TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R.

MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 155076 February 27, 2006

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, Petitioner, vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 150, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES& PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Respondents.

FACTS
Baynet Co., Ltd. Is being sued for network fraud. Laurel is the board member and
corporate secretary of Baynet. 2 other filipinos and two japanese composed the board.
(Baynet) sells "Bay Super Orient Card" which uses analternative calling patterns called
International Simple Resale (ISR). ISR is a method of routing and completing
international long distance calls using International Private Leased Lines (IPL), cables,
antenna or air wave or frequency, which connect directly to the local or domestic
exchange facilities of the terminating country (the country where the call is destined).
The operator of an ISR is able to evade payment of access, termination or bypass
charges and accounting rates, as well as compliance with the regulatory requirements
of the NTC. Thus, the ISR operator offers international telecommunication services at a
lower rate, to the damage and prejudice of legitimate operators like PLDT.
Search warrants were issued against baynet through PLDT's complaint. The seach was
followed by an inquest investigation. The prosecutor found probable cause for THEFT
and filed Information. After preliminary investigation the information was amended to
include Laurel and the other members of the board for THEFT using ISR.

ISSUE
Whether or not international telephone calls using Bay Super Orient Cards through the
telecommunication services provided by PLDT for such calls, or, in short, PLDT’s
business of providing said telecommunication services, are proper subjects of theft
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD
RTC denied MQ MR denied. Petition for Certiorari with CA, dismissed. SC, granted.The
petition is meritorious.An information or complaint must state explicitly and directly every
act or omission constituting an offense and must allege facts establishing the conduct.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 202666               September 29, 2014

RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA,
Petitioners, vs. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and
JOHN DOES, Respondents.

FACTS
Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s
College (STC), Cebu City. Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their
swimsuits for a beach party they were about to attend, Julia and Julienne, along with
several others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments.
These pictures were then uploaded by Angela on her Facebook profile.
At STC, Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher at STC’s high school department,
learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted pictures online, depicting
themselves from the waist up, dressed only in brassieres.  Escudero then asked her
students if they knew who the girls in the photos are. In turn, they readily identified Julia
and Julienne, among others.
Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students logged in to their respective personal
Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the identified students, which include: (a)
Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia
and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually
the entirety of their black brassieres.
Also, Escudero’s students claimed that there were times when access to or the
availability of the identified students’ photos was not confined to the girls’ Facebook
friends, but were, in fact, viewable by any Facebook user.
Investigation ensued. Then Julia, Julienne and other students involved were barred
from joining the commencement exercises.

ISSUE
Whether or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy
in the life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case. 

HELD
No. The Supreme Court held that STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to
privacy as the subject digital photos were viewable either by the minors’ Facebook
friends, or by the public at large.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

 G.R. No. 127930               December 15, 2000 

MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC., PETITIONER, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, JASPER BRIONES, JEROME GOMEZ, RELLY CARPIO, ELIZABETH
VALDEZCO, JOSE MARI RAMOS, CAMILLE PORTUGAL, JOEL TAN AND GERALD
GARY RENACIDO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS
Following the publication of the September-October 1994 issue (Vol. 41, No. 14) of
Miriam College's school paper (Chi-Rho), and magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan
ng Chi-Rho), the members of the editorial board, and Relly Carpio, author of Libog, all
students of Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the
Miriam College Discipline Committee. The Letter dated 4 November 1994 informed
them that letters of complaint were "filed against you by members of the Miriam
Community and a concerned Ateneo grade five student have been forwarded to the
Discipline Committee for inquiry and investigation.

ISSUE
Whether Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act prevents the right of the school to
reprimand its students.

HELD
The court upheld the right of students for the freedom of expression but it does not rule
out disciplinary actions of the school on the conduct of their students.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 205728               January 21, 2015

THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD, REPRESENTED BY THE MOST REV. BISHOP
VICENTE M. NAVARRA and THE BISHOP HIMSELF IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY,
Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE ELECTION OFFICER OF
BACOLOD CITY, ATTY. MAVIL V. MAJARUCON, Respondents.

