761.1 Spouses Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

FACTS: A complaint for damages was filed by petitioners against private respondents Pan American World
Airways, Inc. (Pan Am), Tourist World Services, Inc. (TWSI), Julieta Canilao (Canilao), and Claudia Tagunicar
(Tagunicar) for expenses allegedly incurred such as costs of tickets and hotel accommodations where
petitioners were compelled to stay in Hong Kong and then in Tokyo by reason of the non-confirmation of their
booking with Pan Am. The RTC (of Manila) held the defendants jointly and severally liable, except defendant
Julieta Canilao. Only respondents Pan Am and Tagunicar appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the
appellate court rendered judgment modifying the amount of damages awarded, holding private respondent
Tagunicar solely liable therefor, and absolving respondents Pan Am and TWSI from any and all liability. It held
that Tagunicar was not authorized to confirm the bookings of, nor issue validation stickers to, herein
petitioners and hence, Pan Am and TWSI cannot be held responsible for her actions. Finally, it deleted the
award for actual damages for lack of proof. Hence this petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the RTC complied with the constitutional requirement prescribed in
Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution?

RULING: No. The trial court’s finding of facts is but a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses and the
documentary evidence by the parties. It did not distinctly and clearly set forth, nor substantiate, the factual
and legal basis for holding respondents TWSI, Pan Am and Tagunicar jointly and severally liable. As was set in
Del Mundo v. CA, xxx In the case at bar, the decision of the trial court leaves much to be desired in both form
and substance. Even while said decision infringes the Constitution, we will not belabor this infirmity and rather
examine the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the petitioners. For failing to explain clearly and well the
factual and legal bases of its award of moral damages, [the court] set it aside in said case.

MAIN POINT: Once more, we stress that nothing less than Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution
requires that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based." This is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. In
the case at bar, the decision of the trial court leaves much to be desired both in form and substance.

762.1 Kao v. Court of Appeals

FACTS: Pilipinas Kao, Inc. is a corporation engaged in multiple areas of registered activity, or has a number of
projects registered with the Board of Investments (BOI). Batas Pambansa 391 (Investment Policy Act of 1983),
providing, among others, for tax incentives for new and expanding export producer. Petitioners availed of
these tax incentives through registration of its expanded production capacity, which BOI approved and issued
a resolution granting the application for tax credit but only in the reduced amounts, as well as applications for
the succeeding year of tax credit. Notified of the BOI’s decision, petitioner requested for a reconsideration but
was continuously denied.
Petitioner then filed with the Honorable Supreme Court a motion for extension of time to file petition
pursuant to Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code. However, the Supreme Court issued a resolution
referring the instant petition to respondent Court of Appeal; which dismissed the petition for review "on
technical and substantive grounds.” The Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the BOI and sustained the
reduction of credits on net value earned and net local content applied for by the company in 1988 and 1989.
Consequently, petitioners filed petition to set aside decision of the Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not BOI rendered a decision within the meaning of its own rules which requires that the
decision in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based?

RULING: No. Respondent BOI did not render a decision in the manner prescribed by its own rules and the law.
Lacking the essential attribute of a decision, the acts in question were at best interlocutory orders that did not
attain finality nor acquire the effects of a final judgment despite the lapse of the statutory period of appeal.
Indeed, a judicious and well-reasoned resolution of the questions peculiar in their fields of expertise, carries a
strong persuasive effect and will go a long way in easing the courts burden. In the context of what the law
and its own rules prescribe, as well as our applicable pronouncements, the BOI Resolution, as well as its
Letters did not qualify as decision, absent a clear and distinct statement of the facts and the law to support
the action.
MAIN POINT: Although, resolutions provided by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies carries a strong
persuasive effect and will go a long way in easing the courts burden. It is not a decision contemplated in the
law, and has no legal effects as such.

763.1. People v. Pastor

FACTS: Accused-appellant, Pastor, was charged with the crime of Incestuous Rape to his 13-year old daughter
at the time of the incident; that she had a premature delivery and her baby died five days after birth. Upon
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty but later changed his statement to guilty. The trial court ordered that the
previous plea of not guilty be set aside and that accused-appellant be arraigned anew. The court a quo
rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape.
It nevertheless recommended the commutation of the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua by reason of
the remorseful attitude exhibited by accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant avers that the trial court gravely erred in not applying the guidelines for a plea of guilty to a
capital offense. Specifically, it is contended that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused-appellant's plea, pursuant to the
ruling laid down in the cases of People vs. Bello and People vs. Dayot.

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of trial court complies with the constitutional requirement prescribed in
1987 Constitution?

RULING: No. A perusal of the decision of the trial court will reveal that the judge failed to state the factual
and legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's conviction. The judge merely stated that the
complainant xxx her father (the accused in this case), without her consent, forcibly obtained carnal knowledge
with her, which resulted in her being pregnant." He then concluded that the lone testimony of the victim, if
credible, is enough to sustain a conviction, and made a bare recital of Article 266B of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 8353. There is no discussion of the facts of the case and the qualifying circumstances
alleged in the information, in utter disregard of the constitutional injunction that "no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based."

The judgment appealed from is SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings in
accord with the guidelines set forth in this Decision.