)12(, the copetence of
the ?$=C Coissioners to pass %ud"ent on the safety of the ?hilippine :uclear ?ower ?lant>1 4?:??>15
was questioned6 4(5 the validity of :apocor3s otionDapplication for the conversion of its construction perit
into an operatin" license for ?:??>1 was assailed, and 425 ?$=C Coissioners were char"ed with bias and
pre%ud"ent#
&ssue% 9hether the ?$=C Coissioner ay sit in %ud"ent in deterinin" the safety of ?:??>1#
Held% The ?$=C Coissioners would be actin" with "rave abuse of discretion aountin" to lac- of
%urisdiction were they to sit in %ud"ent upon the safety of the plant, absent the requisite ob%ectivity that ust
characteri7e such an iportant inquiry because they already have pre%ud"ed the safety of ?:??>1# The ?$=C
Coissioners cannot escape responsibility fro the official paphlets, which clearly indicate the
pre%ud"ent that ?:??>1 is safe# The official distribution of the paphlets continued when the
Coissioners had already been appointed to their present positions and and even after ?$=C had issued its
order dated (1 *ebruary 1980 forally adittin" :apocorBs otion for conversion#
03 =n@aldo v. Clave [*+ ,-5"5.0, 15 :ece91er 1.!2#
'econd -i.ision, 34uino (J)5 4 concur, 1 concur in result, 1 took no part
$acts% &n 1978, the position of 'cience Cesearch 'upervisor && 4/edical Cesearch ;epartent5 becae
vacant when the incubent, ;r# Ointanar, becae ;irector of the @iolo"ical Cesearch Center of the :ational
&nstitute of 'cience and Technolo"y 4:&'T5# ;r# $n7aldo and ;r# Aen7on were both ne!t>in>ran- to the vacant
position, both holdin" positions of 'cientist Cesearch $ssociate &A# ;r# $n7aldo finished @' ?haracy 4190),
Colle"e of ?haracy, .?5, and /' ?haracy 4191(, C=.5, ;octor of ?haracy 41910, C=.5# $side fro
her civil service eli"ibility as a pharacist, she is a re"istered edical technolo"ist and supervisor
4unassebled5# 'he started wor-in" in the :&'T in 1908 and has served for (8 years# On the other hand, ;r#
Aen7on finished /edicine 41907, .'T5# 'he started wor-in" in the :&'T in 191) and has served for (1 years#
;r# $n7aldo is senior to her in point of service# ;r# Kuintin Ointanar recoended ;r# Aen7on for the
position# ;r# $n7aldo protested a"ainst such recoendation, to which the :&'T Ceor"ani7ation Coittee
found such protest to be valid and eritorious# ;ue to the ipasse, the :&'T Coissioner, however, did not
resolve the issue# The position was not filled up# ;r# ?edro $fable, Aice Chairan, later becae O&C of the
:&'T# ,e appointed ;r# $n7aldo to the position effective 8 +anuary 1978, after thorou"h study and screenin"
of the qualifications of both doctors and upon recoendation of the :&'T 'taff =valuation 488>11 votes5#
The Civil 'ervice Coission approved the appointent# ;r# Aen7on appealed to the Office of the ?resident
of the ?hilippines 4addressed to ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant +acobo Clave, who was concurrently the
Chairan of the C'C5# The appeal was forwarded to the :&' O&C +ose ?# ?lanas, who reiterated ;r# $fableBs
decision# The appeal>protest was later sent to the C'C# C'C Chairan Clave and Coissioner +ose $# /elo
recoended &n Cesolution 1178 dated (2 $u"ust 1979 that ;r# Aen7on be appointed to the position, in
conflict with the 1978 appointent of ;r# $n7aldo which was duly attested and approved by the C'C# The
Cesolution was ade in pursuance to 'ection 19415 of the Civil 'ervice ;ecree of the ?hilippines 4?; 8)7, 1
October 19705, which provides that "before decidin" a contested appointent, the Office of the ?resident
shall consult the Civil 'ervice Coission#" On 0 +anuary 198), after denial of her otion for the
reconsideration of the resolution, ;r# $n7aldo appealed to the Office of the ?resident of the ?hilippines#
?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave in his decision of () /arch 198) revo-ed ;r# $n7aldo3s appointent
and ruled that, "as recoended by the Civil 'ervice Coission" 4eanin" Chairan Clave hiself and
Coissioner /elo5, ;r# Aen7on should be appointed to the contested position but that ;r# $n7aldo3s
appointent to the said position should be considered "valid and effective durin" the pendency" of ;r#
Aen7on3s protest# &n a resolution dated 18 $u"ust 198), ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave denied ;r#
$n7aldo3s otion for reconsideration# On (0 $u"ust 198), ;r# $n7aldo filed in the 'upree Court the special
civil action of certiorari#
&ssue% 9hether C'C Coissioner +acobo Clave can concur with the recoendation of the ?residential
=!ecutive $ssistant, who is hiself, in the appointent of ;r# Aen7on#
Held% The () /arch 198) decision of ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave ipleented the (2 $u"ust
1979 Cesolution 411785 of Clave 4as C'C Chairan5, concurred with by Coissioner /elo, recoendin"
the appointent of ;r# Aen7on as 'cience Cesearch 'upervisor && in place of ;r# $n7aldo# 9hen ?residential
=!ecutive $ssistant Clave said in his decision that he was "inclined to concur in the recoendation of the
Civil 'ervice Coission", what he eant was that he was concurrin" with Chairan Clave3s
recoendation: he was concurrin" with hiself # &t is evident that ;octor $n7aldo was denied due process
of law when ?residential =!ecutive $ssistant Clave concurred with the recoendation of Chairan Clave
of the Civil 'ervice Coission 4'ee also Mabales Chroite /inin" Co# vs# Court of $ppeals5# Coon
sense and propriety dictate that the coissioner in the Civil 'ervice Coission, who should be consulted
by the Office of the ?resident, should be a person different fro the person in the Office of the ?resident who
would decide the appeal of the protestant in a contested appointent#
0" )u9e5 vs. 3io [203 US 510, 0 Marc 1.20#
/a$t (+J):
$acts% Tuey was arrested at 9hite Oa-, and was brou"ht before /ayor ?u"h, of the villa"e of :orth
Colle"e ,ill, char"ed with unlawfully possessin" into!icatin" liquor# ,e oved for his disissal because of
the disqualification of the ayor to try hi under the 18th $endent# The ayor denied the otion,
proceeded to the trial, convicted Tuey of unlawfully possessin" into!icatin" liquor within ,ailton county
as char"ed, fined hi F1)), and ordered that he be iprisoned until the fine and costs were paid# Tuey
obtained a bill of e!ceptions and carried the case on error to the court of coon pleas of ,ailton county#
That court heard the case and reversed the %ud"ent, on the "round that the ayor was disqualified as
claied# The state sou"ht review by the Court of $ppeals of the *irst $ppellate ;istrict of Ohio, which
reversed the coon pleas and affired the %ud"ent of the ayor# On 8 /ay 19(1, the state 'upree Court
refused Tuey3s application to require the Court of $ppeals to certify its record in the case# Tuey then filed
a petition in error in that court as of ri"ht, as-in" that the %ud"ent of the ayor3s court and of the appellate
court be reversed on constitutional "rounds# On 11 /ay 19(1, the 'upree Court ad%ud"ed that the petition
be disissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved in the cause# The %ud"ent
was then brou"ht to the .' 'upree Court upon a writ of error allowed by the Chief +ustice of the state
'upree Court, to which it was ri"htly directed#
&ssue% 9hether the pecuniary interest of the /ayor and his villa"e, and the syste of courts in prosecutin"
violations of the ?rohibition $ct, renders the ayor disqualified fro hearin" the case#
Held% $ll questions of %udicial qualification ay not involve constitutional validity# Thus atters of -inship,
personal bias, state policy, reoteness of interest would see "enerally to be atters erely of le"islative
discretion# @ut it certainly violates the 18th $endent and deprives a defendant in a criinal case of due
process of law to sub%ect his liberty or property to the %ud"ent of a court, the %ud"e of which has a direct,
personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reachin" a conclusion a"ainst hi in his case# ,erein, the ayor
has authority, which he e!ercised in the case, to order that the person sentenced to pay a fine shall reain in
prison until the fine and costs are paid# The ayor thus has a direct personal pecuniary interest in convictin"
the defendant who cae before hi for trial, in the F1( of costs iposed in his behalf, which he would not
have received if the defendant had been acquitted# This was not e!ceptional, but was the result of the noral
operation of the law and the ordinance# The syste by which an inferior %ud"e is paid for his service only
when he convicts the defendant has not becoe so ebedded by custo in the "eneral practice, either at
coon law or in this country, that it can be re"arded as due process of law, unless the costs usually iposed
are so sall that they ay be properly i"nored as within the a!i "de iniis non curat le!#" The Court
cannot re"ard the prospect of receipt or loss of such an eoluent in each case as a inute, reote, triflin",
or insi"nificant interest# &t is certainly not fair to each defendant brou"ht before the ayor for the careful and
%udicial consideration of his "uilt or innocence that the prospect of such a prospective loss by the ayor
should wei"h a"ainst his acquittal# @ut the pecuniary interest of the ayor in the result of his %ud"ent is not
the only reason for holdin" that due process of law is denied to the defendant here# The statutes were drawn to
stiulate sall unicipalities, in the country part of counties in which there are lar"e cities, to or"ani7e and
aintain courts to try persons accused of violations of the ?rohibition $ct everywhere in the county# The
induceent is offered of dividin" between the state and the villa"e the lar"e fines provided by the law for its
violations# The trial is to be had before a ayor without a %ury, without opportunity for retrial, and with a
review confined to questions of law presented by a bill of e!ceptions, with no opportunity by the reviewin"
court to set aside the %ud"ent on the wei"hin" of evidence, unless it should appear to be so anifestly
a"ainst the evidence as to indicate ista-e, bias, or willful disre"ard of duty by the trial court# Thus, no atter
what the evidence was a"ainst hi, the defendant had the ri"ht to have an ipartial %ud"e# ,e seasonably
raised the ob%ection, and was entitled to halt the trial because of the disqualification of the %ud"e, which
e!isted both because of his direct pecuniary interest in the outcoe, and because of his official otive to
convict and to "raduate the fine to help the financial needs of the villa"e# There were thus presented at the
outset both features of the disqualification# The %ud"ent of the 'upree Court of Ohio is reversed, and the
cause reanded for further proceedin"s not inconsistent with the present opinion#
05 People v. C= [*+ 11!!!2, 26 Septe91er 1..6#
*esolution o$ /hird -i.ision, Melo (J)5 4 concur
$acts% The are no preliinary facts provided re"ardin" C$><C '? :o# 21722, "?eople vs# ,on# ?edro '#
=spina et al#" 4in Court of $ppeals5, Criinal Case 92>)1>28, "?eople vs# Cristeta Ceyes, et al#," and Criinal
Case 92>)1>29, "?eople of the ?hilippines vs# +ane C# <o" 4both in CTC branch presided by +ud"e ?edro
=spina, @ranch 7, CTC, 8th +udicial Ce"ion: Tacloban5 in the present resolution6 e!cept the fact that +ane <o
is the principal accused in the -illin" of her husband ;oinador <o# The Office of the 'olicitor <eneral filed
a petition for review with ur"ent prayer for a writ of preliinary in%unction andDor restrainin" order to annul
and set aside the decision of the Court of $ppeals in C$><C '? 21722 in so far as it denied ?eopleBs prayer
for the inhibition of +ud"e =spina in hearin" Criinal cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29, and en%oinin" the %ud"e
fro conductin" further proceedin"s in such criinal cases, before the 'upree Court# On 2 $pril 1990, the
Court resolved to require Cristeta Ceyes and Co"er ;octora, +ohny 'antos and $ntonio $le"ro, and +ane C#
<o to coent within 1) days fro notice, to issue the teporary restrainin" order prayed for, and to en%oin
+ud"e ?edro '# =spina fro ta-in" further action in Criinal Cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29 until further
orders fro the Court# Ceyes, ;octora, 'antos, $le"ro, and <o failed to file their respective coents within
the re"leentary period, nor within the second deadline# $s the latter are already in detention and that
sanction relatin" to delay in the subission of the coents ay not aount to uch, and as not to unduly
delay the disposition of Criinal Cases 92>)1>28 and 92>)1>29, the Court resolved to dispense with the
latter3s coents and to proceed with the disposition of the petition#
&ssue% 9hether the decision of a +ud"e favorable to the accused in a different special civil proceedin" is
enou"h basis to render the +ud"e to be partial or bias in the present criinal case#
Held% One of the essential requireents of procedural due process in a %udicial proceedin" is that there ust
be an ipartial court or tribunal clothed with %udicial power to hear and deterine the atter before it# Thus,
every liti"ant, includin" the 'tate, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an ipartial %ud"e# The %ud"e ust not
only be ipartial but ust also appear to be ipartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision
will be %ust# They should be sure that when their ri"hts are violated they can "o to a %ud"e who shall "ive the
%ustice# They ust believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise they will not see- his %ud"ent# ;ue process is
intended to insure that confidence by requirin" copliance with the rudients of fair play# *air play calls for
equal %ustice# There cannot be equal %ustice where a suitor approaches a court already coitted to the other
party and with a %ud"ent already ade and waitin" only to be forali7ed after the liti"ants shall have
under"one the charade of a foral hearin"# The +ud"e will reach his conclusions only after all the evidence is
