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
Lo)ano v" Martine) *G% L-+!,-./ -0 1ecember -.0+2 3 -
1el %osario v" 4en&)on *G% 002+5/ 2- 1ecember -.0.2 3 -
'ablarin v" Gutierre) 567 *G% 80-+,/ !- 6ul9 -.082 3 2
:rmita Malate ;otel < Motel =$erators Association v" Cit9 o( Manila *G% L-2,+.!/ !- 6ul9 -.+82 3 !
San&alan& v" IAC *G% 8--+./ 25 Au&ust -.0.2 3 ,
Villanueva v" Castaneda *G% L-+-!--/ 2- Se$tember -.082 3 ,
1e la Cru) v" #aras *G% L-,258--82/ 25 6ul9 -.0!2 """ 5
Velasco v" Ville&as *G% L-2,-5!/ -, >ebruar9 -.0!2 3 +
Ma&ta?as v" #r9ce #ro$erties Cor$" *G% ---0.8/ 20 6ul9 -..,2 3 8
'ano v" Socrates *G% --02,./ 2- Au&ust -..82 3 8
4autista v" 6uinio *G% L-50.00/ !- 6anuar9 -.0,2 3 0
'a@icab =$erators v" 'he 4oard o( 'rans$ortation *G% L-5.2!,/ !0 Se$tember -.022 3 .
An&lo->il 'radin& v" La)aro *G% L-5,.50/ 2 Se$tember -.0!2 3 -0
This collection contains thirteen (13) cases
summarized in this format by
Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student)
during the First emester! school year "##$%"##&
in the 'olitical (aw )e*iew class
under +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r.
at the -rellano .ni*ersity chool of (aw (-.().
/om0iled as '+F! e0tember "#1".
1erne Guerrero entered -.( in ,une "##"
and e*entually graduated from -.( in "##&.
2e 0assed the 'hili00ine bar e3aminations immediately after (-0ril "##4).
berne&uerrero"word$ress"com
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
2 Lozano v. Martinez [GR L-63419, 18 December 1986]
En Banc, Yap (J): 9 concur
Fact! Batas Pambansa 22 (BP22; Bouncing Check Law) was approved on 3 April !"!# $he petitions arose
%rom cases involving prosecution o% o%%enses under BP22# (&lorentina A# Lo'ano vs# ($C )udge Antonio *#
*artine' +*anila, Branch --. in /( L0132!, Lu'viminda &# Lobaton vs# ($C 34ecutive )udge /licerio L#
Cru' +Lemer5 Batangas, Branch 6. in /( L01173!022, Antonio and 8usan 9atuin vs# ($C )udge 3rnani C#
Pano +:ue'on Cit5, Branch L--6;;;. in /( "1<2, =scar 6iolago vs# ($C )udge 3rnani C# Pano +:ue'on
Cit5, Branch L--6;;;. in /( "2<2202<, 3linor Abad vs# ($C )udge >icolad A# /erochi )r# +*akati, Branch
3!. in /( "<2202!, Amable and 85lvia Aguilu' vs# Presiding )udge o% Branch <2 o% Pasig in /( "<720
3, Luis *# ?o@as vs# ($C )udge 8enen Penaranda +Caga5an de =ro, Branch --. in /( "2<1<01", and
People vs# ($C )udge 9avid >ita%an +*anila, Branch <2. and $helma 8armiento in /( "<"7!.# Lo'ano,
Lobaton, 9atuin, 6iolago, Abad, Aguilu', ?o@as and 8armiento moved seasonabl5 to Auash the in%ormations
on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an o%%ense, the statute being unconstitutional# $he
motions were denied b5 the trial courts, e4cept in one case, which is the sub@ect o% /( "<"7! (People vs#
>ita%an), wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case# $he parties
adversel5 a%%ected have come to the 8upreme Court %or relie%#
"#e! Bhether BP 22 is a valid legislative act#
$e%&! Ces# ;t is within the authorit5 o% the legislature to enact such a law in the e4ercise o% the police power# ;t
is within the prerogative o% the lawmaking bod5 to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to
public wel%are# Acts mala in se are not the onl5 acts which the law can punish# An act ma5 not be considered
b5 societ5 as inherentl5 wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because o% the harm that it in%licts on the
communit5, it can be outlawed and criminall5 punished as malum prohibitum# BP 22 is aimed at putting a
stop to or curbing the practice o% issuing checks that are worthless, i#e# checks that end up being re@ected or
dishonored %or pa5ment# $he thrust o% the law is to prohibit, under pain o% penal sanctions, the making o%
worthless checks and putting them in circulation# $he law punishes the act not as an o%%ense against propert5,
but an o%%ense against public order# ;t is not the non0pa5ment o% an obligation which the law punishes, nor is it
intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pa5 his debt# &urther, a statute is presumed to be valid# 3ver5
presumption must be indulged in %avor o% its constitutionalit5# Bhere it is clear that the legislature has
overstepped the limits o% its authorit5 under the constitution, the Court should not hesitate to wield the a4e
and let it %all heavil5 on the o%%ending statute#
3 De% Roario v. 'en(zon [GR 8826), 21 December 1989]
En Banc, Grino-Aquino (J): 12 concur, 2 concur in result
Fact! =n < *arch !7!, the %ull te4t o% (epublic Act 11"< was published in two newspapers o% general
circulation in the Philippines# $he law took e%%ect on 3D *arch !7!, < da5s a%ter its publication, as provided
in 8ection < thereo%# 8ection ", Phase 3 o% Administrative =rder 12 was amended b5 Administrative =rder
"1 dated 27 August !7! b5 postponing to )anuar5 !!D the e%%ectivit5 o% the sanctions and penalties %or
violations o% the law, provided in 8ections 1 and 2 o% the /enerics Act and 8ections 2 and " o% the
Administrative =rder# =%%icers o% the Philippine *edical Association, the national organi'ation o% medical
doctors in the Philippines, on behal% o% their pro%essional brethren who are o% kindred persuasion, %iled a class
suit reAuesting the Court to declare some provisions (speci%icall5 penal) o% the /enerics Act o% !77 and the
implementing Administrative =rder 12 issued pursuant thereto as unconstitutional, hence, null and void# $he
petition was captioned as an action %or declarator5 relie%, over which the Court does not e4ercise @urisdiction#
>evertheless, in view o% the public interest involved, the Court decided to treat it as a petition %or prohibition
instead#
"#e! Bhether the prohibition against the use b5 doctors o% Eno substitutionE andFor words o% similar import
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
in their prescription in the /enerics Act is a law%ul regulation#
$e%&! Ces# $here is no constitutional in%irmit5 in the /enerics Act; rather, it implements the constitutional
mandate %or the 8tate Eto protect and promote the right to health o% the peopleE and Eto make essential goods,
health and other social services available to all the people at a%%ordable costE (8ection <, Art# ;; and 8ection
, Art# -;;;, !7" Constitution)# $he prohibition against the use b5 doctors o% Eno substitutionE andFor words
o% similar import in their prescription, is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention o% the law# ;t secures
to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic eAuivalent since his doctor is
allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his prescription %orm# ;% a doctor is allowed to
prescribe a brand0name drug with Eno substitution,E the patientGs option to bu5 a lower0priced, but eAuall5
e%%ective, generic eAuivalent would thereb5 be curtailed# $he law aims to bene%it the impoverished (and o%ten
sickl5) ma@orit5 o% the population in a still developing countr5 like ours, not the a%%luent and generall5 health5
minorit5#
4 *ab%arin v. G#tierrez +,- [GR .8164, 31 ,#%/ 198.]
