NAVOTAS POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE

Bangus St., Cor Apahap St., Brgy. NBBS, Navotas City

Name Date:

Year/Course/Section: Prof:

“MHP Garments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeal”

Decades have passed, people are always protected by law. The Constitution is created to
put the power in the hands of the people (constitutioner.com, 2020). In the Philippines, leaders
always made their move to change its supremacy and the main purpose is to serve as the
protected barrier for the people. On the other boundary, others see it as an abusive power, Power
to create and manipulate law for their benefits. Different faces can define the meaning of Law
and the importance of the Constitution in the government. The way they will define it is based on
their experience of how the constitution founded their life. The Republic of the Philippines is
now under Democratic government. It improves transparency and accountability in the public
and private sectors; increasing support for democratic rights and freedoms (cipe.org, 2020). The
system of the government revolves around three separate and sovereign yet interdependence
branches; Legislative branch, Executive branch and judicial branch (philembassy, 2020). Under
Judicial branch is the concept of appeal that requires its existence (Britannica, 2020). Philippine
appellate courts may either be regional, for cases originating from municipal or city courts, or
national, for cases originating from regional courts (Lexology, 2020). The Court of Appeals
exercises Jurisdiction which affiliate judgments, decisions, and resolutions under the Supreme
Court. In 1901,Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission established the Supreme Court of the
Philippines.

The constitutional protection of our people against unreasonable search and seizure is not
merely a pleasing platitude. It vouchsafes our right to privacy and dignity against undesirable
intrusions committed by any public officer or private individual. An infringement of this right
justifies an award for damages. In the year 1983 of the month of February, petitioner MHP
Garments INC., was awarded by the boys scout of the Philippines to exclusively franchise, sell
and distribute official Boys Scouts Uniforms, supplies, badges, and insignias. In their
Memorandum Agreement, petitioner corporation was given the authority to “undertake or cause
to be undertaken the prosecution in court of all illegal sources of scout uniforms and other
scouting supplies.”1983 in the month of October, petitioner receives information that private
respondents such as Agnes Villa Cruz, Mirasol Lugatiman, and Gertrudes Gonzales were selling
Boy scout items and paraphernalia without any consent of authority. Petitioner De Guzman, one
of the employees under the petitioner corporation, was tasked to undertake the necessary
surveillance and make a report to the Philippine Constabulary. At 10:30 AM in the year 1983 of
October, Petitioner De Guzman, Captain Renato M. Peñafiel, and the two other constabulary
men of the Reaction Force Batallion, Sikatuna Village, Diliman, Quezon City went to the stores
of respondents at the Marikina Public Market. As they went there, they seized all boys and girls
scout pants, dresses, and suits on display without any appearance of a warrant to prove the arrest.
The seizure provokes commotion and causes several embarrassments to the private respondents.
Receipts were issued for the item that was seized. All of the things that were confiscated are
turned over by Captain Peñafiel to Petitioner Corporation for safekeeping. The unfair
competition of the criminal complaint against private respondents was then filed. The sum of
Three Thousand one Hundred pesos (P3,100.00) that was exacted from private respondent
Lugatiman by Petitioner De Guzman, during its pendency was in order to be dropped from the
complaint. After the Preliminary Investigation in the year 1983 month of December, the
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal dismissed the complaint against all the private respondents. In 1984
during the 6th day of February, he also ordered to return all the items that were seized but most of
them were not immediately returned despite the demands of that request. Just to recover the
goods, three private respondents had to go personally to the petitioners’ place of business. Even
the personal business did not work, as the seized items did not all return. Those items that are
only returned are of inferior quality.

The case was filed under the Civil Case No. 51144 by the Private respondents against the
petitioner for sums of money and damages. Ninth day of the first month of 1987, in its decision
the trial court ruled for the private respondents, thus:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants,

ordering the latter jointly and severally: virtual 1aw library

1. To return the amount of P3, 100.00 to plaintiff Mirasol Lugatiman with interest at 12% per
annum from January 12, 1984, the date of the last receipt issued, until fully paid;

2. To pay plaintiff Agnes Villa Cruz the sum of P2, 000.00 for the 26 pieces of Girl scouts items
not returned.

3. To pay plaintiffs the amount of P50, 000.00 for and as moral damages and P15, 000.00 for and
as exemplary damages; and