FACTS
On February 21, 2013, petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a private compound
housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. Each tarpaulin was approximately six
feet (6′) by ten feet (10′) in size. They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral
within public view. The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law”
referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. 10354. The
second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. This tarpaulin contains the heading
“Conscience Vote” and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check
mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark. The electoral candidates were
classified according to their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise
known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted against it form “Team
Buhay.”

ISSUE
1. Respondents’ orders directives to remove or cause the removal of the
subject Team Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void for infringing on
petitioners’ right to freedom of expression on their own private property.
2. Respondents’ orders/directives to remove or cause the removal of the
subject Team Patay Tarpaulin are unconstitutional and void for violating the
principle of separation of Church and State enshrined in Section 6 of Article II of
the 1987 Constitution.

HELD
1. No. The Court ruled that the present case does not call for the exercise of
prudence or modesty. There is no political question.
2. Still no. The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not proper in this case.
3. No. The Court held that all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political
parties.
4. Yes. The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political consequences
enjoys a high degree of protection.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. L-30774               January 29, 1929

PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE SOTTO
and V. R. ALINDADA defendants. V. R. ALINDADA, appellant.

FACTS
Petitioner Corporation contracted with Austin Craig for the preparation and publication
of an original article to be written by him concerning Mrs. Jose Rizal, to be published
exclusively in the Philippine Education Magazine. Craig delivered and article to
petitioner entitled “The True story of Mrs. Rizal” which was published by the petitioner in
its magazine. In said issue, the plaintiff placed a notice that “all rights thereto were
reserved.” Said article was copied and reproduced and published in the weekly issues
of The Independent without citing the source of its reproduction. Upon the discovery of
such publication, plaintiff called the defendants attention to the fact that the article in
question was published without permission or even the courtesy of an ordinary credit
line.
The editor, in answer to the letter sent by plaintiff, claimed that as the plaintiff had not
registered the rights on the article under the Copyright Law, any newspaper can reprint
the article of Craig without permission from anybody. The article was again published in
the next issue of The Independent.

ISSUE
Whether or not the article entitled “The True Story of Mrs. Rizal,” became public
property because the plaintiff failed to have it registered in its name under the Copyright
Law, and as such may be reproduced or published without the plaintiff’s consent?

HELD
In no place does Act No. 3134 attempt to define the right of literary property in
uncopyrighted matter. Its subject matter is copyright and means of acquiring copyright.
Heretofore the only way of acquiring an exclusive right to reproduce published matter
was to effect copyright. But under the interpretation which the court now places upon
this law, there now is another way to acquire the same exclusive right, which is simply
not to take copyright but merely to reserve the right of publication.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

GR No. 133486               January 28, 2000

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS
The Resolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly upon "information from [a] reliable
source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to
conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections x x x and to make [an] exit survey of the x x
x vote during the... elections for national officials particularly for President and Vice
President, results of which shall be [broadcast] immediately."
The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec
count, as well as the unofficial... quick count of the National Movement for Free
Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized Petitioner ABS-
CBN to undertake the exit survey.

ISSUE
"Whether or not the Respondent Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a
restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any [other group], its agents or...
representatives from conducting exit polls during the x x x May 11 elections."

HELD
The absolute ban imposed by the Comelec cannot be justified. It does not leave open
anyalternative channel of communication to gather the type of information obtained
through exit polling.On the other hand, there are other valid and reasonable ways and
means to achieve the Comelec end ofavoiding or minimizing disorder and confusion
that may be brought about by exit surveys.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 155282            January 17, 2005

MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD
(MTRCB), petitioner, vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION and LOREN
LEGARDA, respondents.