En Banc, Feliciano (J): 13 concur
Fact! $eresita $ablarin, *a# Lu' Ciriaco, *a# >im%a B# (ovira, and 3vangelina 8# Labao sought admission
into colleges or schools o% medicine %or the school 5ear !7"0!77# ?owever, the5 either did not take or did
not success%ull5 take the >ational *edical Admission $est (>*A$) reAuired b5 the Board o% *edical
3ducation and administered b5 the Center %or 3ducational *easurement (C3*)# =n < *arch !7", $ablarin,
et# al#, in behal% o% applicants %or admission into the *edical Colleges who have not taken up or success%ull5
hurdled the >*A$, %iled with the (egional $rial Court (($C), >ational Capital )udicial (egion, a Petition %or
9eclarator5 )udgment and Prohibition with a pra5er %or $emporar5 (estraining =rder ($(=) and Preliminar5
;n@unction, to en@oin the 8ecretar5 o% 3ducation, Culture and 8ports, the Board o% *edical 3ducation and the
Center %or 3ducational *easurement %rom en%orcing 8ection < (a) and (%) o% (epublic Act 2372, as amended,
and *3C8 =rder <2 (series o% !7<), dated 23 August !7< +which established a uni%orm admission test
(>*A$) as an additional reAuirement %or issuance o% a certi%icate o% eligibilit5 %or admission into medical
schools o% the Philippines, beginning with the school 5ear !710!7". and %rom reAuiring the taking and
passing o% the >*A$ as a condition %or securing certi%icates o% eligibilit5 %or admission, %rom proceeding
with accepting applications %or taking the >*A$ and %rom administering the >*A$ as scheduled on 21 April
!7" and in the %uture# A%ter hearing on the petition %or issuance o% preliminar5 in@unction, the trial court
denied said petition on 2D April !7"# $he >*A$ was conducted and administered as previousl5 scheduled#
$ablarin, et# al# accordingl5 %iled a 8pecial Civil Action %or Certiorari with the 8upreme Court to set aside the
=rder o% the ($C @udge den5ing the petition %or issuance o% a writ o% preliminar5 in@unction#
"#e! Bhether >*A$ reAuirement %or admission to medical colleges contravenes the Constitutional
guarantee %or the accessibilit5 o% education to all, and whether such regulation is invalid andFor
unconstitutional#
$e%&! >o# (epublic Act 2372, as amended b5 (epublic Acts 2222 and <!21, known as the E*edical Act o%
!<!E de%ines its basic ob@ectives to govern (a) the standardi'ation and regulation o% medical education; (b)
the e4amination %or registration o% ph5sicians; and (c) the supervision, control and regulation o% the practice
o% medicine in the Philippines# $he 8tatute created a Board o% *edical 3ducation and prescribed certain
minimum reAuirements %or applicants to medical schools# $he 8tate is not reall5 en@oined to take appropriate
steps to make Aualit5 education Eaccessible to all who might %or an5 number o% reasons wish to enroll in a
pro%essional school but rather merel5 to make such education accessible to all who Auali%5 under E%air,
reasonable and eAuitable admission and academic reAuirements#E $he regulation o% the practice o% medicine in
all its branches has long been recogni'ed as a reasonable method o% protecting the health and sa%et5 o% the
public# $he power to regulate and control the practice o% medicine includes the power to regulate admission to
the ranks o% those authori'ed to practice medicine# Legislation and administrative regulations reAuiring those
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
who wish to practice medicine %irst to take and pass medical board e4aminations have long ago been
recogni'ed as valid e4ercises o% governmental power# 8imilarl5, the establishment o% minimum medical
educational reAuirements %or admission to the medical pro%ession, has also been sustained as a legitimate
e4ercise o% the regulator5 authorit5 o% the state#
) 0rmita Ma%ate $ote% 1 Mote% 23erator 4ociation v. 5it/ o6 Mani%a [GR L-24693, 31 ,#%/
196.]
En Banc, Fernando (J): concur, 2 on lea!e
Fact! =n 3 )une !13, =rdinance 2"1D was issued b5 the municipal board o% the Cit5 o% *anila and
approved b5 6ice *a5or ?erminio Astorga, who was at the time acting *a5or o% the Cit5 o% *anila# $he
ordinance () imposes a P1,DDD#DD %ee per annum %or %irst class motels and P2,<DD#DD %or second class motels;
(2) reAuires the owner, manager, keeper or dul5 authori'ed representative o% a hotel, motel, or lodging house
to re%rain %rom entertaining or accepting an5 guest or customer or letting an5 room or other Auarter to an5
person or persons without his %illing up the prescribed %orm in a lobb5 open to public view at all times and in
his presence, wherein the surname, given name and middle name, the date o% birth, the address, the
occupation, the se4, the nationalit5, the length o% sta5 and the number o% companions in the room, i% an5, with
the name, relationship, age and se4 would be speci%ied, with data %urnished as to his residence certi%icate as
well as his passport number, i% an5, coupled with a certi%ication that a person signing such %orm has personall5
%illed it up and a%%i4ed his signature in the presence o% such owner, manager, keeper or dul5 authori'ed
representative, with such registration %orms and records kept and bound together; (3) provides that the
premises and %acilities o% such hotels, motels and lodging houses would be open %or inspection either b5 the
Cit5 *a5or, or the Chie% o% Police, or their dul5 authori'ed representatives# $he ordinance also classi%ied
motels into two classes and reAuired the maintenance o% certain minimum %acilities in %irst class motels such
as a telephone in each room, a dining room or restaurant and laundr5; while second class motels are reAuired
to have a dining room# ;t prohibited a person less than 7 5ears old %rom being accepted in such hotels,
motels, lodging houses, tavern or common inn unless accompanied b5 parents or a law%ul guardian and made
it unlaw%ul %or the owner, manager, keeper or dul5 authori'ed representative o% such establishments to lease
an5 room or portion thereo% more than twice ever5 22 hours# ;t provided a penalt5 o% automatic cancellation
o% the license o% the o%%ended part5 in case o% conviction# =n < )ul5 !13, the 3rmita0*alate ?otel and *otel
=perators Association (3*?*=A), its member ?otel del *ar, and a certain /o Chiu %iled a petition %or
prohibition against the ma5or o% the Cit5 o% *anila in his capacit5 as he is charged with the general power
and dut5 to en%orce ordinances o% the Cit5 o% *anila and to give the necessar5 orders %or the %aith%ul
e4ecution and en%orcement o% such ordinances# $here was a plea %or the issuance o% preliminar5 in@unction
and %or a %inal @udgment declaring the above ordinance null and void and unen%orceable# $he lower court on 1
)ul5 !13 issued a writ o% preliminar5 in@unction ordering the *a5or to re%rain %rom en%orcing said =rdinance
2"1D %rom and a%ter 7 )ul5 !13# A%ter the submission o% the memoranda, ruled that the Cit5 o% *anila lack
authorit5 to regulate motels and rendering =rdinance 2"1D unconstitutional and there%ore null and void# ;t
made permanent the preliminar5 in@unction issued b5 the *a5or and his agents to restrain him %rom en%orcing
the ordinance# $he *a5or o% *anila appealed to the 8upreme Court#
"#e! Bhether the regulations imposed on motels and hotels (increasing license %ees, partiall5 restricting the
%reedom to contract, and restraining the libert5 o% individuals) is valid andFor constitutional#
$e%&! Ces# $he ordinance was enacted to minimi'e certain practices hurt%ul to public morals# ;t was made as
there is observed an alarming increase in the rate o% prostitution, adulter5 and %ornication in *anila traceable
in great part to the e4istence o% motels, which provide a necessar5 atmosphere %or clandestine entr5, presence
and e4it and thus become the ideal haven %or prostitutes and thrill seekers# $he ordinance proposes to check
the clandestine harboring o% transients and guests o% these establishments b5 reAuiring these transients and
guests to %ill up a registration %orm, prepared %or the purpose, in a lobb5 open to public view at all times, and
b5 introducing several other amendator5 provisions calculated to shatter the privac5 that characteri'es the
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
registration o% transients and guests# $he increase in t"e license #ees was intended to discourage
establishments o% the kind %rom operating %or purpose other than legal and to increase the income o% the cit5
government# &urther, the restriction on t"e #reedo$ to contract, inso%ar as the challenged ordinance makes it
unlaw%ul %or the owner, manager, keeper or dul5 authori'ed representative o% an5 hotel, motel, lodging house,
tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent an5 room or portion thereo% more than twice ever5 22 hours,
with a proviso that in all cases %ull pa5ment shall be charged, cannot be viewed as a transgression against the
command o% due process# ;t is neither unreasonable nor arbitrar5# Precisel5 it was intended to curb the
opportunit5 %or the immoral or illegitimate use to which such premises could be, and, are being devoted#
&urthermore, the ri%"t o# t"e indi!idual is necessaril5 sub@ect to reasonable restraint b5 general law %or the
common good# $he libert5 o% the citi'en ma5 be restrained in the interest o% the public health, or o% the public
order and sa%et5, or otherwise within the proper scope o% the police power# 8tate in order to promote the
general wel%are ma5 inter%ere with personal libert5, with propert5, and with business and occupations# Persons
and propert5 ma5 be sub@ected to all kinds o% restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general com%ort,
health, and prosperit5 o% the state#
6 7an(a%an( v. "45 [GR .1169, 2) 4#(#t 1989]
En Banc, &ar$iento (J): 11 concur, 3 too' no part
Fact! $he 8upreme Court promulgated its decision on 22 9ecember !77# $wo (2) motions %or
reconsideration were %iled b5 Att5# 8angco (in behal% o% the 8angalangs, /("1!) and Att5# 8ison (in behal%
o% Bel0Air 6illage Association +BA6A.), and a motion %or reconsiderationFclari%ication %iled b5 Att5# &unk
(/( "23"1, "13!2, "772, and 7227)# $he motion %or reconsideration (/( "1!), %iled b5 the 8angalangs,
was anchored on two groundsH () that contrar5 to the 8C decision, )upiter 8treet is %or the e4clusive use o%
Bel0Air 6illage residents; and (b) that the A5ala Corporation did contrive to acAuire membership at BA6A
purposel5 to bargain %or access to )upiter 8treet b5 the general public# 8ubseAuentl5, BA6A in%ormed the
Court that it was adopting the 8angalangsG motion %or reconsideration# $he motion %or reconsideration (in /(s
"23"1, "13!2, "772, and 7227) raises more or less the same Auestions and asks %urthermore that the
8upreme Court delete the award o% damages granted b5 the Court o% Appeals#
"#e! Bhether the general public has right to to use )upiter and =rbit streets in Bel0Air 6illage, and whether
the demolition o% the gates in said streets was valid or law%ul#
$e%&! Ces# $he 9eed o% 9onation e4ecuted b5 the A5ala Corporation covering )upiter and =rbit 8treets
e%%ectivel5 reAuired both passagewa5s open to the general public# $he donation gave the general public eAual
right to it# $he opening o% )upiter 8treet was warranted b5 the demands o% the common good, in terms o%
tra%%ic decongestion and public convenience# $he opening o% =rbit 8treet is upheld %or the same rationale# $he
demolition o% the gates at =rbit and )upiter 8treets does not amount to deprivation o% propert5 without due
process o% law or e4propriation without @ust compensation, as there is no taking o% propert5 involved in the
case# $he challenged act o% the *a5or is, rather, in the concept o% police power# $he gate, the destruction o%
which opened =rbit 8treet, has the character o% a public nuisance in the sense that it hinders and impairs the
use o% propert5# Article 1!! o% the Civil Code provides that the remedies against a public nuisance are () A
prosecution under the Penal Code or an5 local ordinance; or (2) A civil action; or (3) Abatement, without
@udicial proceedings# ;n addition, under Article "D o% the Code, summar5 abatement (without @udicial
proceeding) ma5 be carried out b5 the *a5or himsel%#
. 8i%%an#eva v. 5atane&a [GR L-61311, 21 7e3tember 198.]
First (i!ision, )ru* (J): 3 concur, 1 on lea!e+
Fact! =n " >ovember !1, the municipal council o% 8an &ernando (Pampanga) adopted (esolution 27
authori'ing some 22 members o% the &ernandino Inited *erchants and $raders Association (&I*$A) to
construct permanent stalls and sell along *ercado street, on a strip o% land measuring 2 b5 "" meters
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
(talipapa)# $he action was protested on D >ovember !1 b5 &elicidad 6illanueva, &ernando Caisip, Antonio
Liang, &elina *iranda, (icardo Puno, &lorencio La4a, and (ene =campo (claiming that the5 were granted
previous authori'ation b5 the municipal government to conduct business therein), in Civil Case 2D2D, where
the Court o% &irst ;nstance (C&;) Pampanga, Branch 2, issued a writ o% preliminar5 in@unction that prevented
the &I*$A members %rom constructing the said stalls until %inal resolution o% the controvers5# =n 7 )anuar5
!12, while the case was pending, the municipal council o% 8an &ernando adopted (esolution 2!, which
declared the sub@ect area as Ethe parking place and as the public pla'a o% the municipalit5,E thereb5 impliedl5
revoking (esolution 27 (series o% !1)# =n 2 >ovember !17, )udge Andres C# Aguilar decided the
a%oresaid case and held that the land occupied b5 6illanueva, et# al#, being public in nature, was be5ond the
commerce o% man and there%ore could not be the sub@ect o% private occupanc5# $he writ o% preliminar5
in@unction was made permanent# $he decision was not en%orced as the petitioners were not evicted %rom the
place# $he number o% vendors in the area (talipapa) ballooned to 2DD# $he area deteriorated increasingl5 to
the great pre@udice o% the communit5 in general, as the makeshi%t stalls render the area as virtual %ire trap# $he
problem %estered %or some more 5ears under a presumabl5 uneas5 truce among the protagonists, none o%
whom made an5 move, %or some reason# =n 2 )anuar5 !72, the Association o% Concerned Citi'ens and
Consumers o% 8an &ernando %iled a petition %or the immediate implementation o% (esolution 2!, to restore the
propert5 to its original and customar5 use as a public pla'a# Acting thereon a%ter an investigation conducted
b5 the municipal attorne5, =;C (=%%ice o% the *a5or) 6icente *acalino issued on 2 )une !72 a resolution
reAuiring the municipal treasurer and the municipal engineer to demolish the stalls beginning )ul5 !72# $he
6illanueva, et# al# %iled a petition %or prohibition with the C&; Pampanga (Civil Case 12"D) on 21 )une !72#
$he @udge denied the petition on ! )ul5 !72, and the motion %or reconsideration on < August !72,
prompting 6illanueva, et# al# to %ile a petition on certiorari with the 8upreme Court# Paterno /uevarra, who
replaced *acalino as =;C o% 8an &ernando, was impleaded#
"#e! Bhether the demolition o% the stalls in the place known as talipapa, pursuant to (esolution 2! o% the
municipal government, is valid; notwithstanding alleged contractual arrangements o% market lessees
(6illanueva, et#al#) with the municipal government#
$e%&! Ces# Police power under the general wel%are clause authori'es the municipal council to enact such
ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as ma5 be necessar5 to carr5 into e%%ect and
discharge the powers and duties con%erred upon it b5 law and such as shall seem necessar5 and proper to
provide %or the health and sa%et5, promote the prosperit5, improve the morals, peace, good order, com%ort, and
convenience o% the municipalit5 and the inhabitants thereo%, and %or the protection o% propert5 therein# Police
power cannot be surrendered or bargained awa5 through the medium o% a contract# ;n %act, a public pla'a is
be5ond the commerce o% man and so cannot be the sub@ect o% lease or an5 other contractual undertaking# $he
lease o% a public pla'a o% a municipalit5 in %avor o% a private person is null and void# A pla'a cannot be used
%or the construction o% market stalls, speciall5 o% residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance
sub@ect to abatement according to law# =n the other hand, a portion o% a public sidewalk is likewise be5ond
the commerce o% man# An5 contract entered into in connection with the sidewalk, is ipso %acto null and ultra
vires# $he sidewalk was intended %or and was used b5 the public, in going %rom one place to another# $he
streets and public places o% the cit5 shall be kept %ree and clear %or the use o% the public, and the sidewalks and
crossings %or the pedestrians, and the same shall onl5 be used or occupied %or other purposes as provided b5
ordinance or regulation# 8talls block the %ree passage o% pedestrians resulting to clogged with vehicular tra%%ic#
8 De %a 5r#z v. 9ara [GR L-42).1-.2, 2) ,#%/ 1983]
En Banc, Fernando (J): 9 concur, 1 reser!ed ri%"t to dissent, 2 on o##icial lea!e, 1 on sic' lea!e
Fact! $he municipalit5 o% Bocaue, Bulacan issued =rdinance 72 (Prohibition and Closure =rdinance o%
Bocaue, Bulacan) prohibited the operation o% night clubs, and such clubs emplo5ing hostesses# =n <
>ovember !"<, two cases %or prohibition with preliminar5 in@unction were %iled with the C&; Bulacan# $he
cases were assigned to )udge, now Associate )ustice Paras o% the ;ntermediate Appellate Court (;AC), who
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
issued a restraining order on " >ovember !"<# $he answers were therea%ter %iled# =n < )anuar5 !"1, the
lower court upheld the constitutionalit5 and validit5 o% =rdinance 72 and dismissed the cases# ?ence the
petition %or certiorari b5 wa5 o% appeal#
"#e! Bhether the prohibition on the operation o% night clubs, to %oster public morals, is reasonable andFor
valid#
$e%&! (easonableness is consonant with the general powers and purposes o% municipal corporations, as well
as consistenc5 with the laws or polic5 o% the 8tate# 8weeping e4ercise o% a lawmaking power could not
Auali%5 under the term reasonable# $he ob@ective o% %ostering public morals, a worth5 and desirable end can be
attained b5 a measure that does not encompass too wide a %ield# =n its %ace, the =rdinance is characteri'ed b5
overbreadth# $he purpose sought to be achieved could have been attained b5 reasonable restrictions rather
than b5 an absolute prohibition# A prohibition is a clear invasion o% personal or propert5 rights, personal in the
case o% those individuals desirous o% patroni'ing those night clubs and propert5 in terms o% the investments
made and salaries to be earned b5 those therein emplo5ed# (epublic Act !37 (An Act granting municipal or
cit5 boards and councils the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation o% certain places
o% amusement within their respective territorial @urisdiction) granted the municipal or cit5 board or council o%
each chartered cit5 to have the power to regulate b5 ordinance the establishment, maintenance and operation
o% night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools, pavilions, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alle5s, billiard pools, and
other similar places o% amusement within its territorial @urisdiction# $he power to regulate, was amended to
likewise prohibit on 2 *a5 !<2; but the title remained intact# $he power granted remains that o% regulation,
not prohibition# $he power claimed to enact the ordinance is at the most dubious and under the present Local
/overnment Code non0e4istent# $he law mandates the sangguniang ba5an to E(rr) (egulate ca%es, restaurants,
beer0houses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses and lodging houses, e4cept travel agencies, tourist guides,
tourist transports, hotels, resorts, de lu4e restaurants, and tourist inns o% international standards which shall
remain under the licensing and regulator5 power o% the *inistr5 o% $ourism which shall e4ercise such
authorit5 without in%ringing on the ta4ing or regulator5 powers o% the municipalit5; (ss) (egulate public
dancing schools, public dance halls, and sauna baths or massage parlors; and (tt) (egulate the establishment
and operation o% billiard pools, theatrical per%ormances, circuses and other %orms o% entertainment# ;t is clear
that municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation o% night clubs# $he5 ma5 be regulated, but not
prevented %rom carr5ing on their business#
9 8e%aco v. 8i%%e(a [GR L-241)3, 14 Febr#ar/ 1983]
En Banc, Fernando (J): 1, concur, 1 reser!in% !ote, 1 too' no part
Fact! =rdinance 2!12 was issued b5 the cit5 o% *anila prohibiting an5 operator o% an5 barbershop to
conduct the business o% massaging customers or other persons in an5 ad@acent room(s) o% said barber shop, or
in an5 room(s) within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator o% the barber
shop and the rooms where massaging is conducted is the same person# $omas 6elasco, Lourdes (amire', 85
Pin, 3dmundo Inson, Apolonia (amire', and Lourdes Lomibao, as component members o% the 8ta# Cru'
Barbershop Association, %iled petition %or declarator5 relie% with the lower court, challenging the
constitutionalit5 o% the ordinance as it allegedl5 amounts to a deprivation o% propert5 o% their means o%
livelihood without due process o% law# $he petition was denied b5 the lower court as its availabilit5 being
dependent on there being as 5et no case involving such issue having been %iled# ?ence, the appeal#
"#e! Bhether =rdinance 2!12 is a valid police power measure#
$e%&! $he ob@ectives behind its enactment areH E() $o be able to impose pa5ment o% the license %ee %or
engaging in the business o% massage clinic under =rdinance 31<! as amended b5 =rdinance 2"1", an entirel5
di%%erent measure than the ordinance regulating the business o% barbershops and, (2) in order to %orestall
possible immoralit5 which might grow out o% the construction o% separate rooms %or massage o% customers#E
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 6 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
$he Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general wel%are clause# ;t has made
clear the signi%icance and scope o% such a clause, which delegates in statutor5 %orm the police power to a
municipalit5# $he clause has been given wide application b5 municipal authorities and has in its relation to the
particular circumstances o% the case been liberall5 construed b5 the courts# 8uch is the progressive view o%
Philippine @urisprudence and it has continued to be#
1: Ma(ta;a v. 9r/ce 9ro3ertie 5or3. [GR 111:9., 2: ,#%/ 1994]
En Banc, )ru* (J): 12 concur
Fact! $he Philippine Amusement and /aming Corporation (PA/C=() is a corporation created directl5 b5
Presidential 9ecree 71! to help centrali'e and regulate all games o% chance, including casinos on land and
sea within the territorial @urisdiction o% the Philippines (the constitutionalit5 o% the decree was sustained in
Basco v# Philippine Amusements and /ambling Corporation)# Caga5an de =ro Cit5, like other local political
subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances %or the purposes indicated in the Local /overnment Code# ;t
is e4pressl5 vested with the police power under what is known as the /eneral Bel%are Clause embodied in
8ection 1# ;ts 8angguniang Panglungsod derives its powers, duties and %unctions under 8ection 2<7 o% said
Code# ;n !!2, %ollowing its success in several cities, PA/C=( decided to e4pand its operations to Caga5an
de =ro Cit5# $o this end, it leased a portion o% a building belonging to Pr5ce Properties Corporation ;nc#,
renovated and eAuipped the same, and prepared to inaugurate its casino there during the Christmas season#
$he reaction o% the 8angguniang Panlungsod o% Caga5an de =ro Cit5 was swi%t and hostile# =n " 9ecember
!!2, it enacted =rdinance 33<3 (An =rdinance Prohibiting the issuance o% business permit and canceling
e4isting business permit to an5 establishment %or the using and allowing to be used its premises or portion
thereo% %or the operation o% Casino)# =n 2 )anuar5 !!3, it adopted a sterner =rdinance 33"<0!3 (An
=rdinance prohibiting the operation o% Casino and providing penalt5 %or violation there%ore)# Pr5ce assailed
the ordinances be%ore the Court o% Appeals, where it was @oined b5 PA/C=( as intervenor and supplemental
petitioner# $he Court %ound the ordinances invalid and issued the writ pra5ed %or to prohibit their
en%orcement# (econsideration o% the decision was denied on 3 )ul5 !!3# Caga5an de =ro Cit5 and its
ma5or %iled a petition %or review under (ules o% Court with the 8upreme Court#
"#e! Bhether the 8angguniang Panlungsod o% Caga5an de =ro can prohibit the establishment o% a casino, or
gambling, operated b5 PA/C=( through an ordinance or resolution#
$e%&! $he moralit5 o% gambling is not @usticiable issue# /ambling is not illegal per se# Bhile it is generall5
considered inimical to the interests o% the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categoricall5 proscribing
or penali'ing gambling or, %or that matter, even mentioning it at all# ;t is le%t to Congress to deal with the
activit5 as it sees %it# ;n the e4ercise o% its own discretion, the legislature ma5 prohibit gambling altogether or
allow it without limitation or it ma5 prohibit some %orms o% gambling and allow others %or whatever reasons it
ma5 consider su%%icient# &urther, there are two kinds o% gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authori'ed b5
law# Legali'ed gambling is not a modern concept; it is probabl5 as old as illegal gambling, i% not indeed more
so# $he suggestion that the Local /overnment Code (L/C) authori'e Local /overnment Inits (L/Is) to
prohibit all kinds o% gambling would erase the distinction between these two %orms o% gambling without a
clear indication that this is the will o% legislature# =rdinances should not contravene a statute as municipal
governments are onl5 agents o% the national government# Local councils e4ercise onl5 delegated legislative
powers con%erred on them b5 Congress as the national lawmaking bod5# $he delegate cannot be superior to
the principal or e4ercise powers higher than those o% the latter#
11 *ano v. 7ocrate [GR 11:249, 21 4#(#t 199.]
En Banc, (a!ide Jr+ (J): - concur, . /oin ponencias o# (a!ide 0 1endo*a, 1 on o##icial lea!e+
Fact! =n < 9ecember !!2, the 8angguniang Panlungsod ng Puerto Princesa Cit5 enacted =rdinance <0!2
(taking e%%ect on )anuar5 !!3; An ordinance banning the shipment o% all live %ish and lobster outside
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 7 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
Puerto Princesa Cit5 %rom )anuar5 !!3 to )anuar5 !!7, and providing e4emptions; penalties and %or
other purposes thereo%)# $o implement said ordinance, Acting *a5or Amado L# Lucero issued =%%ice =rder
23 (series o% !!3) dated 22 )anuar5 !!3 authori'ing the inspection o% cargoes shipped out %rom the Puerto
Princesa Airport, Bhar%, and an5 other port within the @urisdiction o% the Cit5# =n ! &ebruar5 !!3, the
8angguniang Lalawigan o% Palawan enacted (esolution 33 +A resolution prohibiting the catching, gathering,
possessing, bu5ing, selling, and shipment o% live marine coral dwelling aAuatic organisms, to witH &amil5H
8caridae (*ameng), 3pine Phelus &asciatus (8uno), Cromileptes Altivelis (Panther or 8enorita), Lobster
below 2DD grams and spawning, $ridacna /igas ($akllobo), Pinctada *argarite%era (*other pearl, =5sters,
/iant clams, and other species), Penaeus *onodon ($iger Prawn, Breeder si'e or mother), 3pinephelus
8uillus (Loba or /reen grouper), and &amil5H Balistidae ($ropical AAuarium &ishes) %or a period o% < 5ears in
and coming %rom Palawan waters.# Puerto Princesa Cit5 and the province o% Palawan implemented said
ordinances# $ano, et# al#, who were criminall5 charged with violating 8angguniang Panlalawigan (esolution
33 and =rdinance 2 o% Palawan in Criminal Case !30D<0C o% the st *C$C o% Palawan; and (obert Lim and
6irginia Lim, who were charged with violating Cit5 =rdinance <0!2 o% Puerto Princesa Cit5 and =rdinance
2 o% Palawan be%ore the =%%ice o% the Cit5 Prosecutor o% Puerto Princesa, Auestioned the validit5 o% the said
ordinances be%ore the 8upreme Court#
"#e! Bhether the ordinances in Auestion, which prohibit the %ishing o% certain marine species in Palawan,
are constitutional andFor valid#
$e%&! Laws (including ordinances enacted b5 local government units) en@o5 the presumption o%
constitutionalit5# $o overthrow this presumption, there must be a clear and uneAuivocal breach o% the
Constitution, not merel5 a doubt%ul or argumentative contradiction# ;n short, the con%lict with the Constitution
must be shown be5ond reasonable doubt# Bhere doubt e4ists, even i% well0%ounded, there can be no %inding o%
unconstitutionalit5# $o doubt is to sustain# ;n light o% the principles o% decentrali'ation and devolution
enshrined in the Local /overnment Code (L/C) and the powers granted therein to local government units
under 8ection 1 (the /eneral Bel%are Clause), and under 8ections 2!, 22"(a) () (vi), 2<7(a)()(vi) and
217(a)()(vi), which involve the e4ercise o% police power, the validit5 o% the =rdinances cannot be doubted#
$he ordinance also %ind %ull support under (epublic Act "1 (8trategic 3nvironmental Plan %or Palawan
Act), approved on ! )une !!2; which adopts a comprehensive %ramework %or the sustainable development
o% Palawan compatible with protecting and enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment o%
the province, which serve to guide the local government o% Palawan and the government agencies concerned
in the %ormulation and implementation o% plans, programs and pro@ects a%%ecting said province# $he %irst
ob@ective (to establish a Eclosed seasonE %or the species o% %ish or aAuatic animals covered therein %or a period
o% %ive 5ears) is well within the devolved power to en%orce %isher5 laws in municipal waters which allows the
establishment o% Eclosed seasons#E $he second ob@ective (to protect the coral in the marine waters o% the Cit5
o% Puerto Princesa and the Province o% Palawan %rom %urther destruction due to illegal %ishing activities) %alls
within both the general wel%are clause o% the L/C and the e4press mandate thereunder to cities and provinces
to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties %or acts which endanger the environment#
12 'a#tita v. ,#inio [GR L-):9:8, 31 ,an#ar/ 1984]
En Banc, Fernando (J): concur, 2 too' no part
Fact! Letter o% ;nstruction 71! was issued on 3 *a5 !"! to respond to the protracted oil crisis dating back
to !"2, banning the use o% private motor vehicles with ? and 3? plates on weekends and holida5s %rom 2
am 8aturda5 to <HDD am *onda5, or am o% holida5 to <HDD am o% the da5 a%ter the holida5; but e4empting
service, truck, diplomatic, consular corps, and tourist cars# Pursuant thereto, Al%redo L# )uinio, then *inister
o% Public Borks, $ransportation and Communications and (omeo P# 3du, then Commissioner o% Land
$ransportation Commission issued on )une !"!, *emorandum Circular 3!, which imposed Ethe penalties
o% %ine, con%iscation o% vehicle and cancellation o% registration on owners o% the above0speci%ied vehiclesE
%ound violating such Letter o% ;nstruction# *emorandum Circular 3! does not impose the penalt5 o%
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 8 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
con%iscation but merel5 that o% impounding, %ine, and %or the third o%%ense that o% cancellation o% certi%icate o%
registration and %or the rest o% the 5ear or %or ninet5 da5s whichever is longer# *ar5 Concepcion Bautista and
3nriAue 9# Bautista Auestioned the validit5 o% L=; 71! and *C 3! through a prohibition proceeding with the
8upreme Court#
"#e! Bhether L=; 71! and *emorandum Circular 3!, banning certain vehicles %rom using the motorwa5s
in speci%ied time, are constitutional andFor valid#
$e%&! A regulator5 measure en@o5s a presumption o% constitutionalit5 or a presumption that such an act %alls
within constitutional limitations# Bhen a Auestioned statute deals with a sub@ect clearl5 within the scope o%
the police power, and which is asked to be declare void on the ground that the speci%ic method o% regulation
prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plainti%% o% due process o% law, the presumption o%
constitutionalit5 must prevail in the absence o% some %actual %oundation o% record %or overthrowing the statute#
?erein, as to L=; 71!, the determination o% the mode and manner through which the ob@ective o% minimi'ing
the consumption o% oil products and measures conducive to energ5 conservation (reAuire and establish ta4i
stands eAuipped with e%%icient telephone and communication s5stems; strict implementation and observance
o% cargo truck hours on main arteries; strict observance o% tra%%ic rules; e%%ective solution o% tra%%ic problems
and decongestion o% tra%%ic through rerouting and Auick repair o% roads and e%%icient operation o% double
decker buses; rationing o% gasoline to avoid panic bu5ing and give the private car owner the option and
responsibilit5 o% deciding on the use o% his allocation; allow neon and electricall5 devised advertising signs
onl5 %rom %ive oGclock p#m# to nine oGclock p#m#; prohibit immediatel5 the importation o% heav5 and lu4ur5
cars and seriousl5 re0e4amine the car manu%acturing program) are le%t to the discretion o% the political
branches# $he Auestion be%ore the Court is limited to whether or not L=; 71! as implemented b5 *C 3! is
violative o% certain constitutional rights# =n the other hand, as to *C 3!, while the imposition o% a %ine or the
suspension o% registration under the conditions therein set %orth is valid under the Land $ransportation and
$ra%%ic Code, the impounding o% a vehicle %inds no statutor5 @usti%ication# $o appl5 that portion o% *C 3!
