Republic vs.

Sandiganbayan
Facts:

01/25/2016

 Pres. Aquino issued E.O. No. 1 creating PCGG to recover the ill
gotten wealth of Marcos and his immediate family, relatives,
subordinates, and close associates. In turn, PCGG, thru
Chairman Salonga created the AFP Anti-Graft Board in order to
investigate reports of unexplained wealth of AFP personnel
AFP Board investigated Maj. Gen. Ramas. The resolution is
issued stated that Ramas had houses in QC and Cebu City.
They also found equipment and communication facilities and
large amount money in the home of Elizabeth Dimaano
(allegedly his mistress)
PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against
Ramas
Prosecution kept on delaying in submitting the evidence
Private respondents moved to dismiss based on Republic vs.
Milagrino PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute military officials without sufficient evidence showing
that they are subordinates of Marcos
Note seizure happened five days after EDSA.
Issue:
WoN the search and seizure of the items from Dimaanos home
was legal
No. The search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms
and Ammunition. They seized items not in the search warrant. Money,
jewelry, and even land titles. Even the EDSA I was extraconstitutional
which rendered the 1973 Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights,
inoperative. The Declaration and the Covenant still applied.
Framers of the 1973 and 1987 Constitution were fully aware
that the sequestration orders would clash with the Bill of
Rights. They used language to recognize the validity of the
sequestration orders.

WoN the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of

Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum. (NO)
WoN the protection accorded to individuals under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant)
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained in effect
during the interregnum.

 Yes. The revolutionary government assumed the responsibility

of the Covenant, to which the Philippines is a signatory. No
one should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence. No one
deprived of property.
During the interregnum, w/o BOR, directives were valid as
long as officers did not exceed authority given to them by de
jure government. The warrant was only valid for the items it
specified.
Facts:
PBMEO decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacanang
against the alleged abuses of Pasig police (to be participated by the
workers from the three shifts)
Management was informed, however the company wished that the
demonstration should not unduly prejudice the company, thus those
who belonged to the first shift who should fail to report to work
would be dismissed since this amounted to an illegal strike.
Workers appealed, and the company insisted that the workers from
the 2nd and 3rd shift should be the one utilized.
Workers proceeded with the demonstration. Company charged them
of violating the CBA (No strike No Lockout)
o Workers claimed it was not a strike since they asked
permission and they were not directing protest against their
employer
o Judge ruled against workers (lost status of employee) bad
faith in bargaining
COURT:
The said demonstration was purely and completely an exercise of
their freedom of expression and their right of assembly (duty of
company to protect them)
To rule otherwise would inhibit free speech and harm constitutional
guarantees
If 1/3 (1st shift) did not attend, circulation would be affected;
company could save in other ways
Facts:
Andre Marti (accused) and common law wife went to Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders to ship a package to Zurich
Switzerland. He refused to have the packages inspected by the
owner.

Before the delivery to Customs, the other proprietor followed SOP

and opened the boxes for inspection, and found a pecuiliar odor. He
sent samples to NBI. NBI went to his office and he removed the
items from the package in the presence of NBI agents.
Accused claimed his constitutional rights were violated.

May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellants

constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?
No.
In the absence of government interference, the liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
The constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure
refers to immunity against the govt. The protection applies to
governmental action.
The search was done by a private citizen as part of SOP.
BOR protection against the State. BOR governs the relationship
between the individual and the State.
Facts:
Petitioner is an international flight steward (58 166 pounds
ideally). Unfortunately he was overweight
The company over the course of a few years, constantly gave him
chances and resources to get his weight under control. It came to a
point where he failed to report to the scheduled check-ups that the
company asked him to attend. The company dismissed him,
prompting him to file a case of illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter ruled that he was illegally dismissed weight did not
hamper performance of duties. He could have been transferred to
other positions. Furthermore, other overweight employees were
promoted instead of being disciplined.
NLRC affirms LA decision claimed obesity was a disease in itself
and there was no intentional defiance.
CA reversed NLRC, ruling that the weight standards were a
continuing qualification for an employees position. Relevant
question is not the willingness but the reasonableness. BONA FIDE
Occupational qualification
Court:
Obesity of petitioner is ground for dismissal
No proof that he was discriminated. He pointed out names of other
overweight attendants

Equal Protection does not apply, because in the absence of govt

interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked.
Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against private individuals.
Equal protection is not a shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions can never violate the
equal protection guarantee.

Petitioner entitled to separation pay

Facts:
The Manalo brothers were allegedly captured and tortured by
military officials due to their supposed connection with the NPA.
Eventually after 18 months, they were able to escape.
CA ruled in their favor
Writ of Amparo exercise of Courts expanded power to promulgate
rules to protect our peoples constitutional rights, which made its
maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to ML.
o Addresses extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
Amparo literally means protection in Spanish. Serves both
preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
Court:
WoN respondents are entitled to the right of the writ of amparo
Yes. Movements continue to be restricted for fear. There still is a threat
of respondents rights to life, liberty, and security. Still a direct violation of
their right to security of person.
Purpose of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures is to prevent violation of private security in
person and property
The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal
guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility
requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive
proceedings.
8. The right to security of person is freedom from fear.

11. While the right to security of person appears in conjunction with

the right to liberty under Article 9, the Committee has ruled that the right
to security of person can exist independently of the right to liberty.
In other words, there need not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty
for the right to security of person to be invoked.
Habeas corpus case find; Manguines Tribe (imprisonment for those
who did not comply)
Due Process
(1)
there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the powers
of the legislative department
(2)
The law shall be reasonable in its operation
(3)
Enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
(4)
Must apply equally to all citizens of the state
Liberty is not just liberty but liberty regulated by law
For due process, proceeding is not always necessary

Facts:
RA 1180 (An Act Regulating the retail trade of the Philippines)
regulating the retail business by nationalizing it was challenged to
be unconstitutional
o Prohibits persons, not citizens of PH, and corp not wholly
owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or
indirectly in the retail trade
o Exception for aliens already engaged in business on May 15,
1954, (allowed to continue to engage) unless their licenses
are forfeited or their death (heirs only have 6 months after
their death to continue and only for the purposes of
liquidation) or voluntary retirement. Juridical persons (10
years after) or expiration
o Exception: US Bell Trade Act and parity amendment,
Petitioners Contention:
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Act:
o Denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and
deprives of their liberty and property without due process of
law
o Subject not expressed in title
o Act violates international treaty obligations against hereditary
succession

Petitioner says threat of alien dominance is imagined. The law is

merely the result of radicalism and pure unabashed nationalism.
o The fear of alien control is imaginary
COURT:
The police power is far reaching, as we cannot foresee the needs
and demands of public interest and welfare in this constantly
changing and progressive world. Since the constitution does not
define its scope and content it sets forth limitations
Limitations due process and equal protection
o Universal in application and are not limited to citizens
o Equal protection is against undue favor; anti discrimination;
like should be treated alike.
The way aliens and nationals were distinguished was
justified
o Due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of
legislation (TEST IS ALWAYS REASON)
There was reason since this was done to prevent the
Filipino economy to be run by aliens
Law enacted for economic survival (aliens do not really make
contribution to wealth)
o Alleged alien control and dominance. Although Filipinos are
greater in number, aliens have greater assets and gross sales
(6x those of Filipino retailers)
o They could organize and gain economic, fixing of prices,
determination of amount of goods, and even the choice of
goods to be sold. Lead to dislocation of the national
economy. Fear of complete subservience!
Law not unreasonable because it was made to operate prospectively
(aliens already in business were allowed to continue).
Note: Legislative discretion is not subject to judicial review
Treaty on Declaration of Human Rights is a common standard of
achievement recommendation. Treaty of Amity between China
and Philippines all it guarantees is equality of Chinese nationals
and nationals of other countries. Not discriminated, since all
countries citizens (except US), are also prohibited.
o Treaty is always subject to qualification
o Treaty does not curtail police power
Facts:
Chinese Bookeeping Act charged to be invalid. (ACT 2972)

Petitioner was charged for violating it. (Bookkeeping must be done

in English, Spanish, or other known dialect) But he and many other
Chinese merchants do not know how to speak/ write in any other
language aside from Chinese
Petitioners claim that they are deprived due process and denied
equal protection
The Court noted that the language was plain and it would be
dangerous to interpret it in any other way since it was a penal
statute (medyo gulo pa)

Court:
The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public
interests, arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose
unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations
Law is oppressive to Chinese; limits what is indispensable to their
business operations

Facts:
Claudio Yap was employed as electrician of the vessel SeaScout.
Contract was for a duration of 12 months.
3 months later The vessel was sold; Yap insisted that he was
entitled to the wages equivalent to the remainder of his contract,
(9 months) claiming he was illegally dismissed
LA: favor of yap; respondents had bad faith when they failed to
heed plea of petition for re-embarkation, entitled to remaining
wages
NLRC affirmed, but stated that he was only entitled to three
months worth of wages, since Sec 10(8) of RA 8042 (3 months for
every unexpired year); reconsidered it M4R there was no full
year of an unexpired term
CA: 3 months
Serrano vs. Gallant Maritime Services declared the clause for three
months to be unconstitutional
Unconstitutional because it imposes a 3 month cap on OFWs with a
year or more in their contracts, but no 3-month caps on others
Singles out some OFWs and burdens them; furthermore there is no
govt purpose for it
Declaration applies retroactively since the doctrine of operative only
applies in matters of equity and fair play