FACTS
ABS-CBN aired "Prosti-tuition," an episode of the television (TV) program "The Inside
Story" produced and hosted by respondent Legarda. It depicted female students
moonlighting as prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. In the course of
the program, student prostitutes, pimps, customers, and some faculty members were
interviewed. The Philippine Women’s University (PWU) was named as the school of
some of the students involved and the facade of PWU Building at Taft Avenue, Manila
conspicuously served as the background of the episode. The showing of "The Inside
Story" caused uproar in the PWU community. Dr. Leticia P. de Guzman, Chancellor and
Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents and Teachers Association filed letter-
complaints3 with petitioner MTRCB.
Acting on the letter-complaints, the MTRCB Legal Counsel initiated a formal complaint
with the MTRCB Investigating Committee, alleging among others, that respondents (1)
did not submit "The Inside Story" to petitioner for its review and (2) exhibited the same
without its permission, thus, violating Section 74 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
19865 and Section 3,6 Chapter III and Section 7,7 Chapter IV of the MTRCB Rules and
Regulations respondents explained that the "The Inside Story" is a "public affairs
program, news documentary and socio-political editorial," the airing of which is
protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press.

ISSUE
Whether “The Inside Story” is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of
expression and of the press. If certain provisions of P. D. No. 1986 and the MTRCB
Rules and Regulations specified by respondents contravene the Constitution.

HELD
Clearly, the "The Inside Story" cannot be... considered a newsreel.  It is more of a public
affairs program which is described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure
television news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions.
Certainly, such kind... of program is within petitioner's review power. Respondents were
merely penalized for their failure to submit to... petitioner "The Inside Story" for its
review and approval.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. L-19550             June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS and KARL
BECK, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE; JOSE LUKBAN, in his capacity as Acting Director, National Bureau of
Investigation; SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PEDRO D. CENZON, EFREN I. PLANA
and MANUEL VILLAREAL, JR. and ASST. FISCAL MANASES G. REYES; JUDGE
AMADO ROAN, Municipal Court of Manila; JUDGE ROMAN CANSINO, Municipal
Court of Manila; JUDGE HERMOGENES CALUAG, Court of First Instance of Rizal-
Quezon City Branch, and JUDGE DAMIAN JIMENEZ, Municipal Court of Quezon
City, respondents.

FACTS
Upon application of the officers of the government, Respondents-Judges — issued on
different dates a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the
corporations of which they were officers, directed to the any peace officer, to search the
persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences, and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit:
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and
profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) as "the subject of the
offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended
to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is described in the
applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
Petitioner contends that the issued search warrants were null and void as having
contravened the Constitution and the Rules of Court for, among others, it did not
describe the documents, books and things to be seized PARTICULARLY.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the search warrant has been validly issued.
2. Whether or not the seized articles may be admitted in court.

HELD
With regard the search issued in the corporation – valid; with regard the search in the
houses – void.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 122846               January 20, 2009

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION and STA. MESA
TOURIST & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs.CITY OF MANILA,
represented by DE CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, Respondent.

FACTS
In 1992, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law the Ordinance No. 7744 that prohibits
hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments from
offering short-time admission, as well as pro-rated or “wash up” rates or other similarly
concocted terms, in the City of Manila.

The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the
covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike.

Petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC) et. al. filed a petition on the ground that the
Ordinance directly affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and
motels in Manila.

ISSUE
Whether or not the ordinance is constitutional.

HELD
No. The ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. It also
violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure.
TENDERO, KARLA BIANCA R. MAY 23, 2020

G.R. No. 107383             February 20, 1996

CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO
MARTIN, respondents.

FACTS
Cecilia Zulueta is the Petitioner who offset the private papers of his husband Dr. Alfredo
Martin. Dr. Martin is a doctor of medicine while he is not in his house His wife took the
157 documents consisting of diaries, cancelled check, greeting cards, passport and
photograph, private respondents between her Wife and his alleged paramours, by
means of forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet. Cecilia Zulueta filed the papers for
the evidence of her case of legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of
medicine against her husband.
Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of the documents and papers and for
damages against Zulueta, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. the trial
court rendered judgment for Martin, declaring him the capital/exclusive owner of the
properties described in paragraph 3 of Martin’s Complaint or those further described in
the Motion to Return and Suppress and ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her
behalf to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as
nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney’s fees; and to pay the
costs of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional
Trial Court. Zulueta filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE
The papers and other materials obtained from forcible entrusion and from unlawful
means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separation and
disqualification from medical practice. 

HELD
The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction
declaring “the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s
infidelity, who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced.