You are on page 1of 6

Secretary of Justice vs. Hon.

January 18, 2000
On January 13, 1977 P.D. 1069 was issued
prescribing the Procedure of the Extradition
of Persons who have committed Crimes in a
Foreign Country. The Decree is founded on
The Doctrine of Incorporation under the
Constitution Art II, Sec 2 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
On November 13, 1994 Justice Secretary
Franklin Drilon signed in Manila the
Extradition Treaty between the Government
of the Philippines and the Government of
U.S.A. It was ratified by the Senate.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice
received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs of U. S. a request for the extradition of
Mark Jimenez to the United States who are
charged in the U.S. with the violation of the
following: conspiracy, attempt to evade tax,
false statement or entry, election
contributions in the name of another.
Pending evaluation of the extradition
documents, Mark Jimenez, through a counsel,
on July 1, 1999, requested copies of the
official extradition request from the U.S.
Government as well as all documents and
papers submitted therewith, and that he be
given ample time to comment on the request
after he shall receive copies of the requested
Mark Jimenez insisted the constitutional
rights particularly the following:
1. the right to be furnished the request and
supporting papers;
2. the right to be heard which consists in
having a reasonable period of time to oppose
the request, and to present evidence is
support of the opposition;
The Depart of Justice Denied the request.
On Aug 6, 1999 Mark Jimenez filed with the
R.T.C against the Secretary of Justice,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director
of the NBI for Mandamus (to compel them to
furnish to Mark Jimenez the extradition
documents.), Certiorari (to set aside the Sec.
of Justice letter dated July 13, 1999),
Prohibition (to restrain the Sec of Justice from
considering the extradition request).
On August 10, 1999 the Hon. Lantion
The Secretary of Justice et al ordered to
maintain the status quo by refraining from

committing the acts complained of.

Thus this petition, arguing that Honorable
Lantion (Presiding Judge of RTC Manila) acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or abuse discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO:
1. by ordering the Secretary of Justice to
refrain from committing the acts complained
of (i.e to desist from refusing Mark Jimenez
access to the official extradition request and
2. Secretary of Justice was unqualifiedly
prevented from performing legal duties under
the extradition treaty and the Philippine
Extradition Law.

WON Mark Jimenez entitlement to notice

and hearing during the evaluation stage
of the proceedings constitute a breach of
the legal duties of the Philippine
Government under the RP-US Extradition
Petition Dismissed.
Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is
ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies
of the extradition request and its
supporting papers, and to grant him
(Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period
within which to file his comment with
supporting evidence.
Under the Doctrine of Incorporation,
rules of international law form part of the
law of the land and no further legislative
action is needed to make such rules
applicable in the domestic sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied
whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situations in which there
appears to be a conflict between a rule
of international law and the provisions of
the constitution or statute of the local
Efforts should first be exerted to
harmonize them, so as to give effect to
both since it is to be presumed that
municipal law was enacted with proper
regard for the generally accepted
principles of international law in
observance of the incorporation clause
in the above cited constitutional

In a situation, however, where the
conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has
to be made between a rule of
international law and a municipal law,
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law
should be upheld by the municipal
courts, for the reason that such courts
are organs of municipal law and are
accordingly bound by it in all
The fact that international law has been
made part of the law of the land does
not pertain to or imply the primacy of
international law over national or
municipal law in the municipal sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation, as applied
in most countries, decrees that rules of
international law are given equal
standing with, but are not superior to,
national legislative enactments.
Accordingly, the principle lex posterior
derogate priori takes effect a treaty
may repeal a statute and a statute may
repeal a treaty. In states where the
Constitution is the highest law of the
land, such as the Republic of the
Philippines, both statutes and treaties
may be invalidated if they are in conflict
with the constitution.
International School vs. Quisumbing
June 1, 2000
Private respondent International School,
Inc. (School), pursuant to PD 732, is a
domestic educational institution
established primarily for dependents of
foreign diplomatic personnel and other
temporary residents. The decree
authorizes the School to employ its own
teaching and management personnel
selected by it either locally or abroad,
from Philippine or other nationalities,
such personnel being exempt from
otherwise applicable laws and
regulations attending their employment,
except laws that have been or will be
enacted for the protection of employees.
School hires both foreign and local
teachers as members of its faculty,
classifying the same into two: (1)
foreign-hires and (2) local-hires.
The School grants foreign-hires certain
benefits not accorded local-hires.

Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate

25% more than local-hires.
When negotiations for a new CBA were
held on June 1995, petitioner Intl School
Aliance of Educators (ISAE), a legitimate
labor union and the collective bargaining
representative of all faculty members of
the School, contested the difference in
salary rates between foreign and localhires. This issue, as well as the question
of whether foreign-hires should be
included in the appropriate bargaining
unit, eventually caused a deadlock
between the parties.
ISAE filed a notice of strike. Due to the
failure to reach a compromise in the
National Conciliation and Mediation
Board (NCMB), the matter reached the
DOLE which favoured the School. Hence
this petition.
WON the foreign-hires should be
included in bargaining unit of localhires.
NO. The Constitution, Article XIII, Section
3, specifically provides that labor is
entitled to humane conditions of work.
These conditions are not restricted to the
physical workplace the factory, the
office or the field but include as well
the manner by which employers treat
their employees.
Discrimination, particularly in terms of
wages, is frowned upon by the Labor
Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair
labor practice for an employer to
discriminate in regard to wages in order
to encourage or discourage membership
in any labor organization.
The Constitution enjoins the State to
protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare, In Section 18,
Article II of the constitution mandates to
afford labor full protection. The State
has the right and duty to regulate the
relations between labor and capital.
These relations are not merely
contractual but are so impressed with
public interest that labor contracts,
collective bargaining agreements
included, must yield to the common

However, foreign-hires do not belong to

the same bargaining unit as the localhires.
A bargaining unit is a group of
employees of a given employer,
comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, consistent
with equity to the employer indicate to
be the best suited to serve the
reciprocal rights and duties of the
parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law.
The factors in determining the
appropriate collective bargaining unit are
(1) the will of the employees (Globe
Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the
employees interest, such as substantial
similarity of work and duties, or
similarity of compensation and working
conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests
Rule); (3) prior collective bargaining
history; and (4) similarity of employment
status. The basic test of an asserted
bargaining units acceptability is whether
or not it is fundamentally the
combination which will best assure to all
employees the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights.
In the case at bar, it does not appear
that foreign-hires have indicated their
intention to be grouped together with
local-hires for purposes of collective
bargaining. The collective bargaining
history in the School also shows that
these groups were always treated
separately. Foreign-hires have limited
tenure; local-hires enjoy security of
tenure. Although foreign-hires perform
similar functions under the same
working conditions as the local-hires,
foreign-hires are accorded certain
benefits not granted to local-hires such
as housing, transportation, shipping
costs, taxes and home leave travel
allowances. These benefits are
reasonably related to their status as
foreign-hires, and justify the exclusion of
the former from the latter. To include
foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with
local-hires would not assure either group
the exercise of their respective collective
bargaining rights.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE
COURSE. The petition is hereby

Aguirre vs. Aguirre

August 15, 1974
Leoncia, Luis, and Luningning Aguirre
filed a petition for review of a decision of
the Court of Appeals that was actually in
favor of them but the petitioners claimed
that it was short of what they should be
entitled to under the law. Respondents
were Vicenta, Felipe, Andrea, Caridad,
Soccoro, Severino (substitute to
deceased father Dominador), Luis
Aguirre Jr. and Cristeta Lamahang, and
the CA. The Court of First Instance of
Batangas acted favorably on the
partition and damages of the properties
among the descendants of the spouses
Gregorio Aguirre and Regina Antolin. But
petitioners appealed to the Court of
Appeals because of the failure of the trial
court to award them damages on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence. But
the CA said this was an error and found
out that the damages suffered by the
petitioners amounted to P1,000 yearly
since 1955. But the dispositive (transfer
of ownership) portion of CA s decision
simply says P1,000 without qualification;
hence the petition for review. The P1,000
represents the value of corn, rice,
mangoes copras, salt, among others
which the plaintiffs were entitled to but
were not able to receive because of
unjustified acts of the defendants. P800
was supposed to have originated from
the properties of Gregorio Aguirre and
Regina Antolin while P200 was supposed
to ha ve come from properties of
Melencio Aguirre and Fructuosa Perez.
Properties of Melecio Aguirre and
Fructuosa Perez included unsurveyed
coconut lands with an area of 500
hectares. The coconut plantation in
Jaybanga, Lobo, Batangas has 3,000 fruit
bearing coconut tress while the rice
lands were cultivated by about 50
families, residing as permanent tenants.
Petitioners received shares of palay, salt,
mangoes, corn only until 1954. In 19 55,
Felipe, Dominador, Caridad and Socorro
divided the 1/6 of the share due the
petitioners and gave these to a certain
Cristeta Lamahang. Aside from the P1,
000 yearly damage, the CA also awarded
attorney s fees of P5, 000; moral
damages of P2, 000; exemplary