would be ultra vires# ;t must likewise be made clear that a penalt5 even i% warranted can onl5 be imposed in
accordance with the procedure reAuired b5 law#
13 *a<icab 23erator v. *=e 'oar& o6 *ran3ortation [GR L-)9234, 3: 7e3tember 1982]
En Banc, 1elencio-2errera (p): 12 concur, 2 concur in t"e result
Fact! =n D =ctober !"", the Board o% $ransportation (B$) issued *emorandum Circular ""022 which
phases out old and dilapidated ta4is; re%using registration to ta4i units within the >ational Capitol (egion
having 5ear models over 1 5ears old# Pursuant to the above B=$ circular, the 9irector o% the Bureau o% Land
$ransportation (BL$) issued ;mplementing Circular <2, dated < August !7D, instructing the (egional
9irector, the *6 (egistrars and other personnel o% BL$, all within the >ational Capital (egion (>C(), to
implement said Circular, and %ormulating a schedule o% phase0out o% vehicles to be allowed and accepted %or
registration as public conve5ances# ;n accordance therewith, cabs o% model !" were phase0out in
registration 5ear !"7; those o% model !"2, in !"!; those o% model !"3, in !7D; and those o% model !"2,
in !7# =n 2" )anuar5 !7, $a4icab =perators o% *etro *anila, ;nc# ($=**;), including its members Ace
$ransportation Corporation and &elicisimo Cabigao, %iled a petition with the B$ (Case 7D0"<<3), seeking to
nulli%5 *C ""022 or to stop its implementation; to allow the registration and operation in !7 and
subseAuent 5ears o% ta4icabs o% model !"2, as well as those o% earlier models which were phased0out,
provided that, at the time o% registration, the5 are roadworth5 and %it %or operation# =n 1 &ebruar5 !7,
$=**;, et# al# %iled be%ore the B$ a E*ani%estation and Irgent *otionE, pra5ing %or an earl5 hearing o% their
petition# $he case was heard on 2D &ebruar5 !7# =n 27 >ovember !7, $=**;, et# al# %iled be%ore the
same Board a E*ani%estation and Irgent *otion to (esolve or 9ecide *ain PetitionE pra5ing that the case be
resolved or decided not later than D 9ecember !7 to enable them, in case o% denial, to avail o% whatever
remed5 the5 ma5 have under the law %or the protection o% their interests be%ore their !"< model cabs are
phased0out on )anuar5 !72# $=**;, et# al#, through its President, allegedl5 made personal %ollow0ups o%
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
the case, but was later in%ormed that the records o% the case could not be located# =n 2! 9ecember !7,
$=**;, et# al#, instituted a petition %or certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminar5 in@unction and
temporar5 restraining order with the 8upreme Court#
"#e! Bhether *emorandum Circular ""022, phasing out 105ear old ta4icabs and older, is a valid
administrative issuance#
$e%&! Presidential 9ecree D grants to the Board o% $ransportation the power to %i4 @ust and reasonable
standards, classi%ication, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be %urnished, imposed, observed,
and %ollowed b5 operators o% public utilit5 motor vehicles# $he overriding consideration in the issuance o%
*emorandum Circular ""022 is the sa%et5 and com%ort o% the riding public %rom the dangers posed b5 old and
dilapidated ta4is# $he 8tate, in the e4ercise o% its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the
health, morals, peace, good order, sa%et5 and general wel%are o% the people# ;t can prohibit all things hurt%ul to
com%ort, sa%et5 and wel%are o% societ5# ;t ma5 also regulate propert5 rights# $he necessities imposed b5
public wel%are ma5 @usti%5 the e4ercise o% governmental authorit5 to regulate even i% thereb5 certain groups
ma5 plausibl5 assert that their interests are disregarded# 9ispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance
o% the Circulars is not violative o% procedural due process# Previous notice and hearing is not essential to the
validit5 o% general rules or regulations promulgated to govern %uture conduct o% a class or persons or
enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise# ;t is impractical to sub@ect ever5 ta4icab to constant and
recurring evaluation to determine its road0worthiness, not to speak o% the %act that it can open the door to the
adoption o% multiple standards, possible collusion, and even gra%t and corruption# A reasonable standard must
be adopted to appl5 to all vehicles a%%ected uni%orml5, %airl5, and @ustl5# $he span o% si4 5ears supplies that
reasonable standard# $he product o% e4perience shows that b5 that time ta4is have %ull5 depreciated, their cost
recovered, and a %air return on investment obtained# $he5 are also generall5 dilapidated and no longer %it %or
sa%e and com%ortable service to the public speciall5 considering that the5 are in continuous operation
practicall5 22 hours ever5da5 in three shi%ts o% eight hours per shi%t# Bith that standard o% reasonableness and
absence o% arbitrariness, the reAuirement o% due process has been met#
14 4n(%o-Fi% *ra&in( v. Lazaro [GR L-)49)8, 2 7e3tember 1983]> a%o 9=i%i33ine "nte(rate& 9ort
7ervice v. Lazaro [GR L-)4966]
En Banc, Gutierre* Jr+ (p): concur, 2 concur in result, 1 too' no part, 1 on lea!e
Fact! 23 contractors, among them the Philippine ;ntegrated Port 8ervices, ;nc# (P;P8;), Anglo0&il $rading
Corporation, Aduana 8tevedoring Corporation, Anda 8tevedoring Corporation, Ben Pa' Port 8ervice, ;nc#,
*anila 8tevedoring and Arrastre 8ervices, ;nc# (members o% the Philippine Association o% 8tevedoring
=perators and Contractors, ;nc# +PA8=C.), competed at the 8outh ?arbor %or the per%ormance o% stevedoring
work# $he licenses o% these contractors had long e4pired when the Philippine Ports Authorit5 (PPA, created b5
Presidential 9ecree <D< + )ul5 !"2., later superseded b5 Presidential 9ecree 7<" +23 9ecember !".<)
took over the control and management o% ports but the5 continued to operate a%terwards on the strength o%
temporar5 permits and hold0over authorities issued b5 PPA# =n 2 *a5 !"1, the Board o% 9irectors o% PPA
passed (esolution D, approving and adopting a set o% policies on Port Administration, *anagement and
=peration# $he PPA adopted as its own the Bureau o% CustomsG polic5 o% placing on onl5 one organi'ation the
responsibilit5 %or the operation o% arrastre and stevedoring services in one port# =n April !7D, President
&erdinand 3# *arcos issued Letter o% ;nstruction DD<0A which, among other things, directed PPA to
e4peditiousl5 evaluate all recogni'ed cargo handling contractors and port0related service operators and to
determine the Auali%ied contractor or operator in order to ensure e%%ective utili'ation o% port %acilities, etc# $his
was %ollowed b5 the PresidentGs memorandum to Col# 3ustaAuio 8# Baclig )r# dated 7 April !7D, directing
submission o% a report on the integration o% the stevedoring operations in *anila 8outh ?arbor and
emphasi'ing the need %or such integration as well as the strengthening o% the PPA in order to remed5 the
problems therein# =n 27 April !7D, the committee submitted its report recommending the award o% an
e4clusive contract %or stevedoring services in the 8outh ?arbor to =cean $erminal 8ervices, ;nc# (=$8;) a%ter
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 10 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
%inding it the best Auali%ied among the e4isting contractors# $he PPA submitted the committee report to the
President, who, on 22 *a5 !7D, approved the recommendation to award an e4clusive management contract
to =$8;# =n 2" )une !7D, PPA and =$8; entered into a management contract which provided, among others,
%or a <05ear e4clusive operation b5 =$8; o% stevedoring services in the 8outh ?arbor, renewable %or another <
5ears# $he Board o% 9irectors o% the PPA gave its approval on 2" )une !7D# =n 23 )ul5 !7D, P;P8;
instituted an action be%ore the Court o% &irst ;nstance (C&;) o% *anila against PPA and =$8; %or the
nulli%ication o% the contract between the two, the annulment o% the DJ o% gross stevedoring revenue being
collected b5 PPA, and in@unction with preliminar5 in@unction# An e40parte restraining order was issued# =n 2
August !7D# with leave o% court, Anglo0&il, et al#, %iled their complaint in intervention# $he motion was
granted and on 22 August !7D, the C&; issued another e40parte restraining order in the case to include
Anglo0&il et# al#, under the bene%its o% such order# =n 3D August !7D, the PPA %iled an urgent motion to li%t
the restraining orders Ein view o% the long dela5 in the resolution o% the in@unction incident and the
countervailing public interest involved#E =n 8eptember !7D, the C&; dissolved, li%ted and set aside the
restraining orders without pre@udice to the CourtGs resolution on the propriet5 o% issuing the writ o%
preliminar5 in@unction pra5ed %or# =n < 8eptember !7D, PPA sent a letter to the /eneral *anager o% P;P8;
in%orming him that due to the li%ting o% the temporar5 restraining order, it was withdrawing P;P8;Gs holdover
authorit5 to operate or provide stevedoring services at 8outh ?arbor e%%ective " 8eptember !7D# Anglo0&il, et
al#, and P;P8;, there%ore, %iled the petitions %or certiorari with preliminar5 in@unction alleging that the li%ting o%
the restraining orders e40parte b5 the C&; was clearl5 e%%ected with grave abuse o% discretion amounting to
lack o% @urisdiction#
"#e! Bhether the issuance o% a Permit to =perate (P$=) depended on the sound discretion, and on the
policies, rules and regulations implemented b5 the latter, or whether the non0issuance thereo% is an unlaw%ul
deprivation o% propert5 rights#
$e%&! &rom the viewpoint o% procedure, there was no grave abuse o% discretion or want o% @urisdiction when
the C&; @udge li%ted e40parte the temporar5 restraining order he had earlier issued also e40parte# 8ubseAuent to
the issuance o% the Auestioned order, the C&; heard the parties on the application %or a writ o% preliminar5
in@unction and, a%ter hearing the partiesG evidence and arguments, denied the application %or the writ# ;t is also
not grave abuse o% discretion when a court dissolves e40parte abuse o% discretion when a court dissolves e40
parte a restraining order also issued e40parte# &urther, the contention that due process was violated resulting to
a con%iscator5 e%%ect on private propert5 is likewise without merit# ;n the %irst place, Anglo0&il, et# al# were
operating merel5 on Ehold0overE permits, which were based on PPA *emorandum =rder (! )anuar5 !"")#
All hold0over permits were b5 nature temporar5 and sub@ect to subseAuent polic5 guidelines as ma5 be
implemented b5 PPA# 8uch should have served as su%%icient notice that, at an5 time, P;P8;Gs and Anglo0&il
et#al#Gs authorities ma5 be terminated# Bhether P;P8;, and Anglo0&il, et# al# would be issued a Permit to
=perate (P$=) depended on the sound discretion o% PPA and on the policies, rules and regulations that the
latter ma5 implement in accordance with the statutor5 grant o% power# $he latter, there%ore, cannot be said to
have been deprived o% propert5 without due process because, in this respect, what was given them was not a
propert5 right but a mere privilege and the5 should have taken cogni'ance o% the %act that since the5 have no
vested right to operate in the 8outh ?arbor, their permits can be withdrawn an5time the public wel%are deems
it best to do so# $hus, unless the case @usti%ies it, the @udiciar5 will not inter%ere in purel5 administrative
matters# 8uch discretionar5 power vested in the proper administrative bod5, in the absence o% arbitrariness and
grave abuse so as to go be5ond the statutor5 authorit5, is not sub@ect to the contrar5 @udgment or control o%
others# ;n general, courts have no supervisor5 power over the proceedings and actions o% the administrative
departments o% the government# $his is particularl5 true with respect to acts involving the e4ercise o%
@udgment or discretion, and to %indings o% %act#
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 11 )