in and all the ar"uents are filed, on the basis of the established facts and the pertinent law# ,erein, +ud"e
?edro =spina cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an ipartial %ud"e as to fairly
assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in
'pecial Civil $ction 9(>11>(19 wherein he en%oined the preliinary investi"ation at the Ce"ional 'tate
?rosecutor3s Office level a"ainst +ane <o, the principal accused in the -illin" of her husband ;oinador <o#
+ud"e =spina3s decision in favor of +ane <o serves as sufficient and reasonable basis for the prosecution to
seriously doubt his ipartiality in handlin" the criinal cases# &t would have been ore prudent for +ud"e
=spina to have voluntarily inhibited hiself fro hearin" the criinal cases#
06 )a1uena v. Sandi(an1a5an [*+ 103501-03, 10 $e1ruar5 1..0#? also Peralta v. Sandi(an1a5an
[*+ 103500#
En Banc, Francisco (J) : 4 concur, 3 concur pro hac .ice, 1 took no part
$acts% Then ?resident /arcos instructed Euis Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the president3s office
and in cash what the /anila &nternational $irport $uthority 4/&$$5 owes the ?hilippine :ational
Construction Corporation 4?:CC5, pursuant to the 7 +anuary 1980 eorandu of then /inister Trade and
&ndustry Coberto On"pin# Tabuena a"reed# $bout a wee- later, Tabuena received fro /rs# *e Coa><iene7,
then private secretary of /arcos, a ?residential /eorandu dated 8 +anuary 1981 reiteratin" in blac- and
white such verbal instruction# &n obedience to ?resident /arcos3 verbal instruction and eorandu,
Tabuena, with the help of <erardo <# ;abao and $dolfo ?eralta, caused the release of ?00 /illion of /&$$
funds by eans of three 425 withdrawals# On 1) +anuary 1981, the first withdrawal was ade for ?(0
/illion, followin" a letter of even date si"ned by Tabuena and ;abao requestin" the ?:@ e!tension office at
the /&$$ the depository branch of /&$$ funds, to issue a ana"er3s chec- for said aount payable to
Tabuena# The chec- was encashed, however, at the ?:@ Aillaor @ranch# ;abao and the cashier of the ?:@
Aillaor branch counted the oney after which, Tabuena too- delivery thereof# The ?(0 /illion in cash was
delivered on the sae day to the office of /rs# <iene7# /rs# <iene7 did not issue any receipt for the
oney received# 'iilar circustances surrounded the second withdrawalDencashent and delivery of
another ?(0 /illion, ade on 11 +anuary 1981# The third and last withdrawal was ade on 21 +anuary 1981
for ?0 /illion# ?eralta was Tabuena3s co>si"natory to the letter> request for a ana"er3s chec- for this aount#
?eralta accopanied Tabuena to the ?:@ Aillaor branch as Tabuena requested hi to do the countin" of the
?0 /illion# $fter the countin", the oney was loaded in the trun- of Tabuena3s car# ?eralta did not "o with
Tabuena to deliver the oney to /rs# <iene73 office# &t was only upon delivery of the ?0 /illion that /rs#
<iene7 issued a receipt for all the aounts she received fro Tabuena# The receipt was dated +anuary 2),
1981# Tabuena and ?eralta were char"ed for alversation of funds, while ;abao reained at lar"e# One of the
%ustices of the 'andi"anbayan actively too- part in the questionin" of a defense witness and of the accused
theselves6 the volue of the questions as-ed were ore the cobined questions of the counsels# On 1(
October 199), they were found "uilty beyond reasonable doubt# Tabuena and ?eralta filed separate petitions
for review, appealin" the 'andi"anbayan decision dated 1( October 1999) and the Cesolution of ()
;eceber 1991#
&ssue% 9hether Tabuena and ?eralta were denied due process by the active participation of a 'andi"anbayan
%ustice in the questionin" witnesses in the trial#
Held% ;ue process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an ipartial %ud"e# @olsterin" this requireent,
we have added that the %ud"e ust not only be ipartial but ust also appear to be ipartial, to "ive added
assurance to the parties that his decision will be %ust# The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a
iniu "uaranty of due process# Our courts should refrain fro showin" any seblance of one>sided or
ore or less partial attitude in order not to create any false ipression in the inds of the liti"ants# *or
obvious reasons, it is the bounden duty of all to strive for the preservation of the people3s faith in our courts#
Cespect for the Constitution is ore iportant than securin" a conviction based on a violation of the ri"hts of
the accused# The Court was struc- by the way the 'andi"anbayan actively too- part in the questionin" of a
defense witness and of the accused theselves, as shown in the records# The volue of questions hurled by
the 'andi"anbayan was ore the cobined questions of the counsels# /ore iportantly, the questions of the
court were in the nature of cross e!ainations characteristic of confrontation, probin" and insinuation# 9e
have not adopted in this country the practice of a-in" the presidin" %ud"e the chief inquisitor# &t is better to
observe our tie>honored custo of orderly %udicial procedure, even at the e!pense of occasional delays# The
ipartiality of the %ud"e6 his avoidance of the appearance of becoin" the advocate of either one side or the
other of the pendin" controversy is a fundaental and essential rule of special iportance in criinal cases#
00 People v. Medenilla [*+ 13163!-3., 26 Marc 2001#
First -i.ision, "apunan (J) : 4 concur
$acts% On 11 $pril 1991, Eoreto /edenilla y ;oria was cau"ht for ille"al possession and unlawfully sellin"
0#)8" of shabu 4Criinal Case 2118>;5, was in unlawful possession of 8 transparent plastic ba"s of shabu
wei"hin" ())#80" 4Criinal Case 2119>;5 in /andaluyon" City# Aersions of facts leadin" to the arrest are
conflictin"6 the prosecution alle"in" buy>bust operations, while defense clai ille"al arrest, search and
sei7ure# $rrai"ned on (0 +une 1991, /edenilla pleaded not "uilty# The %ud"e therein, for the purpose of
clarification, propounded a question upon a witness durin" the trial# On (1 :oveber 1997, the Ce"ional
Trial Court of ?asi" 4@ranch (1(5 found /edenilla, in Criinal Cases 2118>; and 2119>;, "uilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violatin" 'ections 10 and 11 of C$ 18(0, as aended 4;an"erous ;ru"s $ct of 197(5#
&ssue% 9hether %ud"es are allowed to as-ed clarificatory questions#
Held% $ sin"le noted instance of questionin" cannot %ustify a clai that the trial %ud"e was biased# The Court
have e!haustively e!ained the transcript of steno"raphic notes and deterined that the trial %ud"e was ore
than equitable in presidin" over the hearin"s of this case# /oreover, a %ud"e is not prohibited fro
propoundin" clarificatory questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and %ust
deterination of the case# IThe trial %ud"e ust be accorded a reasonable leeway in puttin" such questions to
witnesses as ay be essential to elicit relevant facts to a-e the record spea- the truth# &t cannot be ta-en
a"ainst hi if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy
the theory of one party#
0! Ae11 v. de ,eon [*+ 12123", 23 =u(ust 1..5#, also *atcalian v. de ,eon [*+ 1212"5#, and
,eBano v. de ,eon [*+ 1212.0#
'econd -i.ision, uno (J) : ! concur, 1 on lea.e
$acts% This was a hi"hly>publici7ed case 4dubbed as Ai7conde /assacre, and involves a son of a ?hilippine
'enator5# On 19 +une 1998, the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation 4:@&5 filed with the ;epartent of +ustice
4;O+5 a letter>coplaint char"in" petitioners ,ubert 9ebb, /ichael <atchalian# $ntonio +# Ee%ano and 1
other persons, with the crie of Cape with ,oicide# *orthwith, the ;O+ fored a panel of prosecutors
headed by $ssistant Chief 'tate prosecutor +ovencito C# MuLo to conduct the preliinary investi"ation of
those char"ed with the rape and -illin" on 2) +une 1991 of Carela :# Ai7conde, her other =strellita
:icolas>Ai7oonde, and sister $nne /arie +ennifer in their hoe at ?araLaque# ;urin" the preliinary
investi"ation, the :@& presented the sworn stateents of /aria +essica $lfaro, ( forer houseaids of the
9ebb faily, Carlos Cristobal 4a plane passen"er5, Eolita @irrer 4live>in partner of @ion"5, ( of Ai7condeBs
aids, :oral 9hite 4a security "uard5 and /anciano <ataitan 4an en"ineer5# The :@& also subitted the
autopsy report involvin" =strellita 41( stab wounds5, Carela 49 stab wounds5, and +ennifer 419 stab
wounds56 and the "enital e!aination of Carela confirin" the presence of sperato7oa# The :@&
subitted photocopies of the docuents requested by 9ebb in his /otion for ?roduction and =!aination of
=vidence and ;ocuents, "ranted by the ;O+ ?anel# 9ebb claied durin" the preliinary investi"ation that
he did not coit the crie as he went to the .nited 'tates on 1 /arch 1991 and returned to the ?hilippines
on (7 October 199(# The others R *ernande7, <atchalian, Ee%ano, =strada, Codri"ue7 and @ion" R
subitted sworn stateents, responses, and a otion to disiss denyin" their coplicity in the rape>-illin" of
the Ai7condes# Only *ilart and Aentura failed to file their counter>affidavits thou"h they were served with
subpoena in their last -nown address# On 8 $u"ust 1990, the ;O+ ?anel issued a (1>pa"e Cesolution "findin"
probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and recoendin" that an &nforation for rape with hoicide
be filed a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On the sae date, it filed the correspondin" &nforation a"ainst 9ebb, et# al#
with the CTC ?araLaque# ;oc-eted as Criinal Case 90>8)8 and raffled to @ranch (08 presided by +ud"e
Mosio A# =scano# &t was, however, +ud"e Caul de Eeon, pairin" %ud"e of +ud"e =scano, who issued the
warrants of arrest a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On 11 $u"ust 1990, +ud"e =scano voluntarily inhibited hiself fro
the case to avoid any suspicion about his ipartiality considerin" his eployent with the :@& before his
appointent to the bench# The case was re>raffled to branch (78, presided by +ud"e $elita Tolentino who
issued new warrants of arrest a"ainst 9ebb, et# al# On 11 $u"ust 1990, 9ebb voluntarily surrendered to the
police authorities at Cap Cicardo ?apa 'r#, in Ta"ui"# 9ebb, et# al# filed petitions for the issuance of the
e!traordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and andaus with application for teporary restrainin" order
and preliinary in%unction with the 'upree Court to: 415 annul and set aside the 9arrants of $rrest issued
a"ainst petitioners by respondent +ud"es Caul =# de Eeon and $elita Tolentino in Criinal Case :o# 90>
8)86 4(5 en%oin the respondents fro conductin" any proceedin" in the aforeentioned criinal case6 and 425
disiss said criinal case or include +essica $lfaro as one of the accused therein# <atchalian and Ee%ano
li-ewise "ave theselves up to the authorities after filin" their petitions before the Court#
&ssue% 9hether the attendant publicity of the case deprived 9ebb, et#al, of their ri"ht to fair trial#
Held% ?ervasive and pre%udicial publicity under certain circustances can deprive an accused of his due
process ri"ht to fair trial# ,erein, however, nothin" in the records that will prove that the tone and content of
the publicity that attended the investi"ation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and ipartiality of the
;O+ ?anel# The ;O+ ?anel is coposed of an $ssistant Chief 'tate ?rosecutor and 'enior 'tate ?rosecutors6
and their lon" e!perience in criinal investi"ation is a factor to consider in deterinin" whether they can
easily be blinded by the -lie" li"hts of publicity# $t no instance in the case did 9ebb, et# al# see- the
disqualification of any eber of the ;O+ ?anel on the "round of bias resultin" fro their bobardent of
pre%udicial publicity# *urther , on the contention of the denial of their constitutional ri"ht to due process and
violation of their ri"ht to an ipartial investi"ation, records show that the ;O+ ?anel did not conduct the
preliinary investi"ation with indecent haste# 9ebb, et# al# were "iven fair opportunity to prove lac- of
probable cause a"ainst the# 'till, the 'upree Court reinds a trial %ud"e in hi"h profile criinal cases of
hisDher duty to control publicity pre%udicial to the fair adinistration of %ustice# The ability to dispense
ipartial %ustice is an issue in every trial and in every criinal prosecution, the %udiciary always stands as a
silent accused# /ore than convictin" the "uilty and acquittin" the innocent, the business of the %udiciary is to
assure fulfillent of the proise that %ustice shall be done and is done, and that is the only way for the
%udiciary to "et an acquittal fro the bar of public opinion#
0. People v. Sance@ [*+ 12103.-"5, 1! 3cto1er 2001#
*esolution o$ First -i.ision, Melo (J) : 3 concur
$acts% 4The 'arenta><oe7 rape>slay5 On (8 +une 1992, Euis and Co"elio "@oy" Corcolon approached
=ileen 'arenta and $llan <oe7, forcibly too- the two and loaded the at the bac- of the latter3s van,
which was par-ed in front of CafS $alia, $"ri! Cople!, Eos @anos, Ea"una# <eor"e /edialdea, Moilo
$a, @aldwin @rion and ?epito Oawit also boarded the van while $urelio Centeno and Aicencio /alabanan,
who were also with the "roup, stayed in the abulance# @oth vehicles then headed for =rais *ar situated in
@aran"ay Curba, which was owned by /ayor $ntonio 'anche7 of Calauan, Ea"una# The two youn"sters were
then brou"ht inside the resthouse where =ileen was ta-en to the /ayorBs roo# $llan was badly beaten up by
Euis, @oy, $a and /edialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse# $t around 1:)) a## of the ne!t
day, a cryin" =ileen was dra""ed out of the resthouse by Euis and /edialdea Q her hair disheveled, outh
covered by a hand-erchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts# =ileen and $llan were then loaded in the
Taaraw van by /edialdea, et# al# and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the abulance# =n route to
Calauan, "unfire was heard fro the van# The van pulled over whereupon Oawit dra""ed $llan, whose head