damages of P1, 000 and even fees for

expert witness of P500.
Whether the CA erred in sts and costs
Whether petitioners are tied to them as
a result failing to qualify the yearly
damages to petitioners failing to
sentence defendants to pay petitioners
inters entitled to corresponding
adjustment of the amounts grant of the
rise in the dollar exchange rate.
CAs decision was affirmed with
- Yes - The dispositive portion of its
decision simply says P1, 000 without
qualification, which is a manifest
ambiguity, if not inconsistency. There
can be hardly any doubt that it was the
intention of the CA to allow the recovery
of the yearly damages it found out to
have suffered by the petitioners. We
must admit that the delays in the
administration of justice could be
avoided if greater care were taken in the
drafting of the dispositive portions of
- Yes - Petitioners were entitled to
interest at the legal rate from the date of
the judgment of the trial court.
- No - There is no sufficient legal basis
for this.
People vs. Malmstedt
June 19, 1991
Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding
officer of the first regional command
(NARCOM) stationed at camp Dangwa,
ordered his men to set up a temporary
checkpoint for the purpose of checking
all vehicles coming from the Cordillera
Region. The order to establish a
checkpoint was prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles coming from
Sagada were transporting marijuana and
other prohibited drugs. And an
information also was received about a
Caucasian coming from Sagada had in
his possession prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon the bus where
accused was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider

and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and

announced that they were members of
the NARCOM and that they would
conduct an inspection. During the
inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge
on accused waist. Suspecting the bulge
on accused waist to be a gun, the officer
asked for accuseds passport and other
identification papers. When accused
failed to comply, the officer required him
to bring out whatever it was that was
bulging to his waist. And it turned out to
be a pouched bag and when accused
opened the same bag the officer noticed
four suspicious looking objects wrapped
in brown packing tape. It contained
hashish, a derivative of marijuana.
Thereafter, the accused was
invited outside the bus for questioning.
But before he alighted from the bus
accused stopped to get two travelling
bags. The officer inspects the bag. It was
only after the officers had opened the
bags that the accused finally presented
his passport. The two bags contained a
stuffed toy each, upon inspection the
stuff toy contained also hashish.

WON there is a violation of the
constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure.
The Supreme Court held that under
Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a
peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in the presence, the
person to be arrested has
committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is
a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final

judgment or temporary confined

while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to
Accused was searched and arrested
while transporting prohibited drugs. A
crime was actually being committed by
the accused and he was caught in
flagrante delicto, thus the search made
upon his personal effects falls squarely
under paragraph 1 of the foregoing
provision of law, which allows a
warrantless search incident to a lawful
Probable cause has been defined as such
facts and circumstances which could
lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and that the object sought in
connection with the offense are in the
placed sought to be searched.
When NARCOM received the information
that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada
to Baguio City was carrying with him a
prohibited drug, there was no time to
obtain a search warrant.

Morales vs. Paredes

December 29, 1930
Pedro, Rosendo, and Prudencio Gavino
applied for the registration of a parcel of
land situated in the poblacion of the
municipality of San Quintin, Pangasinan,
and on June 23, 1930, the application
was granted and a decision to that effect
rendered. Baltazar Morales, the
petitioner, now claims to be the owner of
the land but was not advised on the
registration proceedings until the early
part of September 1930. He eventually
filed a motion, through his counsel
Nicolas Belmont e, on September 18 in
the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Pangasinan for the re consideration of
the June 23 decision and as the record
shows, the motion may still be pending.

Without dismissal of the motion

mentioned, the movant brought the
present action before the Supreme Court
(SC) praying that the aforesaid decision
be set aside and that a new trial be
granted in accordance with Section 513
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether Mr. Morales has legal
contention in his petition filed at the SC.
No - The plaintiff has unfortunately
mistaken his remedy. Assuming without
deciding that the allegations of fraud in
his complaint are true, the proper
remedy is to petition for a review under
Section 38 of the Land Registration Act
(LRA). The plaintiffs contention that
such review cannot be made until the
final decree has been issued is not in
accordance with the view adopted by the
SC as can be gleaned in the case of
Rivera vs. Moran (48 Phil., 836), wherein
it was pointed out by the court that Sec.
38 of the LRA, which provides that a
petition for review of such a decree on
the grounds of fraud must be filed within
one year after entry of the decree , be
given further reflection and that what it
meant would have been better
expressed by stating that such petitions
must be presented before the expiration
of one year from the entry of the decree.
Statutes must be given a reasonable
construction and there can be no
possible reason for requiring the
complaining party to wait until the final
decree is entered before urging his claim

Obiter Dictum - A remark made, or

opinion expressed, by a judge, in his
decision upon a cause, "by the way,"
that is, incidentally or collaterally and
not directly upon the question before
him, or upon a point not necessarily
involved in the determination of the
cause, or introduced by way of
illustration, or analogy or argument,
lacks the force of an adjudication and
should not be regarded as such.
of fraud. The plaintiff s view of the
extent of actions under Sec. 513 of the
Co de of Civil Procedure is erroneous.
The SC had no jurisdiction to reopen
judgments under that section if other

adequate remedies are available, and

such remedies are not lacking in the
present case. The case is therefore
dismissed by the SC with the costs
against the plaintiff.