Tanker Allowance should be included in computation of the lump sum

salary, because it was not stated to be a bonus in the contract but part of
the overtime wages
Facts:
Ordinance No. 4760
Said to be valid. Case defined DP to be freedom from arbitrariness
Need to fill out prescribed form in a lobby open to public view
o Provide additional information of customer and companions
o Premises open for inspection Mayor, Chief of Police, etc.
o Increase in license fees
Lower court declared it null nad void
ISSUES:
Unconstitutional for being unreasonable and violative, arbitrary, vague,
COURT:
The decision must be reversed
No evidence to offset presumption of validity
Police power may regulate to minimize certain practices that are
immoral
Sense of reasonableness was present
Facts:
JULIO POMAR
G.R. No. L-22008
November 3, 1924
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JULIO POMAR, defendant-appellant.
Araneta and Zaragoza for appellant.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
Facts:

The accused who was the manager and person in charge of La Flor de
la Isabela, a tobacco factory pertaining to La Campania General de Tabacos
de Filipinas, employed a woman named Macaria Fajardo as cigar-maker,
whom he granted vacation leave for the reason of her pregnancy. However
the accused unlawfully failed to pay the sum of eighty pesos (P80) to which
she was entitled as her regular wages during her leave corresponding to
thirty days before and thirty days after delivery and confinement as
mandated by Section 13 of Act. 3071. Sec 15 of the same act punishes
whoever violates the said provisions to a fine or imprisonment. The said Act
was promulgated in the exercise of its supposed police power to safeguard
the health of pregnant women and to ensure reasonable support before and
after delivery.
Issue:
Whether or not the provisions of Section 13 and 15 of Act 3071 is a
constitutionally valid exercise of the police power of the state.
Ruling:
The provisions of section 13 of Act No. 3071 were held unconstitutional
and void for it violates the constitutional right to liberty of the employer and
employee in accordance to their own terms. In section 13, it will be seen
that no person, firm or corporation owning or managing a factory shop, or
place of labor of any description, can make a contract with a woman without
incurring the obligation, whatever the contract of employment might be,
unless he also promise to pay such woman employed, who may become
pregnant, her wages for thirty days before and thirty days after
confinement. In other words, said section creates a term or condition in
every contract made by every person, firm, or corporation with any woman
who may, during the course of her employment, become pregnant, and a
failure to include in said contract the terms fixed to a fine and imprisonment.
Clearly, therefore, the law has deprived, every person, firm, or corporation
owning or managing a factory, shop or place of labor of any description
within the Philippine Islands, of his right to enter into contracts of
employment upon such terms as he and the employee may agree upon. The
law creates a term in every such contract, without the consent of the
parties. Such persons are, therefore, deprived of their liberty to contract.
The constitution of the Philippine Islands guarantees to every citizen his
liberty and one of his liberties is the liberty to contract.

Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, the

complaint is hereby dismissed, and the defendant is hereby discharged from
the custody of the law
Facts:
Challenges validity of the Manila City Ordinance Prohibiting ShortTime Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-up Rate
Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses
and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila.
RTC declared the ordinance as null and void since it strikes at the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed and jealously guarded
by the Constitution.
o People could just pay the full time rate anyway
CA reversed the RTC decision did not violate the right to privacy
or the freedom of movement, because it penalizes only the owners;
there was a lawful order done thru the lawful method.
Court:
3rd party standing
compared with Ermita-Malate case:
o both were enacted with a view of curbing illicit activity
procedural vs. substantive due process
o procedural procedures that the govt must follow before it
deprives a person of life, liberty, and property
o substantive see if there is sufficient justification for
deprivation
2 standards of judicial review (to test validity of ordinance on
substantial due process grounds):
o strict scrutiny laws dealing with the freedom of the mind
o rational basis standard for economic legislation
The ordinance could bar legitimate sexual behavior between
married couples and consenting single adults which is
constitutionally protected
There are other legitimate uses that would be barred by the statute.

Facts:
Supervisor (Doria) and Employee (Perez) worked in Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company, specifically in the shipping
section.
There was an unsigned letter alleging anomalous transactions in the
shipping section. PT&T formed a special audit team to investigate.

It was discovered that petitioners (suspects) increased the value of

the freight costs for goods shipped, since there was inconsistencies
with the duplicates.
After they were implicated, they were placed on a preventive
suspension (for 30 days) extended 15 days twice. (total of 60
days)
On a memorandum issued by PT&T, petitioners were dismissed
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal
dismissal
LA: ruled in favor of petitioners
NLRC: reversed LA, since they were illegally suspended for only 15
days, and that they were dismissed for just cause
CA: affirmed NLRC with regards to just cause for dismissal, but this
was devoid of due process.

Court: RULES IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS

Respondent failed to prove just cause and to Observe due process
There was no proof that the petitioners were the only possible
people to have committed the crime
They werent afforded the twin requirements of (2)notice and
hearing.
o The first appraises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought
o Second informs the employee of the employers decision to
dismiss him
Decision: Petitioners should have separation pay
Facts:
Respondent is the IBP governor and EVP who had three cases filed
against him
o Committed moral turpitude while in California by stealing
money intended for his client
o Re: Oathtaking as National President of the IBP (he stated
untruthful word and blatant with regards to the IBP Board and
the petition questioning RA 9227 which was withdrawn by the
IBP)
o The validity of his removal as governor

Petitioner contends that he should not be removed since he did not

violate any law, thus there is no basis. Furthermore his removal as EVP was
without due process, since there was no notice.
Petitioner wanted to cite admin case as res judicata for his
No. A.C. No. 6052 is not a bar to the filing of
the present administrative case.
The first administrative case was one of disqualification
while this case was about suspension and/or disbarment
Although the parties were identical, their capacity and
issues are not the same, thus it is not res judicata
The second issue: His residency. Since he is originally from
Paranueque but he was elected as Governor in Mindanao so as to attain high
position
No. Because according to the rules, a lawyer can register with a
particular IPB chapter of choice
Third issue: Due process
IBP observed due process in its removal of Atty. De Vera as
Governor
Pursuant to Sec 44, Atrtcile 6 of the IBP by-laws the Board is vested
with the power to remove any of its members for cause
Position of EVP is not property, since there is no right to security of
tenure
Hearing is not really required, since administrative cases are
different from judicial. In certain hearings of administrative matters,
the hearing is not essential to due process.
Facts:
Ang Tibay (OWNER) v CIR (1940) 69 Phil 635

J. Laurel

Facts:
Toribio claimed to have laid off workers due to the shortage of
leather soles in the Ang Tibay factory.
In pursuit of a retrial in the Court of Industrial
Relations, the national labor union, the respondent,
averred:
1. The shortage of soles has no factual basis
2. The scheme was to prevent the forfeiture of his bond
to cover the breach of obligation with the Army

3. The letter he sent to the army was part of this

scheme
4. The company union was an employer dominated one.
5. laborers rights to CBA is indispensable.
6. Civil code shouldnt be used to interpret a legislation
of American industrial origins.
7. Toribio was guilty of unfair labor practice for favoring
his union.
8. Exhibits are inaccessible to respondents.
9. The exhibits can reverse the judgment.
Issue: Is the Court of Industrial Relations the proper
venue for the trial?
Held: Yes. Case remanded to the CIR
Ratio:
There was no substantial evidence that the exclusion of
the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or
activity.
The nature of the CIR is that of an administrative court
with judicial and quasi-judicial functions for the purpose
of settling disputes and relations between employers
and employees. It can appeal to voluntary arbitration
for dispute. It can also examine the industries in a
locality by order of the president.
There is a mingling of executive and judicial functions,
which constitutes a departure from the separation of
powers.
The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly
constrained by technical rules of procedure, and is not
bound by technical rules of legal procedure. It may also
include any matter necessary for solving the dispute.
The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial
Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity
of certain procedural requirements does not mean
that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely
ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and
investigations of an administrative character.
Some examples that it must follow are:
1. right to a hearing

2. consideration of evidence by the court

3. duty to deliberate implies a necessity which
cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
something to support it is a nullity, a place when
directly attached
4. substance of evidence and the non-binding
aspect of judicial decisions in an admin court so
as to free them from technical rules
5. the decision must be rendered at the evidence
presented at the hearing. The court may also
delegate some powers to other judicial bodies.
6. The court must act on its own decision at
reaching a controversy. It mustnt merely accept
the views of a subordinate.
7. The court must clearly state the issues and the
rationale for the decision.
The record is barren and doesnt satisfy a factual
basis as to predicate a conclusion of law.
Evidence was still inaccessible.
The motion for a new trial should be granted and sent
to the CIR.