was already drenched in blood, out of the vehicle onto the road and finished hi off with a sin"le "unshot
fro his aralite# The abulance and van then sped away# .pon reachin" a su"arcane field in 'itio ?aputo-,
Oiloetro 78 of @aran"ay /abacan, =ileen was "an">raped by Euis Corcolon, /edialdea, Co"elio Corcolon,
$a, @rion and Oawit# $fter OawitBs turn, Euis Corcolon shot =ileen with his baby aralite# /oents later,
all 8 en boarded the abulance and proceeded to Calauan, leavin" the Taaraw van with =ileenBs reains
behind# &nitially, the crie was attributed to one Oit $lque7a, a son of a feared "eneral 4;ictador $lque7a5#
Euis and Co"elio Corcolon were also iplicated therein# ,owever, further investi"ation, and forensic
findin"s, pointed to the "roup of /ayor 'anche7# Centeno and /alabanan bolstered the prosecution3s theory#
On 11 /arch 1990, +ud"e ,arriet O# ;eetriou of the Ce"ional Trial Court 4?asi" City, @ranch 7)5 found
/ayor 'anche7, /edialdea, $a, @rion, Euis Corcolon, Co"elio Corcolon and Oawit "uilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crie of rape with hoicide, orderin" the to pay =ileen 'arenta the aount of
?0),))) and additionally, the aount of ?7)),)))#)) to the heirs of =ileen 'arenta and $llan <oe7 as
additional indenity# On (0 +anuary 1999, the 'upree Court, throu"h +ustice /artine7, affired in toto the
%ud"ent of conviction rendered by the trial court# $ntonio 'anche7, Moilo $a, @aldwin @rion and ?epito
Oawit seasonably filed their respective otions for reconsideration# The Office of the 'olicitor <eneral filed
its Coent on 1 ;eceber 1999# 'anche7 avers that he is a victi of trial and conviction by publicity,
besides clais that principal witness Centeno and /alabanan lac- credibility, that the testiony of his 12>
year old dau"hter should have been "iven full faith and credit, and that the "ar"antuan daa"es awarded have
no factual and le"al bases# $a, @rion and Oawit aintain that Centeno and /alabanan were sufficiently
ipeached by their inconsistent stateents pertain to aterial and crucial points of the events at issue, besides
that independent and disinterested witnesses have destroyed the prosecutionBs version of events# On (
*ebruary 1999, +ustice /artine7 retired in accordance with $/ 99>8>)9# The otions for reconsideration was
assi"ned to +ustice /elo for study and preparation of the appropriate action on 18 'epteber ())1#
&ssue% 9hether the publicity of the case ipaired the ipartiality of the %ud"e handlin" the case#
Held% ?ervasive publicity is not per se pre%udicial to the ri"ht of an accused to fair trial# The ere fact that the
trial of /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, was "iven a day>to>day, "avel>to>"avel covera"e does not by itself prove that
publicity so pereated the ind of the trial %ud"e and ipaired his ipartiality# The ri"ht of an accused to a
fair trial is not incopatible to a free press# Cesponsible reportin" enhances an accused3s ri"ht to a fair trial#
The press does not siply publish inforation about trials but "uards a"ainst the iscarria"e of %ustice by
sub%ectin" the police, prosecutors, and %udicial processes to e!tensive public scrutiny and criticis# Our
%ud"es are learned in the law and trained to disre"ard off>court evidence and on caera perforances of
parties to a liti"ation# Their ere e!posure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect
their ipartiality# To warrant a findin" of pre%udicial publicity, there ust be alle"ation and proof that the
%ud"es have been unduly influenced by the barra"e of publicity# Cecords herein do not show that the trial
%ud"e developed actual bias a"ainst /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, as a consequence of the e!tensive edia covera"e
of the pre>trial and trial of his case# The totality of circustances of the case does not prove that the trial %ud"e
acquired a fi!ed position as a result of pre%udicial publicity which is incapable of chan"e even by evidence
presented durin" the trial# /ayor 'anche7, et# al#, has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not
dischar"ed the burden#
!0 Su99ar5 :is9issal 2oard v. )orcita [*+ 130""2, 6 =pril 2000#
/hird di.ision, 6onza%a1*e#es (J): 4 concur
$acts% On (1 $pril 1998, a red Cortina *ord, driven by CD&nsp# Ea7aro Torcita, with his aide, ?O( +ava, in the
front seat and his wife with two ladies at the bac-seat, were overta-en by a /a7da pic->up owned by
Con"ressan /anuel ?uey and driven by one Ceynaldo Conse%o with four 485 passen"ers in the persons of
$le! =dwin del Cosario, Cosita @istal, Caren @ra"an7a and Cristina ;awa# $fter the /a7da pic->up has
overta-en the red Cortina *ord, and after a vehicular collision alost too- place, it accelerated speed and
proceeded to ,acienda $iee, a su"arcane plantation owned by the con"ressan# The red Cortina *ord
followed also at hi"h speed until it reached the hacienda where Torcita and +ava ali"hted and the
confrontation with del Cosario and +esus ?uey occurred# Torcita identified hiself but the sae had no effect#
?O( +ava whispered to hi that there are ared en around the and that it is dan"erous for the to
continue# That at this point, they radioed for bac->up# Torcita,upon the arrival of the bac->up force of ?:?
Cadi7 City, proceeded to the place where Capt# +esus ?uey and $le! =dwin del Cosario were# On 1 +uly 1998,
1( verified adinistrative coplaints were filed a"ainst Torcita for Conduct .nbecoin" of a ?olice Officer,
&lle"al 'earch, <rave $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of ;oicile, and $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of
CO/=E=C <un @an# The 1( adinistrative coplaints were consolidated into 1 a%or coplaint for
conduct unbecoin" of a police officer# The 'uary ;isissal @oard, however, did not find sufficient
evidence to establish that Torcita threatened anybody with a "un, nor that a serious confrontation too- place
between the parties, nor that the urinatin" incident too- place, and held that the char"es of violation of
doicile and ille"al search were not proven# 'till, while the @oard found that Torcita was "in the perforance
of his official duties" when the incident happened, he alle"edly coitted a siple irre"ularity in
perforance of duty 4for bein" in the influence of alcohol while in perforance of duty5 and was suspended
for () days and salary suspended for the sae period of tie# Torcita appealed his conviction to the Ce"ional
$ppellate @oard of the ?hilippine :ational ?olice 4?:?, Ce"ion A&, &loilo City5, but the appeal was disissed
for lac- of %urisdiction# 9hereupon, Torcita filed a petition for certiorari in the Ce"ional Trial Court of &loilo
City 4@ranch 215, questionin" the le"ality of the conviction of an offense for which he was not char"ed 4lac-
of procedural due process of law5# The @oard filed a otion to disiss, which was denied# The CTC "ranted
the petition for certiorari and annulled the dispositive portion of the questioned decision insofar as it found
Torcita "uilty of siple irre"ularity in the perforance of duty# The @oard appealed fro the CTC decision,
by petition of review to the Court of $ppeals, which affired the sae for the reason that the respondent
could not have been "uilty of irre"ularity considerin" that the 1( cases were eventually disissed# The @oard
filed the petition for review on certiorari before the 'upree Court#
&ssue% 9hether Torcita ay be proceeded a"ainst or suspended for breach of internal discipline, when the
ori"inal char"es a"ainst hi were for Conduct .nbecoin" of a ?olice Officer, &lle"al 'earch, <rave $buse
of $uthority and Aiolation of ;oicile, and $buse of $uthority and Aiolation of CO/=E=C <un @an#
Held% :otification of the char"es conteplates that the respondent be infored of the specific char"es a"ainst
hi# The absence of specification of the offense for which he was eventually found "uilty is not a proper
observance of due process# There can be no short>cut to the le"al process# 9hile the definition of the ore
serious offense is broad, and alost all>encopassin" a findin" of "uilt for an offense, no atter how li"ht,
for which one is not properly char"ed and tried cannot be countenanced without violatin" the rudientary
requireents of due process# ,erein, the 1( adinistrative cases filed a"ainst Torcita did not include char"es
or offenses entioned or ade reference to the specific act of bein" drun- while in the perforance of
official duty# There is no indication or warnin" at all in the suary disissal proceedin"s that Torcita was
also bein" char"ed with breach of internal discipline consistin" of ta-in" alcoholic drin-s while in the
perforance of his duties# The oission is fatal to the validity of the %ud"ent findin" hi "uilty of the
offense for which he was not notified nor char"ed# *urther, the cursory conclusion of the ;isissal @oard that
Torcita "coitted breach of internal discipline by ta-in" drin-s while in the perforance of sae" should
have been substantiated by factual findin"s referrin" to this particular offense# =ven if he was prosecuted for
irre"ular perforance of duty, he could not have been found to have the odor or sell of alcohol while in the
perforance of duty because he was not on duty at the tie that he had a taste of liquor6 he was on a private
trip fetchin" his wife#
!1 4ustice Secretar5 v. ,antion [*+ 13."65, 10 3cto1er 2000#
*esolution En Banc, uno (J): ) concur, 1 dissents, 1 concurs 7ased on prior opinion, 1 concurs in result
$acts% On 12 +anuary 1977, then ?resident *erdinand =# /arcos issued ?residential ;ecree 1)19 "?rescribin"
the ?rocedure for the =!tradition of ?ersons 9ho ,ave Coitted Cries in a *orei"n Country"# On 12
:oveber 1998, then 'ecretary of +ustice *ran-lin /# ;rilon, representin" the <overnent of the Cepublic
of the ?hilippines, si"ned in /anila the "=!tradition Treaty @etween the <overnent of the Cepublic of the
?hilippines and the <overnent of the .nited 'tates of $erica# "The 'enate, by way of Cesolution 11,
e!pressed its concurrence in the ratification of said treaty# &t also e!pressed its concurrence in the ;iploatic
:otes correctin" ?ara"raph 4054a5, $rticle 7 thereof 4on the adissibility of the docuents accopanyin" an
e!tradition request upon certification by the principal diploatic or consular officer of the requested state
resident in the Cequestin" 'tate5# On 18 +une 1999, the ;epartent of +ustice received fro the ;epartent
of *orei"n $ffairs .# '# :ote Aerbale )0(( containin" a request for the e!tradition of /ar- +iene7 to the
.nited 'tates# $ttached to the :ote Aerbale were the <rand +ury &ndictent, the warrant of arrest issued by
the .#'# ;istrict Court, 'outhern ;istrict of *lorida, and other supportin" docuents for said e!tradition#
+iene7 was char"ed in the .nited 'tates for violation of 4a5 18 .'C 271 4Conspiracy to coit offense or
to defraud the .nited 'tates, ( counts5, 4b5 (1 .'C 7()1 4$ttept to evade or defeat ta!, 8 counts5, 4c5 18
.'C 1282 4*raud by wire, radio, or television, ( counts5, 4d5 18 .'C 1))1 4*alse stateent or entries, 1
counts5, and 4=5 ( .'C 881f 4=lection contributions in nae of another6 22 counts5# On the sae day, the
'ecretary issued ;epartent Order (89 desi"natin" and authori7in" a panel of attorneys to ta-e char"e of and
to handle the case# ?endin" evaluation of the aforestated e!tradition docuents, +iene7 4on 1 +uly 19995
requested copies of the official e!tradition request fro the .' <overnent, as well as all docuents and
papers subitted therewith, and that he be "iven aple tie to coent on the request after he shall have
received copies of the requested papers# The 'ecretary denied the request# On 1 $u"ust 1999, +iene7 filed
with the Ce"ional Trial Court a petition a"ainst the 'ecretary of +ustice, the 'ecretary of *orei"n $ffairs, and
the ;irector of the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation, for andaus 4to copel the +ustice 'ecretary to furnish
+iene7 the e!tradition docuents, to "ive hi access thereto, and to afford hi an opportunity to coent
on, or oppose, the e!tradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request ipartially, fairly and
ob%ectively56 certiorari 4to set aside the +ustice 'ecretaryBs letter dated 12 +uly 199956 and prohibition 4to
restrain the +ustice 'ecretary fro considerin" the e!tradition request and fro filin" an e!tradition petition
in court6 and to en%oin the 'ecretary of *orei"n $ffairs and the ;irector of the :@& fro perforin" any act
directed to the e!tradition of +iene7 to the .nited 'tates5, with an application for the issuance of a
teporary restrainin" order and a writ of preliinary in%unction# The trial court ruled in favor of +iene7# The
'ecretary filed a petition for certiorari before the 'upree Court# On 18 +anuary ())), by a vote of 9>1, the
'upree Court disissed the petition and ordered the +ustice 'ecretary to furnish +iene7 copies of the
e!tradition request and its supportin" papers and to "rant hi a reasonable period within which to file his
coent with supportin" evidence# On 2 *ebruary ())), the 'ecretary tiely filed an .r"ent /otion for
Ceconsideration#
&ssue% 9hether +iene7 had the ri"ht to notice and hearin" durin" the evaluation sta"e of an e!tradition
process#
Held% ?residential ;ecree 4?;5 1)19 which ipleents the C?>.' =!tradition Treaty provides the tie
when an e!traditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for e!tradition as well as its supportin" papers,
i#e#, after the filin" of the petition for e!tradition in the e!tradition court 4'ection 15# &t is of %udicial notice that
the suons includes the petition for e!tradition which will be answered by the e!traditee# There is no
provision in the Treaty and in ?; 1)19 which "ives an e!traditee the ri"ht to deand fro the +ustice
'ecretary copies of the e!tradition request fro the .' "overnent and its supportin" docuents and to
coent thereon while the request is still under"oin" evaluation# The ;*$ and the ;O+, as well as the .'
