You are on page 1of 8

Antonette R.

Bachelor of Laws I-E

Constitutional Law I Case Digest

Larena et al., vs. Rubio
G.R. No L-16215, February 6, 1992
Asuncion Larena, appellant, is a natural daughter of the deceased Demetrio Larena
begotten by another woman at the time when both were free and could have contracted
marriage. Appellant was born in 1880 and living with her father till 1889 when the Civil Code
took effect, enjoying the status of a daughter. She reachedthe age of majority in 1901 and her
father died in 1916 without any effort on her part to look for acknowledgment as a natural child
which she had lost in view of Article 1327 of the New Civil Code.
a. Whether or not the new Civil Code can retroact in the case at bar.
a. No, the Civil Code is not applicable to the case at bar. The law at that time, tacit
acknowledgment is sufficient to give the appellant the status of a natural child. The
transitory provision of the new Civil Code declare that the changes introduced by it
when prejudicial to the rights acquired under the former law shall regulate all the
rights arising under it. Since appellant is an acknowledged child, she has the right to
participate in the inheritance left by Demetrio Larena.
Ernesto Callado vs. International Rice Research Institute
G.R. No. 106483, May 22 1995
Petitioner was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). On
February 11, 1990, while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident. After evaluating
petitioner's answer, explanations and other evidence by IRRI's Human Resource Development
Department Manager, the latter issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner.
Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension
and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Private respondent
likewise informed the Labor Arbiter, that it enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article
3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges
as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the
same. The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, the NLRC set aside such, and the
complaint was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
a. Whether or not IRRI waived its immunity from suit in this dispute, which arose from an
employer-employee relationship.
a. No, IRRI did not waived its immunity. IRRI's immunity from suit is undisputed.
Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3 which provides that it shall enjoy immunity from
any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has

Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner. a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. as represented by the Papal Nuncio and other defendants. acting as agent to the sellers. The . the country has adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent. Hon. Transfer Certificate of Title No. Starbright Sales Enterprises. The Holy See is immune from suit.been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives. 390440) located in the Municipality of Parañaque. Respondent contended that the petitioner shed off its sovereign immunity by entering into the business contract in question. saying that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit.. Eriberto U.R. Its immunity is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity. Petitioner answered. Eustaquio Balagtas G. It merely wanted to dispose of the same because the squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business. 1994 Facts: Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome. Petition dismissed. Even without this affirmation. et al. such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations.. Jr. The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup. Held: a. Italy. through Msgr. No. Whether the petitioner Holy See is immune from suit from its act of entering into a contractual relations centering on the sale of lot to a private person.R. Jean L.000 square meters (Lot 5-A. Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent. Holy See is immune from suit in the case at hand. Arnault vs. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. Cirilos. The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character. 1995 Facts: Petitioner. Inc. Rosario. Issue: a. G. July 30. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. Respondent filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale of the land and damages against the petitioner. and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio.appellee was an Atty-in-fact of Ernest H. 101949. The Holy See vs. December 1. but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. Private respondent. The donation was made not for commercial purpose. Domingo A. The petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6. No. Yes. L-6749. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana). Later.

b. Petition dismissed. Because of such. Issue/s: a. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16. the interim assembly. On investigation. by mere giving of the name or identity of person whom the price was given and that the petitioner withheld the identity arrogantly and contumaciously in continued affront of the Senate’s authority and dignity. 1976 Facts: The President. The Senate found that the petitioner-appellee did not disclose. The Senate then adopted Resolution No. the powers of such replacement. COMELEC G. President issued Presidential Decree No. ordered his continued confinement and detention until he purged himself of the contempt to satisfaction or until order of the Senate. 114 which states that herein appellee has not purged himself of contempt. Sanidad vs. the committee ordered to the custody of the former until such time that he reveal to the Senate the pertinent answers. Whether or not the court can declare to continued confinement ordered by the Senate an abuse of legislative power. its replacement. to resolve. While in confinement. No.Senate of the Philippines created a special committee to determine whether the purchase was valid and the price was fair and just. appellee executed an affidavit wherein he already gave the details of the issue. The petitioner-appellee may be held in contempt by the Senate. the issues of martial law. herein appellee refused to answer the question to whom part of purchase price was delivered. b. The courts cannot encroach because it would be a violation of the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution. The courts cannot declare the continued confinement as an abuse of the legislative power because it is a valid exercise of the latter’s discretion to accomplish legislative ends. Held: a. The Senate has the authority to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry to compel him to give information by reason of its coercive power. After which it was amended by declaring the provisions of PD No. filed a Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum . on September 27. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in “barangays” applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite. Ferdinand E. among other things. which was then denied by the court. L-44640. stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendumplebiscite where it recites in its “whereas” clauses that the people’s continued opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment. He then filed petition for certiorari and argue that the Senate has no power to punish him for contempt because it lacks authority and it is beyond the term of legislative session. 1976. Then. The resolution is coercive in nature and the Senate committee still demands and requires the disclosure of facts which petitioner refused to divulge. the period of its existence. 1033.R. the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present powers. issued Presidential Decree No. 1976. for the Citizens Assemblies. Yes. Whether or not the special committee senate can hold the petitioner appellee in contempt. 1976. Marcos. October 12. The petitioners. on September 2.

A. there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution. It was recommended to the Director and Secretary of Public Works by the NTC in pursuance of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. b. Yes. a function normally exercised by the legislature. it promotes social justice. the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis. Issues: 1. As a consequence. Whether or not the question of the constitutionality of the Presidential Decrees political in nature. Whether or not the rules and regulations under CA No. They claimed under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. But such social justice is to be adhered not through a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization. Calalang then assailed its constitutionality arguing that executing the act delegates legislative power. is seriously doubted. which is but adjunct. December 2. for the resolution prohibiting animal-drawn vehicles from passing Rosario Street extending to Dasmarinas Street from 7:30am to 12:30 pm and 1:30 to 5:30pm and also along Rizal Avenue to Echague Street from 7:00am to 11:00pm for a period of 1 year from the date of the opening of Colgante Bridge to traffic. Maximo Calalang vs. 47800.R. Williams G. 548 is constitutional. the power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly. Issue/s: a. Held: a. It is the promotion of the welfare of all the people. the rules and regulations under CA No. 548. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the issue is not a political question but rather a justiciable one.D. Yes. The President also has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. It cannot be directly discharged by the Assembly therefore some other government official is needed for implementing the said law. Public welfare lies at the bottom of the enactment of the act. It does not delegate legislative power to the respondents. Whether or not the rules and regulations promote social justice. although peculiar. It was then enforced by Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief. The Solicitor General declared that the question is political in nature so that court cannot take cognizance on it and that the President has the authority to exercise constituent power. 2. 548 is constitutional. to its gross legislative power. wherein the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly. 1940 Facts: Petitioner Calalang. As pointed out. It is founded on the . so. The public policy merely carried out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in the said Act. This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals of amendments. Whether or not the President can validly propose amendments to the Constitution. No. a private citizen and taxpayer of Manila filed petition for a writ of prohibition against respondents.Plebiscite on October 16.

The NLRC dismissed appeal. 1988. L-49678. Held: a. Senior meter Celi. Romeo Flores vs. the accusation was proved and petitioner paid the amount due to him and admitted all the charges against him. the adoption of Labor Code has retroactive effect in purview of social justice and protection to labor as stated in the Constitution. After several investigations. Yes. starting from 1953. Petitioner was dismissed from service. Inc. March 2. Social justice ensures economic stability of all components of the society. protecting those who are less favored in life. Allied Investigation Bureau. G. 1993 Facts: Petitioner was employed by private respondent MERALCO on May 16. 1979 Facts: Herein petitioner filed a petition for certiorari against respondents assailing that private respondent Velasquez was entitled to retirement benefits from November 1. 282 of the Labor Code where employer may terminate an employee for serious misconduct or willful disobedience and fraud or . Sometime in October. The public respondents validly computed the amount under Sections 13 and 14 Book IV of the IRR of the Labor Code. he assailed that he had already paid the differential billings and the penalty of dismissal is too harsh considering the 21 years of his service. 1974 when the present Labor Code became effective and not from May 1953. He then filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter which the latte dismissed. et. Hon. Held: a. vs. Public respondents ruled for Velasquez entitling him to Php 7. al. hence this petition.R. 96969. 1967 until dismissal on July 18. invoking social justice.R. Upon appeal. Yes. No. NLRC and MERALCO G. petitioner is validly dismissed in the light of social justice. June 29.762.recognition of the necessity of interdependence among diverse units of society and their equal protection bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number. No. found that petitioner and his neighbor were using electric meters different from the official electric meter issued to them which was then reported to the Special Presidential Committee of respondent. Petition dismissed. Blas Ople. Whether or not petitioner is validly dismissed in the light of social justice. The LA and NLRC validly dismissed the petitioner in accordance with Art. Issue/s: a.50 computed at the rate of one half monthly salary per year of service. Petitioner was a former teller and lineman of the latter. The assumption that laws should not be given retroactive effect is overruled by the police power legislation intended to promote public welfare and interest. Whether or not the adoption of the present Labor Code has retroactive effect in light of social justice. from the time of his service. Issue/s: a.