"overnent, aintained that the Treaty and ?; 1)19 do not "rant the e!traditee a ri"ht to notice and hearin"
durin" the evaluation sta"e of an e!tradition process# &t is neither an international practice to afford a potential
e!traditee with a copy of the e!tradition papers durin" the evaluation sta"e of the e!tradition process# +iene7
is, thus, bereft of the ri"ht to notice and hearin" durin" the e!tradition processB evaluation sta"e# *urther, as an
e!tradition proceedin" is not criinal in character and the evaluation sta"e in an e!tradition proceedin" is not
a-in to a preliinary investi"ation, the due process safe"uards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the
forer# The procedural due process required by a "iven set of circustances "ust be"in with a deterination
of the precise nature of the "overnent function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected
by "overnental action#" The concept of due process is fle!ible for "not all situations callin" for procedural
safe"uards call for the sae -ind of procedure#" Thus, the teporary hold on +iene73s privile"e of notice and
hearin" is a soft restraint on his ri"ht to due process which will not deprive hi of fundaental fairness
should he decide to resist the request for his e!tradition to the .'# There is no denial of due process as lon" as
fundaental fairness is assured a party#
!2 People v. 8strada [*+ 130"!0, 1. 4une 2000#
En Banc, uno (J): 13 concur, 1 on o$$icial lea.e
$acts% On (7 ;eceber (7, 1998, Coberto =strada y Eope7 sat at the bishopBs chair while the sacraent of
confiration was bein" perfored at the 't# +ohnBs Cathedral, ;a"upan City# Co"elio /ararac, the security
"uard at the cathedral, was suoned by soe church"oers# /ararac went near =strada and told hi to
vacate the @ishop3s chair# /ararac twice tapped =stradaBs hand with his ni"htstic-# 9hen /ararac was about
to stri-e a"ain, =strada drew a -nife fro his bac-, lun"ed at /ararac and stabbed hi, hittin" hi below his
left throat# /ararac fell# 9ounded and bleedin", /ararac slowly dra""ed hiself down the altar# '?)1
Conrado *rancisco received a report of the cootion inside the cathedral, went inside the cathedral,
approached =strada who was sittin" on the chair, and advised the latter to drop his -nife# =strada obeyed#
,owever, when Chief &nspector 9endy Cosario, ;eputy ?olice Chief, who was also at the confiration rites,
went near =strada, =strada ebraced Cosario and two wrestled with each other# Cosario was able to subdue
=strada# =strada was brou"ht to the police station and placed in %ail# /aranac e!pired a few inutes after
arrival at the hospital# On (9 ;eceber 1998, =strada was char"ed with the crie of urder for the -illin" of
/ararac# On 1 +anuary 1990, at the arrai"nent, the ?ublic $ttorney3s Office, filed an ".r"ent /otion to
'uspend $rrai"nent and to Coit $ccused to ?sychiatric 9ard at @a"uio <eneral ,ospital#" &t was
alle"ed that =strada could not properly and intelli"ently enter a plea because he was sufferin" fro a ental
defect6 that before the coission of the crie, he was confined at the psychiatric ward of the @a"uio
<eneral ,ospital in @a"uio City# The otion was opposed by the City ?rosecutor# The trial court, otu
proprio, propounded several questions on =strada# *indin" that the questions were understood and answered
by hi "intelli"ently," the court denied the otion that sae day# The arrai"nent proceeded and a plea of
not "uilty was entered by the court on =strada3s behalf# On (2 +une 1997, the trial court 4CTC ;a"upan City,
@ranch 88, Criinal Case 98>))81)>;5 rendered a decision upholdin" the prosecution evidence and found
=strada "uilty of the crie char"ed and thereby sentenced hi to death, and ordered hi to pay ?0),))) for
indenity, ?18,87) for actual e!penses, and ?1)),))) as oral daa"es# =stradaBs counsel appealed#
&ssue% 9hether a ental e!aination of the accused should be ade before the accused ay be sub%ected to
trial#
Held% The rule barrin" trial or sentence of an insane person is for the protection of the accused, rather than of
the public# &t has been held that it is inhuan to require an accused disabled by act of <od to a-e a %ust
defense for his life or liberty# To put a le"ally incopetent person on trial or to convict and sentence hi is a
violation of the constitutional ri"hts to a fair trial and due process of law# 'ection 1(, Cule 111 of the 1980
Cules on Criinal ?rocedure spea-s of a "ental e!aination#" $n intelli"ent deterination of an accused3s
capacity for rational understandin" ou"ht to rest on a deeper and ore coprehensive dia"nosis of his ental
condition than layen can a-e throu"h observation of his overt behavior# Once a edical or psychiatric
dia"nosis is ade, then can the le"al question of incopetency be deterined by the trial court# @y deprivin"
appellant of a ental e!aination, the trial court effectively deprived appellant of a fair trial# The trial court3s
ne"li"ence was a violation of the basic requireents of due process6 and for this reason, the proceedin"s
before the said court ust be nullified#
!3 ,i9 vs. Court of =ppeals [*+ 1113.0, 12 =u(ust 2002#
/hird -i.ision, +arpio (J): ! concur, 1 on lea.e
$acts% On 7 ;eceber 199(, @istro ?i"alle &nc# filed before the trial court a petition for andaus and
prohibition, with prayer for teporary restrainin" order or writ of preliinary in%unction, a"ainst $lfredo Ei
in his capacity as /ayor of the City of /anila# The @istro filed the case because policeen under EiBs
instructions inspected and investi"ated the @istroBs license as well as the wor- perits and health certificates
of its staff# This caused the stoppa"e of wor- in the @istroBs ni"ht club and restaurant operations 4i#e# the :ew
@an"-o- Club and the =!otic <arden Cestaurant5# Ei also refused to accept the @istroBs application for a
business license, as well as the wor- perit applications of the @istroBs staff, for the year 1992# $ctin" on the
@istroBs application for in%unctive relief, the trial court issued the teporary restrainin" order on (9 ;eceber
199(, orderin" Ei andDor his a"ents to refrain fro inspectin" or otherwise interferin" in the operation of the
establishents of the @istro# $t the hearin", the parties subitted their evidence in support of their respective
positions# On () +anuary 1992, the trial court "ranted the @istroBs application for a writ of prohibitory
preliinary in%unction# ,owever, despite the trial courtBs order, Ei still issued a closure order on the @istroBs
operations effective (2 +anuary 1992, even sendin" policeen to carry out his closure order# Ei insisted that
the power of a ayor to inspect and investi"ate coercial establishents and their staff is iplicit in the
statutory power of the city ayor to issue, suspend or revo-e business perits and licenses# This statutory
power is e!pressly provided for in 'ection 11 4l5, $rticle && of the Cevised Charter of the City of /anila and
in 'ection 800, para"raph 2 4iv5 of the Eocal <overnent Code of 1991# On (0 +anuary 1992, the @istro filed
an ".r"ent /otion for Contept" a"ainst Ei and the policeen who stopped the @istroBs operations on
+anuary (2, 1992# $t the hearin" of the otion for contept on (9 +anuary 1992, the @istro withdrew its
otion on condition that Ei would respect the courtBs in%unction# ,owever, on *ebruary 1(, 12, 10, (1 and
(7, and on /arch 1 and (, 1992, Ei, actin" throu"h his a"ents and policeen, a"ain disrupted the @istroBs
business operations# /eanwhile, on 17 *ebruary 1992, Ei filed a otion to dissolve the in%unctive order and
to disiss the case# The trial court denied EiBs otion to dissolve the in%unction and to disiss the case in
an order dated ( /arch 1992# On 1) /arch 1992, Ei filed with the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and andaus a"ainst the @istro and +ud"e 9ilfredo Ceyes# The Court of $ppeals sustained the
CTC orders in a decision on (0 /arch 1992, and denied Ei3s otion for reconsideration in a resolution
dated 12 +uly 1992# On 1 +uly 1992, /anila City Ordinance 778218 too- effect# On the sae day, Ei
ordered the 9estern ?olice ;istrict Coand to peranently close down the operations of the @istro, which
order the police ipleented at once# Ei filed the petition for review on certiorari before the 'upree
Court#
&ssue% 9hether the @istro should be "iven an opportunity to rebut the alle"ations that it violated the
conditions of its licenses and perits#
Held% *ro the lan"ua"e of 'ection 11 4l5, $rticle && of the Cevised Charter of the City of /anila and 'ection
800 425 4iv5 of the Eocal <overnent Code, it is clear that the power of the ayor to issue business licenses
and perits necessarily includes the corollary power to suspend, revo-e or even refuse to issue the sae#
,owever, the power to suspend or revo-e these licenses and perits is e!pressly preised on the violation of
the conditions of these perits and licenses# The laws specifically refer to the "violation of the condition4s5"
on which the licenses and perits were issued# 'iilarly, the power to refuse to issue such licenses and
perits is preised on non>copliance with the prerequisites for the issuance of such licenses and perits#
The ayor ust observe due process in e!ercisin" these powers, which eans that the ayor ust "ive the
applicant or licensee notice and opportunity to be heard# True, the ayor has the power to inspect and
investi"ate private coercial establishents for any violation of the conditions of their licenses and perits#
,owever, the ayor has no power to order a police raid on these establishents in the "uise of inspectin" or
investi"atin" these coercial establishents# Ei has no authority to close down @istroBs business or any
business establishent in /anila without due process of law# Ei cannot ta-e refu"e under the Cevised
Charter of the City of /anila and the Eocal <overnent Code# There is no provision in these laws e!pressly
or ipliedly "rantin" the ayor authority to close down private coercial establishents without notice
and hearin", and even if there is, such provision would be void# The due process clause of the Constitution
requires that Ei should have "iven the @istro an opportunity to rebut the alle"ations that it violated the
conditions of its licenses and perits#
!" +odri(ue@ vs. Court of =ppeals [*+ 13"20!, 0 =u(ust 2002#
'econd -i.ision, 8uisum7in% (J): 3 concur
$acts% On (8 /ay 199), the ?hilippine Constabulary>&nte"rated :ational ?olice 4?C>&:?5, now ?hilippine
:ational ?olice or ?:?, launched O?E$: $+$T to inii7e, if not entirely eliinate, the e!tortion activities
of traffic policeen at the vicinity of <uadalupe @rid"e, /a-ati, /etro /anila# On 0 +uly 199), at about 2:))
p##, two operatives of O?E$: $+$T, naely, (ET *ederico @ulanday, ?C and &ntelli"ence $"ent $n"elito
C# Eeoncio, both ebers of the Counter>&ntelli"ence <roup 4C&<5, were on board a car with ?late :o#
:;O>(28# They were travelin" alon" +#?# Ci7al 'treet, /a-ati, when they were fla""ed down by 2 policeen
in unifor# These were ?*C Codolfo Codri"ue7, ?*C $rsenio 'ilun"an, and ?*C Colando ?ilandi, who were
ebers of the /etropolitan Traffic Coand assi"ned with the /a-ati ?olice 'tation# .pon pullin" up,
@ulanday and Eeoncio were infored by the 2 policeen that they had violated traffic re"ulations, and
deanded oney# @ulanday and Eeoncio handed over cash aountin" to ?1)) consistin" of two ?() bills,
one ?1) bill, and one ?0) bill which were ar-ed with ultraviolet fluorescent powder# On seein" what
happened, other C&< operatives who were behind the vehicle of @ulanday and Eeoncio iediately swooped
down on the 2 policeen, but where they were able to arrest only Codri"ue7 and 'ilun"an# ?*C ?ilandi was
able to escape by coandeerin" a private vehicle at "unpoint# $n adinistrative case for "rave isconduct
was subsequently filed a"ainst Codri"ue7, 'ilun"an, and ?ilandi, who was at lar"e, with the :ational ?olice
Coission or :$?OECO/ 4$dinistrative Case 9)>8), the case was assi"ned to $tty# :ar7al @# /allares
as hearin" officer5# $ second adinistrative case was filed with :$?OECO/ a"ainst the 2 errin" police
officers for their suary disissal# $ char"e for robberyDe!tortion was filed with ,eadquarters, ?C>&:?
4$dinistrative Case )1>91 and assi"ned to ?D/a%or =fren 'antos as 'uary ,earin" Officer5# On 7
*ebruary 1991, then ?:? Chief /a%or <eneral Cesar ?# :a7areno issued 'pecial Order 20 suarily
disissin" Codri"ue7, 'ilun"an, and ?ilandi fro the police force# On (7 /arch 1991, Codri"ue7 appealed
the suary disissal to the :$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard# ,e alle"ed that the suary disissal
proceedin"s violated his ri"ht to due process, and claied that only a preliinary inquiry had been conducted
by the :$?OECO/ hearin" officer and that he had not been afforded a chance to present his side# &n the
eantie, the case a"ainst Codri"ue7 and his copanions for robberyDe!tortion was filed by ?C>&:? with the
public prosecutorBs office of /a-ati# The investi"atin" prosecutor, however, subsequently recoended the
disissal of the coplaint on the "round that Ithe scenarios of the arrestin" officers left so uch to be
desired#J On 0 :oveber 199(, the :$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard disissed Codri"ue73 appeal in
the suary disissal case# On (9 /arch 1992, Codri"ue7 filed a otion for reconsideration, but the
:$?OECO/ denied it on 11 /arch 1991# $""rieved, Codri"ue7 elevated his case to the Court of $ppeals by
way of certiorari and andaus# On (( October 1997, the appellate court denied the petition for lac- of
erit# Codri"ue7 filed a otion for reconsideration of the appellate courtBs decision, but it was denied on (7
/ay (1998# On 12 +uly 1998, Codri"ue7 filed the petition for review#
&ssue% 9hether Codri"ue7 was afforded due process by the :$?OECO/#
Held% 9here a police officer is disissed by the ?:? ;irector <eneral and the disissal is affired by the
:$?OECO/ :ational $ppellate @oard, the proper reedy is to appeal the disissal with the ;&E<
'ecretary# That the :$?OECO/ Chairan is also the ;&E< 'ecretary is of no oent, for under the
aforecited laws and re"ulations, only the ;&E< 'ecretary can act on the appeal# 'hould the ;&E< 'ecretaryBs
decision prove adverse to appellant, then he as the a""rieved party ay brin" an appeal to the Civil 'ervice
Coission# &n instances where the C'C denies the appeal, the reedy under Cepublic $ct 79)( would be to
appeal the adverse decision to the Court of $ppeals# :either certiorari nor andaus can substitute for appeal
where the latter is the proper reedy# The e!traordinary reedies of certiorari, prohibition, and andaus
will lie only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate reedy in the ordinary course of law#
,erein, Codri"ue7 had three opportunities to appeal the decision of the :$?OECO/# ,e chose not to avail
of the, but instead opted to file an action for certiorari and andaus with the appellate court# The Court of
$ppeals coitted no reversible error of law in disissin" petitionerBs special civil action for certiorari and
andaus# Codri"ue7 cannot now clai that he was not afforded due process by the :$?OECO/# &n
adinistrative proceedin"s, the filin" of char"es and "ivin" reasonable opportunity for the person so char"ed
to answer the accusations a"ainst hi constitute the iniu requireents of due process# The essence of
adinistrative due process is the opportunity to be heard# $s lon" as a party was "iven the opportunity to
defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process#
!5 +o7as vs. 'asCue@ [*+ 11"."", 1. 4une 2001#
First -i.ision, 0nares1'antia%o (J): 4 concur
$acts% /anuel C# Co!as and $hed '# :acpil were Chairan and /eber, respectively, of the @ids and
$wards Coittee of the ?C>&:?# 'oetie in 'epteber 199), the ?C>&:? invited bids for the supply
purchase of 10 units of fire truc-s, and accordin"ly, the public biddin" was held on 18 'epteber 199)# The
lowest bidder, $eolus ?hilippines, was disqualified since its fire truc-s had a water tan- capacity of only
1,8)) liters, far below the required 2,780 liter capacity# $fter ocular inspections ade by a $ Technical
=valuation Coittee, two fire truc-s, naely /orita &su7u and :i--i>,ino, were recoended# The @ids
and $wards Coittee, however, voted to award the contract in favor of the Oorean copany C&'C, which
offered 'san"yon" fire truc-s# To avoid the possibility of failure to bid, the @ids and $wards Coittee
reviewed its recoendations, and thus liited its choice to the two brands recoended by <en#
Tanchanco and, by a%ority vote, elected :i--i>,ino of the Tahei Co#, Etd# as the lower bidder# Thereafter,
the Contract of ?urchase and 'ale of 10 units of :i--i>,ino fire truc-s was e!ecuted between <en# :a7areno,
on behalf of the ?C>&:?, and Tahei Copany, Etd# The correspondin" ?urchase Order was then prepared#
?ursuant to a disburseent voucher, the ?:? paid Tahei Co#, Etd# the aount of ?117,220,177#(8,
representin" ar"inal deposit for the 10 units of fire truc-# The ;isburseent Aoucher showed that, while the
bid price of Tahei Co# was only ?(,(9(,788#)) per unit, the price appearin" on the ?urchase Order was
?(,080,01(#)) per unit# ,ence, there was a discrepancy of ?(9(,778#)) per unit of fire truc-, or a total of
?19,)2),07)#)) for all 10 fire truc-s# The Coission on $udit discovered the irre"ularities in the biddin",
awardin" and purchase of the 10 fire truc-s, thus proptin" then ;&E< 'ecretary Cafael $lunan &&& to file a
coplaint on 1( *ebruary 1992 for violation of 'ection 2 4e5 of Cepublic $ct 2)19 before the Obudsan,
a"ainst 415 ;ir# <en# Cesar :a7areno, ?:?, 4(5 ;ep# ;ir# /anuel Co!as, ?:?, 425 *ire /arshal /ario
Tanchanco, 485 *ire @D<en# ;iosdado <odoy 4Cet#5, 405 ?D'r# 'upt# $hed :acpil, ?:?, 415 ?D'upt# +uhan
Oairan, ?:?, 475 &nsp# Ceynaldo Osea, ?:?, 485 ;ep# ;ir# <en# <erardo *lores, ?:?, 495 ;ir# :icasio
Custodio, ?:?, 41)5 'upt# Obedio =speLa, ?:?, 4115 *orer ;&E< 'ecretary Euis 'antos, and 41(5 /s#
<enerosa Caire7# The ;eputy Obudsan for the /ilitary conducted a preliinary investi"ation where the
accused subitted their respective counter>affidavits# On 19 /arch 1992, it recoended the indictent of
all, e!cept <enerosa Caire7# On review, the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor Ceview Coittee
recoended the disissal of the coplaints a"ainst Co!as, :acpil, Codoy, Oairan and Caire7# This latter
recoendation was approved by the 'pecial ?rosecutor and the Obudsan in a /eorandu dated 10
$pril 1992# $ccordin"ly, the appropriate &nforation was filed by the Obudsan before the 'andi"anbayan
4Criinal Case 189015, a"ainst :a7areno, *lores, Tanchanco, Custodio, Osea, =spena and 'antos# Co!as,
:acpil, Codoy, Oairan and Caire7 were not included aon" the accused# ,owever, upon otion of
<enerals *lores and Tanchanco, a reinvesti"ation was conducted by the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor# On
19 October 1992, without any notice to or participation of Co!as and :acpil, the Office of the 'pecial
?rosecutor issued an Order, disissin" the char"es a"ainst *lores and Tanchanco, and recoendin" that
Co!as, :acpil, and Oairan be li-ewise indicted# ;eputy 'pecial ?rosecutor +ose de *errer voted for the
approval of the recoendation, while 'pecial ?rosecutor $niano $# ;esierto dissented# Obudsan
Conrado /# Aasque7 approved the recoendation# Co!as and :acpil, to"ether with Oairan, filed a /otion
for Ceconsideration# The Ceview Coittee of the Office of the 'pecial ?rosecutor recoended that the
/otion be "ranted and the char"e a"ainst the ovants be disissed# ,owever, ;eputy 'pecial ?rosecutor de
*errer and Obudsan Aasque7 disapproved the recoendation in the second assailed Order dated 1)
*ebruary 1998# Thus, on (7 /arch 1998, the Office of the Obudsan filed an $ended &nforation with
respondent 'andi"anbayan, ipleadin" Co!as and :acpil as additional accused# Co!as and :acpil filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition before the 'upree Court#
&ssue%9hether the lac- of notice to Co!as and :acpil at the reinvesti"ation render the issuance of Office of
the Obudsan null and void#
Held% &t is not aterial either that no new atter or evidence was presented durin" the reinvesti"ation of the
case# &t should be stressed that reinvesti"ation, as the word itself iplies, is erely a repeat investi"ation of
the case# :ew atters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvesti"ation, which is siply a chance for the
prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the Obudsan, to review and re>evaluate its findin"s and the
evidence already subitted# :either do the lac- of notice to, or participation of, Co!as and :acpil at the
reinvesti"ation render the questioned issuances of Office of the Obudsan null and void# $t any rate, Co!as
and :acpil cannot ar"ue that they have been deprived of due process# The rule is well established that due
process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to e!plain their side of the
controversy or an opportunity to ove for a reconsideration of the action or rulin" coplained of# ,erein, the
record clearly shows that petitioners not only filed their respective Counter>$ffidavits durin" the preliinary
investi"ation, they also filed separate /otions for Ceconsideration of the 19 October 1992 Order of the
Obudsan ipleadin" the as accused in Criinal Case 18901#
!6 Pilco9sat v. =lcua@ [*+ !"!1!, 1! :ece91er 1.!.#
En Banc, *e%alado (J): 1! concur, 1 took no part
$acts% @y virtue of Cepublic $ct 0018, the ?hilippine Counications 'atellite Corporation
4?,&ECO/'$T5 was "ranted "a franchise to establish, construct, aintain and operate in the ?hilippines, at
such places as the "rantee ay select, station or stations and associated equipent and facilities for
international satellite counications," the authority to "construct and operate such "round facilities as
needed to deliver telecounications services fro the counications satellite syste and "round terinal
or terinals#" @y desi"nation of the Cepublic of the ?hilippines, it is also the sole si"natory for the
?hilippines in the $"reeent and the Operatin" $"reeent relatin" to the &nternational Telecounications
'atellite Or"ani7ation 4&:T=E'$T5, as well as in the Convention and the Operatin" $"reeent of the
&nternational /aritie 'atellite Or"ani7ation 4&:/$C'$T5, which two "lobal coercial
telecounications satellite corporations were collectively established by various states in line with the
principles set forth in Cesolution 17(1 4TA&5 of the .nited :ationsBs <eneral $ssebly# 'ince 1918, &t has
been leasin" its satellite circuits to ?E;T, ?hilippine <lobal Counications, =astern Teleco, <lobe
/ac-ay Cable and Cadio Corp# &TT, and Capitol 9ireless or their predecessors>in>interest# The satellite
services thus provided by ?,&ECO/'$T enable said international carriers to serve the public with
indispensable counication services, such as overseas telephone, tele!, facsiile, tele"ras, hi"h speed
data, live television in full color, and television standard conversion fro =uropean to $erican or vice versa#
&t was e!ept fro the %urisdiction of the then ?ublic 'ervice Coission, now :ational
Telecounications Coission 4:TC5# ,owever, pursuant to =!ecutive Order 4=O5 191 issued on 17 +une
1987, it was placed under the %urisdiction, control and re"ulation of :TC, includin" all its facilities and
services and the fi!in" of rates# &pleentin" said e!ecutive order, :TC required ?,&ECO/'$T to apply for
the requisite certificate of public convenience and necessity coverin" its facilities and the services it renders,
as well as the correspondin" authority to char"e rates therefor# On 9 'epteber 1987, ?,&ECO/'$T filed
with :TC an application for authority to continue operatin" and aintainin" the sae facilities it has been
continuously operatin" and aintainin" since 1917, to continue providin" the international satellite
counications services it has li-ewise been providin" since 1917, and to char"e the current rates applied for
in renderin" such services# ?endin" hearin", it also applied for a provisional authority so that it can continue
to operate and aintain the facilities, provide the services and char"e therefor the aforesaid rates therein
applied for# On 11 'epteber 1987, ?,&ECO/'$T was "ranted a provisional authority to continue operatin"
its e!istin" facilities, to render the services it was then offerin", and to char"e the rates it was then char"in"#
This authority was valid for 1 onths fro the date of said order# 9hen said provisional authority e!pired on
17 /arch 1988, it was e!tended for another 1 onths, or up to 11 'epteber 1988# Thereafter, the :TC
further e!tended the provisional authority of ?,&ECO/'$T for another 1 onths, counted fro 11
'epteber 1988, but it directed ?,&ECO/'$T to char"e odified reduced rates throu"h a reduction of 10N
on the present authori7ed rates# ?,&ECO/'$T assailed said order#
&ssue% 9hether the :TC is not required to provide notice and hearin" to ?,&ECO/'$T in its rate>fi!in"
order, which fi!ed a teporary rate pendin" final deterination of ?,&ECO/'$TBs application#
Held% The :TC, in the e!ercise of its rate>fi!in" power, is liited by the requireents of public safety, public
interest, reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates, which con%ointly ore than satisfy the requireents of a
valid dele"ation of le"islative power# The :TC order violates procedural due process because it was issued
otu proprio, without notice to ?,&ECO/'$T and without the benefit of a hearin"# 'aid order was based
erely on an "initial evaluation," which is a unilateral evaluation, but had ?,&ECO/'$T been "iven an
opportunity to present its side before the order in question was issued, the confiscatory nature of the rate
reduction and the consequent deterioration of the public service could have been shown and deonstrated to
:TC# The order pertains e!clusively to ?,&ECO/'$T and to no other# Ceduction of rates was ade without
affordin" ?,&ECO/'$T the benefit of an e!planation as to what particular aspect or aspects of the financial
stateents warranted a correspondin" rate reduction# ?,&ECO/'$T was not even afforded the opportunity
to cross>e!aine the inspector who issued the report on which :TC based its questioned order# 9hile the
:TC ay fi! a teporary rate pendin" final deterination of the application of ?,&ECO/'$T, such rate>
fi!in" order, teporary thou"h it ay be, is not e!ept fro the statutory procedural requireents of notice
and hearin", as well as the requireent of reasonableness# $ssuin" that such power is vested in :TC, it ay
not e!ercise the sae in an arbitrary and confiscatory anner# Cate"ori7in" such an order as teporary in
nature does not perforce entail the applicability of a different rule of statutory procedure than would otherwise
be applied to any other order on the sae atter unless otherwise provided by the applicable law# :TC has no
authority to a-e such order without first "ivin" ?,&ECO/'$T a hearin", whether the order be teporary or
peranent, and it is iaterial whether the sae is ade upon a coplaint, a suary investi"ation, or upon
the coission3s own otion#
!0 Sunta5 v. People [*+ ,-."30, 2. 4une 1.50#
En Banc, adilla (J) : 9 concur
$acts% On (1 +une 1908, ;r# $ntonio :ubla, father of $licia :ubla, a inor of 11 years, filed a verified
coplaint a"ainst =ilio 'untay in the Office of the City $ttorney of Kue7on City, alle"in" that on or about
(1 +une (1908, the accused too- $licia :ubla fro 't# ?aul3s Colle"e in Kue7on City with lewd desi"n and
too- her to soewhere near the .niversity of the ?hilippines 4.?5 copound in ;ilian and was then able to
have carnal -nowled"e of her# On 10 ;eceber 1908, after an investi"ation, an $ssistant City $ttorney
recoended to the City $ttorney of Kue7on City that the coplaint be disissed for lac- of erit# On (2
;eceber 1908 attorney for the coplainant addressed a letter to the City $ttorney of Kue7on City wherein
he too- e!ception to the recoendation of the $ssistant City $ttorney referred to and ur"ed that a coplaint
for seduction be filed a"ainst 'untay# On 1) +anuary 1900, 'untay applied for and was "ranted a passport by
the ;epartent of *orei"n $ffairs 40981 G$29188H5# On () +anuary 1900, 'untay left the ?hilippines for 'an
*rancisco, California, where he is at present enrolled in school# On 21 +anuary 1900, $licia :ubla subscribed
and swore to a coplaint char"in" 'untay with seduction which was filed, in the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5
Kue7on City, after preliinary investi"ation had been conducted 4Criinal case K>10915# On 9 *ebruary
1900 the private prosecutor filed a otion prayin" the Court to issue an order "directin" such "overnent
a"encies as ay be concerned, particularly the :ational @ureau of &nvesti"ation and the ;epartent of
*orei"n $ffairs, for the purpose of havin" the accused brou"ht bac- to the ?hilippines so that he ay be dealt
with in accordance with law#" On 1) *ebruary 1900 the Court "ranted the otion# On 7 /arch 1900 the
'ecretary cabled the $bassador to the .nited 'tates instructin" hi to order the Consul <eneral in 'an
*rancisco to cancel the passport issued to 'untay and to copel hi to return to the ?hilippines to answer the
criinal char"es a"ainst hi# ,owever, this order was not ipleented or carried out in view of the
coenceent of this proceedin"s in order that the issues raised ay be %udicially resolved# On 0 +uly 1900,
'untayBs counsel wrote to the 'ecretary requestin" that the action ta-en by hi be reconsidered, and filed in
the criinal case a otion prayin" that the Court reconsider its order of 1) *ebruary 1900# On 7 +uly 1900,
the 'ecretary denied counsel3s request and on 10 +uly 1900 the Court denied the otion for reconsideration#
'untay filed the petition for a writ of certiorari#
&ssue% 9hether 'untay should be accorded notice and hearin" before his passport ay be cancelled#
Held% ;ue process does not necessarily ean or require a hearin"# 9hen discretion is e!ercised by an officer
vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filin" of a serious criinal char"e a"ainst the passport
holder, hearin" ay be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport6
lac- of such hearin" does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution6 and the e!ercise of the
discretion vested in hi cannot be deeed whisical and capricious because of the absence of such hearin"#
&f hearin" should always be held in order to coply with the due process of law clause of the Constitution,
then a writ of preliinary in%unction issued e! parte would be violative of the said clause# ,earin" would
have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear
but doubtful# @ut where the holder of a passport is facin" a criinal char"e in our courts and left the country
to evade criinal prosecution, the 'ecretary for *orei"n $ffairs, in the e!ercise of his discretion 4'ection (0,
=O 1, '# 1981, 8( O< 18))5 to revo-e a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted whisically or
capriciously in withdrawin" and cancellin" such passport# 'untayBs suddenly leavin" the country in such a
convenient tie, can reasonably be interpreted to ean as a deliberate attept on his part to flee fro %ustice,
and, therefore, he cannot now be heard to coplain if the stron" ar of the law should %oin to"ether to brin"
hi bac- to %ustice#
!! :e 2isscop v. *alan( [*+ 1!365, 31 Ma5 1.63#
En Banc, *e#es JB: (J): 1; concur, 1 took no part
$acts% <eor"e de @isschop, an $erican citi7en, was allowed to stay in this country for 2 years, e!pirin" 1
$u"ust 1909, as a prearran"ed eployee of the @issa" ?roduction, &nc#, of which he is president and
"eneral ana"er# ,e applied for e!tension of stay with the @ureau of &i"ration, in a letter dated 1) +uly
1909# &n view, however, of confidential and daa"in" reports of the &i"ration Office, @en%ain de /esa,
to the effect that the @issa" ?roduction, &nc#, is ore of a "ablin" front than the enterprise for prootions
of local and iported shows that it purports to be, and that de @isschop is suspected of havin" evaded
payent of his incoe ta!, the Coissioner of &i"ration 4=ilio E# <alan"5, in a counication of 1)
'epteber 1909, advised hi that his application for e!tension of stay as a prearran"ed eployee has been
denied by the @oard of Coissioners, and that he should depart within 0 days# Thereafter, counsel of de
@isschop requested for a copy of the adverse decision of said @oard, but the le"al officer of the @ureau of
&i"ration replied that, pursuant to ii"ration practice and procedure and as is usual in such cases where
the result is a vote for denial, for reasons of practicability and e!pediency, no foral decision, order or
resolution is proul"ated by the @oard# Thereafter, /r# @isschop was siply advised of said denial as per
letter dated 1) 'epteber 1909# :o request for reinvesti"ation was ade with the @ureau of &i"ration#
&nstead, to forestall his arrest and the filin" of the correspondin" deportation proceedin"s, de @isschop filed
the case on 18 'epteber 1909# ?endin" resolution of the ain case for prohibition, a writ of preliinary
in%unction was issued e!>parte by the Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 /anila 4with +ud"e $ntonio Cani7ares
presidin", Civil Case 818775 on the sae day orderin" the Coissioner of &i"ration to desist fro
arrestin" and detainin" de @isschop# ;urin" the hearin", only docuentary evidence were presented# On (7
/arch 1911, the lower court "ranted the petition for prohibition and ordered the Coissioner of
&i"ration to desist and refrain fro arrestin" and e!pellin" de @isschop fro the ?hilippines unless and
until proper and le"al proceedin"s are conducted by the @oard of Coissioners of the @ureau of
&i"rations in connection with the application for e!tension of stay filed by de @isschop with said @oard#
The Coissioner of &i"ration appealed#
&ssue% 9hether the ri"ht to notice and hearin" is essential to due process in adinistrative proceedin"s, and
whether the @oard of Coissioners are required to render written decisions on petitions for e!tension of
stay#
Held% The adinistration of ii"ration laws is the priary and e!clusive responsibility of the =!ecutive
branch of the "overnent# =!tension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary on the part of ii"ration
authorities# 'ince C$ 112 4?hilippines &i"ration $ct of 198)5 is silent as to the procedure to be followed in
these cases, the Courts are inclined to uphold the ar"uent that courts have no %urisdiction to review the
purely adinistrative practice of ii"ration authorities of not "rantin" foral hearin"s in certain cases as
the circustances ay warrant, for reasons of practicability and e!pediency# This would not violate the due
process clause as, in the case at bar, the letter of appellant>coissioner advisin" de @isschop to depart in 0
days is a ere forality, a preliinary step, and, therefore, far fro final, because, as alle"ed in para"raph 7
of appellant3s answer to the coplaint, the "requireent to leave before the start of the deportation
proceedin"s is only an advice to the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the 'tate will be copelled to
ta-e steps for his e!pulsion"# &t is already a settled rule in this %urisdiction that a day in court is not a atter of
ri"ht in adinistrative proceedin"s# *urther, the ii"ration laws specifically enuerate when the decisions
of the @oard of Coissioners shall be in writin", to wit: 415 in cases of appeal fro a decision of the @oard
of 'pecial &nquiry as to atters of adission or e!clusion of aliens, as provided in 'ection (74c5 of the
&i"ration $ct6 and 4(5 the decision of the @oard of Coissioners in cases of deportation under 'ection
27, para"raph 4a5 and 4c5# There is nothin" in the ii"ration law which provides that the @oard of
Coissioners ust render written decisions on petitions for e!tension of stay# 'ection 8 of the &i"ration
$ct erely refers to the nuber of IvotesJ necessary to constitute the decision of said @oard#
!. 'ar-3rient Sippin( v. =cacoso [*+ ,-!1!05, 31 Ma5 1.!!#
First di.ision, 6rino134uino (J): 4 concur
$acts% Aar>Orient 'hippin" Co# &nc# and Coninos @ros# filed a coplaint with the 9or-ers3 $ssistance and
$d%udication Office 49$$O5, ?hilippine Overseas =ployent $dinistration 4?O=$5 a"ainst the =d"ar T#
@unyo", Aedasto :avarro, =u"enio Capalad, Caul Tuasis, $ntonio Tanio>an, Celestino Cason, ;anilo
/anela and Coberto <enesis, crew ebers of the /?A "'ilver Ceefer," for havin" alle"edly violated their
Contracts of =ployent with the, which supposedly resulted in daa"es arisin" fro the interdiction of
the vessel by the &nternational Transport 9or-ers3 *ederation 4&T*5 at Oiel Canal, <erany, in /arch 1981#
$fter %oinder of the issues, the case was heard on 8 /arch 1987 with both parties required to subit
eoranda# Only the seaen subitted eoranda# On 1) +une 1987, the seaen filed a otion to resolve,
which the copanies3 counsel did not oppose# Thus, on the basis of the pleadin"s and eoranda, $chacoso
rendered a decision on 9 'epteber 1987 orderin" 415 the disissal of the case with a repriand and a"ainst
:avarro, Capalad, Tuasis, Tanio>an, Ca"on, /anela and <enesis, a"ainst the coission of the sae or
siilar offense otherwise it shall be dealt with ore severe penalty6 4(5 e!clusion of Elanes fro the case6 425
repriandin" Aar>Orient 'hippin" Co# for failure to coply with its obli"ations pursuant to ?O=$ rules and
re"ulations and warnin" a"ainst coittin" the sae or a siilar offense otherwise it shall be dealt with ore
severely6 485 archivin" the case of $rsolon, $# dela Cru7, /ontero and ;# de la Cru7 with their naes
included in the ?O=$ watchlist until they shall have voluntarily subitted theselves to 9$$OBs
%urisdiction6 405 payent by the copanies %ointly and severally, unto :avarro, Capalad, Tuasis, Tanio>an,
Cason, /anela and <enesis the aount of ?1,00)#09 each, representin" deductions fro allotents, plus
?1,)))#)) as and for attorney3s fees6 and 415 payent by the copanies %ointly and severally unto @unyo" the
aount of .'F8,18)#)) or its peso equivalent at the tie of payent representin" his salaries for the
unserved portion of his eployent contract plus ?8,)))#)) as and for attorney3s fees6 to be tendered thru
9$$O, 1) days fro receipt of the decision# $ copy of the decision was sent by re"istered ail and delivered
by the postan to the copanies3 counsel, then $ttorney *rancisco @# *i"ura throu"h the receptionist, /arlyn
$quino on (1 'epteber 1987# $tty# *i"ura alle"ed he did not receive the envelope containin" the decision#
The copanies alle"edly learned about the decision only when the writ of e!ecution was served on the on
() :oveber 1987 by :ational Eabor Celations Coission 4:ECC5 ;eputy 'heriff Cene /asilun"an and
$ttorney 9ilfredo On"# ?reviously, on 19 October 1987, the seaen filed "/otion for =!ecution of
;ecision," the copanies3 counsel did not oppose# On (2 :oveber 1987, the copanies, throu"h new
counsel, $tty# Kuintin $seron, +r#, filed an ".r"ent /otion to Cecall 9rit of =!ecution" on the "round that the
decision had not been received by the, hence, it was not yet final and e!ecutory# On 19 +anuary 1988, the
?O=$ $dinistrator 4Toas ;# $chacoso5# &n due tie, the copanies filed the petition for certiorari#
&ssue% 9hether the decision of the ?O=$ adinistrator has been received, renderin" said decision final and
unappealable#
Held% The essence of due process is siply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to adinistrative
proceedin"s, an opportunity to e!plain one3s side, or an opportunity to see- a reconsideration of the action or
rulin" coplained of# ,erein, the parties a"reed that they would file their respective eoranda at the 8
/arch 1987 hearin" and thereafter consider the case subitted for decision# This procedure is authori7ed by
law to e!pedite the settleent of labor disputes# $tty# *i"ura3s affidavit involvin" that he has not received the
decision is self>servin"# The copanies failed to subit an affidavit of the receptionist /arlyn $quino
e!plainin" what she did with the decision which she received for $tty# *i"ura# .nder the circustances, the
$dinistrator3s rulin" that the decision had been properly served on copanies3 counsel and that it is now
final and unappealable, should be sustained# The issuance of the writ of e!ecution is therefore not preature#
.0 =n( )i1a5 v. C&+ [*+ "6".6, 20 $e1ruar5 1."0#
En Banc, :aurel (J): ) concur
$acts% Toribio Teodoro, the ana"er and proprietor of $n" Tibay, laid off 89 laborers, who were ebers of
the :ational Eabor .nion 4:E.5, due to alle"ed shorta"es of leather aterials# The :ational Eabor .nion
filed a coplaint for unfair labor practice a"ainst $n" Tibay, alle"in" therein, aon" others, that Toribio
doinates the :ational 9or-ersB @rotherhood 4:9@5 of $n" Tibay, another union in the copany, and that
Toribio discriinated a"ainst the :E. and un%ustly favorin" the :9@, which he alle"edly doinated# The
Court of &ndustrial Celations ruled in favor of :E., due to the failure of $n" Tibay to present records of the
@ureau of Custos and @oo-s of $ccounts of native dealers in leather and thus to disprove :E.Bs alle"ation
that the lac- of leather aterials as a schee to dischar"e :E. ebers# The 'upree Court, however,
reversed the decision, findin" no substantial evidence that the 89 wor-ers were disissed due to their union
affiliation or activities# Thus, the 'olicitor <eneral, in behalf of the Court of &ndustrial Celations filed a
otion for reconsideration, while the :E. filed a otion for new trial, prayin" that the case be reanded to
the Court of &ndustrial Celations#
&ssue% 9hether the C&CBs freedo fro the ri"idity of procedural requireents prescribe special
requireents of due process in adinistrative cases#
Held% The Court of &ndustrial Celations 4C&C5 is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure,
and the $ct requires it to "act accordin" to %ustice and equity and substantial erits of the case, without re"ard
to technicalities or le"al fors and shall not be bound by any technical rules of le"al evidence but ay infor
its ind in such anner as it ay dee %ust and equitable#" The fact, however, that the C&C ay be said to be
free fro the ri"idity of certain procedural requireents does not ean that it can, in %usticiable cases coin"
before it, entirely i"nore or disre"ard the fundaental and essential requireents of due process in trials and
investi"ations of an adinistrative character# There are cardinal priary ri"hts which ust be respected even
in proceedin"s of this character, to wit:
a# Ci"ht to a hearin" which includes the ri"ht of the party interested or affected to present his own case and
subit evidence in support thereof# The liberty and property of the citi7en shall be protected by the
rudientary requireents of fair play#
b# The tribunal ust consider the evidence presented, after the party is "iven an opportunity to present his
case and to adduce evidence tendin" to establish the ri"hts which he asserts# The ri"ht to adduce evidence,
without the correspondin" duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain# 'uch ri"ht is conspicuously
futile if the person or persons to who the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or
consideration#
c# 9ile the duty to deliberate does not ipose the obli"ation to decide ri"ht, it does iply a necessity which
cannot be disre"arded, naely, that of havin" soethin" to support its decision# $ decision with
absolutely nothin" to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached# This principle eanates fro
the ore fundaental principle that the "enius of constitutional "overnent is contrary to the vestin" of
unliited power anywhere# Eaw is both a "rant and a liitation upon power#
d# :ot only ust there be soe evidence to support a findin" or conclusion but the evidence ust be
"substantial#" 'ubstantial evidence is ore than a ere scintilla# &t eans such relevant evidence as a
reasonable ind i"ht accept as adequate to support a conclusion#" The statute provides that 3the rules of
evidence prevailin" in courts of law and equity shall not be controllin"#3 The obvious purpose of this and
siilar provisions is to free adinistrative boards fro the copulsion of technical rules so that the ere
adission of atter which would be deeed incopetent in %udicial proceedin"s would not invalidate the
adinistrative order# @ut this assurance of a desirable fle!ibility in adinistrative procedure does not "o
so far as to %ustify orders without a basis in evidence havin" rational probative force# /ere
uncorroborated hearsay or ruor does not constitute substantial evidence#
e# The decision ust be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearin", or at least contained in the record
and disclosed to the parties affected# Only by confinin" the adinistrative tribunal to the evidence
disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their ri"ht to -now and eet the case a"ainst the# &t
should not, however, detract fro their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose,
to use the authori7ed le"al ethods of securin" evidence and inforin" itself of facts aterial and
relevant to the controversy# @oards of inquiry ay be appointed for the purpose of investi"atin" and
deterinin" the facts in any "iven case, but their report and decision are only advisory# 4'ection 9, C$
1)2#5 The C&C ay refer any industrial or a"ricultural dispute of any atter under its consideration or
adviseent to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal, a %ustice of the peace or any public official in
any part of the ?hilippines for investi"ation, report and recoendation, and ay dele"ate to such board
or public official such powers and functions as the C&C ay dee necessary, but such dele"ation shall not
affect the e!ercise of the Court itself of any of its powers 4'ection 1)5
f# The C&C or any of its %ud"es, therefore, ust act on its or his own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not siply accept the views of a subordinate in arrivin" at a decision# &t
ay be that the volue of wor- is such that it is literally ipossible for the titular heads of the C&C
personally to decide all controversies coin" before the# There is no statutory authority to authori7e
e!ainers or other subordinates to render final decision, with ri"ht to appeal to board or coission, to
solve the difficulty#
"# The C&C should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a anner that the parties to the
proceedin" can -now the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered# The
perforance of this duty is inseparable fro the authority conferred upon it#
.1 Monte9a5or v. =raneta Universit5 [*+ ,-""251, 31 Ma5 1.00#
'econd -i.ision, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 on lea.e(
$acts% *eli! /onteayor was a full>tie professor of $raneta .niversity *oundation 4$.*5, servin" as head
of its ,uanities and ?sycholo"y ;epartent# On 17 $pril 1978, a coplaint for iorality lod"ed a"ainst
hi by the Chaplain of the $.* for alle"ed iorality# &ts then ?resident, ;r# +uan 'alcedo, +r#, created a
coittee to investi"ate such char"e# The accusation centered on conversations on se! and ioral advances
coitted a"ainst the person of Eeonardo de Eara# The first hearin", which too- place on (8 $pril 1978, was
attended by /onteayor as well as the coplainant with his two witnesses# /onteayor sou"ht the
postponeent of the investi"ation to 2 /ay 1978, which was "ranted# On (8 /ay 1978, he filed a otion to
disiss or to hold the hearin" in abeyance, and on 17 +une 1978, he filed an affidavit to sustain his defense#
On 8 +uly 1978, the report and recoendation of the investi"atin" coittee cae, and was adverse to
/onteayor# The recoendation was for his deotion in ran- by one de"ree# On 0 $u"ust 1978, 'alcedo
adopted such recoendation and thereafter referred the sae to the @oard of Trustees of the $.* for
appropriate action# On 8 :oveber 1978, new char"es were filed by ?rofessor Euis C# $la7an, one +aie
CastaLeda, and +esus /artine7 a"ainst /onteayor for conduct unbecoin" of a faculty eber# $nother
coittee was appointed# /onteayor oved to postpone the hearin" set for 18 and 19 :oveber 1978, but
was denied# The hearin" proceeded in his absence# On 0 ;eceber 1978, the Coittee subitted its report
findin" the char"es a"ainst /onteayor to have been sufficiently established and recoendin" to the
?resident and the @oard of Trustees of the $.* his separation fro the .niversity, in accordance with
'ections 111 and 201 of the /anual of ?olicies of the .niversity# On 1) ;eceber 1978, his disissal was
ordered effective 10 :oveber 1978, the date of his preventive suspension# On 1( ;eceber 1978, the
.niversity filed with the :ational Eabor Celations Coission 4:ECC5 a report of his suspension and
application for clearance to terinate his eployent# /eanwhile, on (1 :oveber 1978, /onteayor in
turn lod"ed a coplaint with the :ECC a"ainst $.* for reinstateent and payent of bac- wa"es and
salaries, with all the privile"es, benefits and increents attendant thereto# There was a otion to disiss on
the part of the latter# @oth the labor arbiter and the :ECC found in favor of /onteayor# ,e was ordered
reinstated to his forer position with bac- wa"es and without loss of seniority and other privile"es#
/onteayor3s coplaint for unfair labor practice was, however, disissed# $.* appealed to the 'ecretary of
Eabor who, on 18 +uly 1971, set aside the Coission3s order for his reinstateent, findin" /onteayor3s
disissal %ustified# The $.* was, however, required to pay /onteayor the aount of ?18,88)#))
representin" the latter3s accrued bac- wa"es which the forer voluntarily offered to e!tend hi# ;issatisfied
with the 'ecretary3s decision, /onteayor filed a petition for certiorari#
&ssue% 9hether /onteayor was absolutely denied of due process in the proceedin"s relatin" to his disissal
fro $.*#
Held% &n procedural due process, there ust be a hearin" before condenation, with the investi"ation to
proceed in an orderly anner, and %ud"ent to be rendered only after such inquiry# $cadeic due process, a
ter coined, is a syste of procedure desi"ned to yield the best possible %ud"ent when an adverse decision
a"ainst a professor ay be the consequence with stress on the clear, orderly, and fair way of reachin" a
conclusion# =very university or colle"e teacher should be entitled before disissal or deotion, to have the
char"es a"ainst hi stated in writin", in specific ters and to have a fair trial on these char"es before a
special or peranent %udicial coittee of the faculty or by the faculty at lar"e# $t such trial the teacher
accused should have full opportunity to present evidence# ,erein, the procedure followed in the first
investi"ation of /onteayor 4+une 19785 satisfied the procedure due process requisite# The second
investi"ation 4:oveber 19785, however, did not# The otion for postponeent therein was denied, the
hearin" proceeded as scheduled in the absence of /onteayor, and the coittee lost no tie in subittin"
its report findin" the char"es a"ainst /onteayor to have been sufficiently established and recoendin" his
reoval# The deficiency, however, was reedied, as /onteayor was able to present his case before the
Eabor Coission# ;enial of due process happened only in the proceedin" he had before the investi"atin"
coittees and not in the proceedin"s before the :ECC wherein he was "iven the fullest opportunity to
present his case, the latter bein" the sub%ect atter of the petition for certiorari# /onteayor was afforded his
day in court#
.2 Meralco vs. PSC [*+ ,-1363!-"0, 30 4une 1.6"#
En Banc, aredes (J): , concur, ! took no part
$acts% On 1) /arch 1900, the /anila =lectric Copany 4/eralco5 filed two applications with the ?ublic
'ervice Coission 4?'C5, one, for revision and reduction of its rates for coercial and other non>
residential custoers for "eneral li"htin", heatin" andDor power purposes 4?'C Case 808895 and the other for
revision and reduction of its residential eter rate, schedule C/>2 4?'C Case 8089)5# These applications
were approved by the ?'C in a decision rendered on (8 'epteber 1900# On (8 $u"ust 1900, the /eralco
filed another application for revision and reduction of its "eneral power rate, 'chedule <?>( 4?'C Case
89(925, which was provisionally approved on 21 $u"ust 1900# ?revious to these applications, /eralco filed 7
other applications for revision and reduction rates# On 9 +une 1908, upon petition of ;r# ?edro <il, the
Coission requested the $uditor <eneral to cause an audit and e!aination of /eralco3s boo-s of accounts#
The <eneral $uditin" Office 4<$O5 e!ained and audited the boo-s and under date of 11 /ay 1901, it
presented a report which was subitted to the Coission on (8 /ay 1901# On 2) /ay 1901, the ?'C, thru
Coissioner *eliciano Ocapo, reset the hearin" of the cases for (( +une 1901 "for the purpose of
considerin" such further revision of applicant3s rates as ay be found reasonable#" On said date, the parties
appeared and $tty# Aenancio E# de ?eralta, Technical $ssistant and Chief of the *inance and Cate ;ivision of
the ?'C, who was duly authori7ed to receive the evidence of the parties, announced that the hearin" was an
"inforal hearin"", and its purpose was to hear any rear-s or stateents of the parties and to define the
issues "so that at the hearin" we -now e!actly what are disputed at this inforal hearin""# ;r# ?edro <il
subitted the 2 cases on the report of the <$O dated 11 /ay 1901 and on a letter dated 7 +une 1901 he sent
to the Coission, in which he as-ed the Coission, inter alia, to allow the /eralco "a rate of return of
only 8N on its invested capital#"# The 'olicitor <eneral subitted the case on the sae report and letter of ;r#
<il and on a letter>report addressed by the ;eputy $uditor <eneral to the Coission on (1 :oveber 1900#
Other parties ade coon cause with ;r# <il# /eralco was "iven by the Coission a period of 2) days
within which to file an answer, specifyin" its ob%ections to the report of the <$O# On 21 +uly 1901, the
/eralco filed its answer to the <$O3s report, specifyin" its ob%ection, and prayed that the cases be reset for
hearin" to enable the parties to present their proofs# 9ithout havin" 415 first reset the said 2 cases for hearin"6
4(5 9ithout havin" "iven the /eralco an opportunity, as requested by it, to cross>e!aine the officers of the
<$O who prepared the report dated /ay 11, 1901, on which report the Coission based its decision6 and
425 9ithout havin" "iven the /eralco an opportunity, as requested by it, to present evidence in support of its
answer to refute the facts alle"ed in said report and controverted by /eralco, on (7 ;eceber 1907, the ?'C
handed down a decision, "rantin" the petition for the reduction of rates# The otion for reconsideration and to
set aside decision, filed on 18 +anuary 1908 by /eralco, was denied by the Coission on a ( to 1 vote, on 2
/arch 1908# /eralco filed the petition for review with preliinary in%unction before the 'upree Court#
&ssue% 9hether the inforal hearin" held (( +une 1901 serves the purpose of Iproper notice and hearin"J in
adinistrative cases#
Held% The record shows that no hearin" was held# On (( +une 1901, parties appeared before "$ttorney
Aivencio E# ?eralta, Technical $ssistant, and Chief, *inance and Cate ;ivision, ?ublic 'ervice Coission,
who was duly authori7ed to receive the evidence of the parties", and the record shows that the hearin" held
before the said Coissioner was erely an inforal hearin" because, usin" his own words, "& said at the
be"innin" that this is only preliinary because & want that the parties could coe to soe -ind of
understandin"#" /eralco has not been "iven its day in court# The decision of (7 ;eceber 1907 was not
proul"ated "upon proper notice and hearin"", as required by law, and that therefore it can not serve as a
le"al basis for requirin" the /eralco to put in effect the reductions ordered in the decision# &t is the cardinal
ri"ht of a party in trials and adinistrative proceedin"s to be heard, which includes the ri"ht of the party
interested or affected to present his own case and subit evidence in support thereof and to have such
evidence presented considered by the tribunal# =ven if the Coission is not bound by the rules of %udicial
proceedin"s, it ust how its head to the constitutional andate that no person shall be deprived of ri"ht
without due process of law, which binds not only the "overnent of the Cepublic, but also each and everyone
of its branches, a"encies, etc# ;ue process of law "uarantees notice and opportunities to be heard to persons
who would be affected by the order or act conteplated#
.3 =teneo v. C= [*+ ,-561!0, 16 3cto1er 1.!6#
'econd -i.ision, 6utierrez (J): 4 concur, 1 took no part
$acts% On 1( ;eceber 1917, +uan Caon <uan7on 4fro @acolod, son of Coeo <uan7on and Teresita
Ce"alado5, first year student of $d/. Eoyola ,ei"hts, and boarder at the Cervini ,all5 struc- at the left
teple of Carelita /ateo, a waitress in the Cervini ,all cafeteria# Other boarders held hi fro stri-in"
a"ain, but the boarders hid the incident fro *r# Capbell# The university conducted an investi"ation of the
slappin" incident# On the basis of the investi"ation results, +uan Caon was disissed fro the university#
The disissal of +uan Caon tri""ered off the filin" of a coplaint for daa"es by his parents a"ainst the
university in the then Court of *irst &nstance 4C*&5 of :e"ros Occidental at @acolod City# The coplaint
states that +uan Caon was e!pelled fro school without "ivin" hi a fair trial in violation of his ri"ht to due
process and that they are proinent and well -nown residents of @acolod City, with the uncereonious
e!pulsion of their son causin" the actual, oral, and e!eplary daa"es as well as attorney3s fees# &n its
answer, the university denied the aterial alle"ations of the coplaint and %ustified the disissal of +uan
Caon on the "round that his unbecoin" behavior is contrary to "ood orals, proper decoru, and civility,
that such behavior sub%ected hi as a student to the university3s disciplinary re"ulations3 action and sanction
and that the university has the sole prero"ative and authority at any tie to drop fro the school a student
found to be undesirable in order to preserve and aintain its inte"rity and discipline so indispensable for its
e!istence as an institution of learnin"# $fter due trial, the lower court found for the <uan7ons and ordered the
university to pay the ?9(#)) as actual daa"es6 ?0),)))#)) as oral daa"es6 ?0,)))#)) as attorney3s fees
and to pay the costs of the suit# .pon appeal to the Court of $ppeals by the university, the trial court3s
decision was initially reversed and set aside# ,owever, upon otion for reconsideration filed by the
<uan7ons, the appellate court reversed its decision and set it aside throu"h a special division of five# The
otion for reconsideration had to be referred to a special division of five in view of the failure to reach
unaniity on the resolution of the otion, the vote of the re"ular division havin" becoe ( to 1# ,ence, the
.niversity filed a petition for review before the 'upree Court#
&ssue% 9hether the absence of notice to the disissed studentBs parents ne"ates the copliance of the
requireents of adinistrative due process#
Held% @esides the adinistrative body underta-in" a fair and ob%ective investi"ation of the incident, due
process in adinistrative proceedin"s also requires consideration of the evidence presented and the e!istence
of evidence to support the decision# ,erein, the ori"inal Court of $ppeals decision 4penned by +ustice
<ancayco5 showed that the procedures in the e!pulsion case were fair, open, e!haustive, and adequate# There
were nothin" in the records to reverse the findin"s in the reconsideration# Clearly, there was absolutely no
indication of alice, fraud, and iproper or wilful otives or conduct on the part of the $teneo de /anila
.niversity# +uan Caon was "iven notice of the proceedin"s# ,e actually appeared to present his side# The
investi"atin" board acted fairly and ob%ectively# $ll requisites of adinistrative due process were et# &t
cannot be ne"ated by the fact that the parents of +uan Caon were not "iven any notice of the proceedin"s#
+uan Caon, who at the tie was 18 years of a"e, was already a colle"e student, intelli"ent and ature
enou"h to -now his responsibilities# ,e was fully co"ni7ant of the "ravity of the offense he coitted as he
as-ed if he could be e!pelled for what he did# 9hen infored about the 19 ;eceber 1917 eetin" of the
@oard of ;iscipline, he was as-ed to see- advice and assistance fro his "uardian and or parents# The fact
that he chose to reain silent and did not infor the about his case, not even when he went hoe to
@acolod City for his Christas vacation, was not the fault of the .niversity#
." =lcua@ v. PS2= [*+ 06353, 2 Ma5 1.!!#
'econd di.ision, aras (J): 3 concur(
$acts% 'ophia $lcua7, /a# Cecilia $lindayu, @ernadette $n", &rna $nonas, /a# Ceedios @alta7ar, Cora7on
@undoc, +ohn Carona, $nna 'hiela ;inoso, Cafael =ncarnacion, et# al#, are all bonafide students of the
?hilippine 'chool of @usiness $dinistration 4?'@$5 Kue7on City# $s early as (( /arch 1981, the students
and the ?'@$, K#C# had already a"reed on certain atters which would "overn their activities within the
school# &n spite of the a"reeent, the students felt the need to hold dialo"ues# $on" others they deanded
the ne"otiation of a new a"reeent, which deand was turned down by the school, resultin" in ass
asseblies and barricades of school entrances# 'ubsequently dialo"ues proved futile# *inally, on 8 October
1991, the students received unifor letters fro ?'@$ "ivin" the 2 days to e!plain why the school should
not ta-eDete out any adinistrative sanction on their direct participation andDor conspirin" with others in the
coission of tuultuous and anarchic acts on October (, 2, and 7# On (( October 198(, the letter was
answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter# ;urin" the re"ular enrollent period, the students
were alle"edly blac-listed and denied adission for the second seester of 'U 1981>1987# On (8 October
1981 the ?resident of the 'tudent Council filed a coplaint with the ;irector of the /inistry of =ducation,
Culture and 'ports 4/=C'5 a"ainst the ?'@$ for barrin" the enrollent of the 'tudent Council Officers and
student leaders# 'iultaneously on the sae date, the student council wrote the ?resident, @oard of Trustees,
requestin" for a written stateent of the schools final decision re"ardin" their enrollent# $nother deand
letter was ade by Counsel for the students $tty# $lan Coullo Uap, also to the ?resident, @oard of Trustees,
to enroll his clients within 88 hours# $ll these notwithstandin", no relief appeared to be forthcoin"# The
students filed a petition for review on certiorari and prohibition with preliinary andatory in%unction#
&ssue% 9hether the students were deprived of due process in the refusal of ?'@$ to readit the#
Held% $fter the close of the first seester, the ?'@$>KC no lon"er has any e!istin" contract either with the
students or with the intervenin" teachers# The contract havin" been terinated, there is no ore contract to
spea- of# The school cannot be copelled to enter into another contract with said students and teachers# The
ri"ht of the school to refuse re>enrollent of students for acadeic delinquency and violation of disciplinary
re"ulations has always been reco"ni7ed by the Court, as it is sanctioned by law# 'ection 1)7 of the /anual of
Ce"ulations for ?rivate 'chools considers acadeic delinquency and violation of disciplinary re"ulations as
valid "rounds for refusin" re>enrollent of students# ;ue process in disciplinary cases involvin" students
does not entail proceedin"s and hearin"s siilar to those prescribed for actions and proceedin"s in courts of
%ustice# 'uch proceedin"s ay be suary and cross>e!aination is not even an essential part thereof#
$ccordin"ly, the iniu standards laid down by the Court to eet the deands of procedural due process
are: 415 the students ust be infored in writin" of the nature and cause of any accusation a"ainst the6 4(5
they shall have the ri"ht to answer the char"es a"ainst the, with the assistance of counsel, if desired: 425 they
shall be infored of the evidence a"ainst the6 485 they shall have the ri"ht to adduce evidence in their own
behalf6 and 405 the evidence ust be duly considered by the investi"atin" coittee or official desi"nated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case# ,erein, conditions 2, 8 and 0 had not been coplied with#
The Court, however, ordered an investi"ation to be conducted by the school authorities in the interest of
%ustice# *urther, it is well settled that by reason of their special -nowled"e and e!pertise "ained fro the
handlin" of specific atters fallin" under their respective %urisdictions, the Court ordinarily accords respect if
not finality to factual findin"s of adinistrative tribunals, unless the factual findin"s are not supported by
evidence6 where the findin"s are vitiated by fraud, iposition or collusion6 where the procedure which led to
the factual findin"s is irre"ular6 when palpable errors are coitted6 or when a "rave abuse of discretion,
arbitrariness, or capriciousness is anifest# ,erein, a careful scrutiny of the Ceport and Cecoendation of
the 'pecial &nvesti"atin" Coittee shows it does not fall under any of the above e!ceptions# Thus, the
'upree Court disissed the petition, but in the li"ht of copassionate equity, students who were, in view of
the absence of acadeic deficiencies, scheduled to "raduate durin" the school year when the petition was
filed, should be allowed to re>enroll and to "raduate in due tie#
.5 /on v. :a9es [*+ !.310, 20 Ma5 1..0#
En Banc, +ortes (J): 1; concur, 1 on lea.e(
$acts% $riel :on, Ce! /a"ana, $lvin $"ura, :orandy Occiano, +or"e ;ayaon, Eourdes @anares, @artoloe
&basco, =anuel @arba, 'onny /oreno# <iovani ?ala, +oselito Aillalon, Euis 'antos and ;aniel Torres,
students in /abini Colle"es, &nc# in ;aet, Caarines :orte, were not allowed to re>enroll by the school for
the acadeic year 1988>1989 for leadin" or participatin" in student ass actions a"ainst the school in the
precedin" seester# They thus filed a petition in the Ce"ional Trial Court of ;aet 4@ranch 285 see-in" their
readission or re>enrollent to the school, but the trial court disissed the petition in an order dated 8
$u"ust 1988# $ otion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on (8 *ebruary
19896 statin" that they waived>their privile"e to be aditted for re>enrollent with respondent colle"e when
they adopted, si"ned, and used its enrollent for for the first seester of school year 1988>89# &n addition,
for the sae seester, they duly si"ned pled"es "to abide and coply with all the rules and re"ulations laid
down by copetent authorities in the Colle"e ;epartent or 'chool in which & a enrolled#" ,ence, the
affected students filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for preliinary andatory in%unction before the
'upree Court#
&ssue% 9hether the school e!clude students because of failin" "rades when the cause for the action ta-en
a"ainst the relates to possible breaches of discipline#
Held% The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract# &t is ibued with public
interest, considerin" the hi"h priority "iven by the Constitution to education and the "rant to the 'tate of
supervisory and re"ulatory powers over all educational institutions# The authority for schools to refuse
enrollent to a student on the "round that his contract, which has a ter of one seester, has already e!pired,
cannot be %ustified# 'till, institutions3 discretion on the adission and enrollent of students as a a%or
coponent of the acadeic freedo "uaranteed to institutions of hi"her learnin"# The ri"ht of an institution
of hi"her learnin" to set acadeic standards, however, cannot be utili7ed to discriinate a"ainst students who
e!ercise their constitutional ri"hts to speech and assebly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their ri"ht
to equal protection# Thus, an institution of learnin" has a contractual obli"ation to afford its students a fair
opportunity to coplete the course they see- to pursue# ,owever, when a student coits a serious breach of
discipline or fails to aintain the required acadeic standard, he forfeits his contractual ri"ht6 and the court
should not review the discretion of university authorities# =!cludin" students because of failin" "rades when
the cause for the action ta-en a"ainst the undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a
denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play# *urther, the failures in one
or two sub%ects by soe cannot be considered ar-ed acadeic deficiency# :either can the acadeic
deficiency be "au"ed fro the acadeic standards of the school due to insufficiency of inforation# ,erein,
the students could have been sub%ected to disciplinary proceedin"s in connection with the ass actions, but
the penalty that could have been iposed ust be coensurate to the offense coitted and it ust be
iposed only after the requireents of procedural due process have been coplied with 4?ara"raph 180,
/anual of Ce"ulations for ?rivate 'chools5# @ut this atter of disciplinary proceedin"s and the iposition of
adinistrative sanctions have becoe oot and acadeic6 as the students have been refused readission or
re>enrollent and have been effectively e!cluded fro for 8 seesters, have already been ore than
sufficiently penali7ed for any breach of discipline they i"ht have coitted when they led and participated
in the ass actions that resulted in the disruption of classes# To still sub%ect the to disciplinary proceedin"s
would serve no useful purpose and would only further a""ravate the strained relations between the students
and the officials of the school which necessarily resulted fro the heated le"al battle#

Consti 2 Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 2 Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives

You might also like