The Bureau of Customs is part of the Department of Finance. Yes. unit of the Bureau of Customs. The Court of First Instance ruled for the defendants. The former delivered to the broker of the consignee only three cases of the shipment. slightly deaf. Merritt vs.R. light weakness in the eyes and impaired mental condition which resulted to his incapacity to do work as a contractor. Held: . being a part of the national government. Petition dismissed. vs. According to the doctor. riding on a motorcycle. he had fractures in the skull. In the intersection. Decision of LA and NLRC affirmed. upon crossing Taft Avenue was struck by the Chauffer of the General Hospital ambulance. As the collision is a tort committed by an agent of the government. Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. cannot be sued. It was discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service. the latter without having sounded any whistle. Whether or not defendants are immune from suit. Those who invoke social justice must come with clean hands. No. Issue/s: a.R. L-11154 Facts: Plaintiff. No. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau of Customs G. the question arises whether the latter is liable to the damages sustained by the plaintiff. Because of the collision. Government of the Philippine Islands G. arrastre service is a necessary incident of the function of the Bureau. December 17. L-23139.breach of trust. Whether or not the Government is legally-liable for the damages as when it authorize the plaintiff to file a suit against it. E. Petitioner then filed a suit against the Customs Arrastre and BOC to recover the value undelivered. will not be lightly inferred. Also the policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoings simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. contraction and curvature in the leg. The Government issued Act 2457 authorizing the plaintiff to bring suit against it and the Atty-General to appear in the said suit. and with this. 1966 Facts: Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad consigned to herein petitioner. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on ground that not being persons under the law. which is lacking on the part of petitioner. Issue/s: a. Petition dismissed. Waving state immunity from suit are strictly construed and that waiver being in derogation of sovereignty. handling arrastre operations. They should prove that they are worthy of such. The appellant contends that defendants discharge proprietary functions and can be sued by private individuals. Its primary function is governmental. plaintiff was so severely injured. Held: a. The fact that a non-corporate government entity performs proprietary functions in nature does not necessarily result in it being suable. BOC and Customs Arrastre are imunne from suit.

b. There is a strong indication that the driver was driving at a high speed and failed to caution proper speed limit in the urban area. performing nongovernmental function. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Sup. L-55963 & L-61045. Respondent then assailed that the agency do not owe any liability because the driver is not a special agent. The Act does not operate to extend government’s liability to any cause not recognized. the Government is not liable.Also called the doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents. NIA is not immune from suit.a. Doctrine of State Immunity . then driven officially by Hugo Garcia an employee. and being negligent should answer the consequences of his act. 4. Whether or not respondent is liable to damages incurred Held: a. b. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet . Yes.The doctrine that states that the rules of Intl. Art. Petitioner filed a suit claiming for damages in connection with the death of their son and judgment was rendered in favor of the latter. rather a regular one. 2. DOCTRINES 1. due to the latter’s negligence or fault. As such. 2. regular driver. respondent is liable to the petitioner. Court. Whether or not respondent is immune from suit.An equal has no power over an equal. 1989 Facts: A pick-up owned and operated by respondent NIA a government agency. It is a government corporation and not a mere agency of the government. Hon. Law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to make them applicable to a country. No. because Sec. Inocencio Maliaman and National Irrigation Administration G.R Nos. Paragraph 5 of Article 1903 of the Civil Code limits the responsibility of the State for damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of their functions. The doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. bumped a bicycle ridden by petitioner’s son and one Deligo along Maharlika Highway. 3. is liable for the torts of agents within the scope of their employment. liability can be imputed to it caused by its driver-employee. The Philippines follows this doctrine. The act promulgated authorizing the plaintiff to file suit simply gives authority to commence suit for the purpose of settling plaintiff’s controversies. Doctrine of Incorporation . It performs proprietary functions. II of the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Doctrine of Stare Decisis . which generally. Spouses Fontanilla vs. No. December 1. Issue/s: a. There is negligence of supervision in the selection and supervision of the driver. Fontanilla’s son died later.

the state has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability.The doctrine [referring] to the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection of the person and property of a person non sui juries. not in a state's own courts. Delegata Potestas Non Potest Delegari . Concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. . 7. 8.- 5.Is a Latin phrase. Doctrine of judicial supremacy. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state. and the courts will not sit in judgment of another government's acts done within its own territory. Principle of right of revolution is the right or duty. Act of State Doctrine .” One who has the power or authority from another to do an act must do it himself/herself as this is a trust or confidence reposed in that person personally. of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests.The doctrine recognizing that the judiciary is vested with the power to annul the acts of either the legislative or the executive or of both when not conformable to the fundamental law. “No delegated powers can be further delegated. . which states. 9. . It cannot be assigned to stranger whose ability and intergrity might not be known to the principal. Under that doctrine. Doctrine of Parens Patriae (father of his country). 6.” It is also known as delegatus non potest delegare which means “one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power.States that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state. previously stated throughout history.