4. P5, 000.00 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Cost against the defendants.

 The Court of Appeal has solid evidence regarding the illegal marketing of Boys and Girls
scout items without any consent and how they prove that it violated the rule. They also do the
same as they seized the items without the document that the judicial court permits to seize them.
The main issue not only faced on how the MHP Garments Inc, violated the law but also how the
government acted as they executed the law. As the rights of people to protect from unreasonable
search and seizure of Article III, section 2 of the constitution provides; The right of the people to
be secured in their houses, papers, and against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature for any purpose. It shall be inviolable and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath of affirmation of the complainant. The witness may produce and
particularly describe the place to search and the persons or things to seize. The said provision
did not only protect those who appear to be innocent but also those to be found guilty but are
nevertheless to be presumed innocent until it was proven. In the Case pertaining to the Complaint
of MHP, the seizure was performed without any document that proves the judicial court gave
permission to do so. Under the Rules of Court, a warrantless search can only permit under the
following circumstance. According to Section 12, search incident to a lawful arrest under the
Philippine Constitution: A person lawfully arrested may search for dangerous weapons or
anything, which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
As the right written in the form of the constitution, the judicial court did not pay attention to it as
they executed the law. The Court of Appeal gets a hold of the evidence that the MHP Garments
INC., were illegally selling Boy scouts items and paraphernalia. The issue initially diverts on the
warrantless search.

Under Section 1, rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure; Arrest is defined as “the
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense” (divinalaw.com, 2018). Courts must issue a warrant or otherwise the arrest will be
considered illegal. However, the releasing of the warrant may affect the arresting of the criminals
and those who oppose the laws. Thus, it made consideration in which the constitutions make
changes about arresting criminals through warrants. The Law authorized the circumstances of
arresting with the given manner and the situations. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides that “a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person
without a warrant”

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.”
 The arrest that stated above shall not be considered illegal as the law revised it and made
them act without the permit of the judicial court. However, the seizure that the Court of Appeal
does without the permission of the judicial court is considered as illegal and thus violated the
existing rule. The MHP Garment Inc., did not commit a crime as it was committing the actual
crime. The illegal selling of the items without the Authority is not yet proven thus investigates
the said Market. Any of the stated above is the circumstances where the Supreme Court should
act without permit. As the case regarding MHP Garments Inc., the circumstances are not
qualified to arrest without the warrant that permits the Court to seize all the items that are heard
to be illegal. The arresting officers may prosecute for the crime of Arbitrary Detention under
Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes any public officer or employee who,
without legal grounds, detains a person. From the moment that the arrested person must bring in
the custody of the law, he must be affording his rights under the law. Section 12, Article III of
the Philippine Constitution; “Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.” It also provided further that “no torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.”

As the main issue tackled as well as the law that seems violated, the decision of the Court
of Appeal seems to be rather similar like the statement stated above. The decision is appeal to the
respondent court. Year 1989 18th day of January, its Fifth Division affirmed the Decision
following the modification thus;

"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION; and, as

modified, the dispositive portion thereof now reads as follows;

Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs (private respondents) and against defendants
(petitioners), ordering the latter jointly and severally;

1.  To return the amount of P3, 100.00 to plaintiff (respondent) Mirasol Lugatiman and cancel
her application for distributor's license;

2.  To pay plaintiff (respondent) Agnes Villa Cruz the sum of P2, 000.00 for the unreturned 26
pieces of girl scouts items with interest at 12% per annum from June 4, 1984 (date the complaint
was filed) until it is fully paid;

3.  To pay plaintiffs (respondents) the amount of P10, 000.00 each, or a total of P30, s000.00, for
and as moral damages; and P5, 000.00 each, or a total of P15, 000.00, for and as exemplary
damages; and

4.  To pay plaintiffs (respondents) P5, 000.00 for and as attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Costs of the case a quo and the instant appeal are assess jointly and severally against defendants-
appellants (petitioners) MHP Garments, Inc. and Larry de Guzman.

SO ORDERED

In this petition for certiorari, petitioners contend:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF  ERROR

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TO THE

PETITIONERS WHO DID NOT AFFECT THE SEIZURE OF THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF  ERROR

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT MADE A FINDING THAT THE MANNER
WITH WHICH THE CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WAS TORTIOUS BUT
PENALIZED INSTEAD THE PETITIONERS WHO DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT OF
CONFISCATION.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT  OF ERROR

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
AND AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

Thus the Supreme Court affirmed that the constitution is protected according to the article
III, section 2 of the Philippine Constitution from any unreasonable search and seizure which
provides; The right of the people to be secured in their houses, papers, and against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose. It shall be inviolable
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to
determine personally by the judge after examination under oath of affirmation of the
complainant. The witness may produce and particularly describe the place to search and the
persons or things to seize. Perhaps it did not appear to protect the innocent as it was also
protected who is not yet guilty until the contrary is proven. As the rule of Law provides the
written constitution that, a warrantless search can only undertaken under the following
circumstance that was mentioned in Sec. 12

The complainant holds that the evidence did not justify the warrantless search and seizure
of private respondents' goods. Petitioner Corporation received information that private
respondents were illegally selling Boy Scouts items and paraphernalia in October 1983. The
specific date and time is not parallel in the evidence adduced by the parties. Petitioner de
Guzman then made a surveillance of the stores of private respondents. They reported to the
Philippine Constabulary and on October 25, 1983, the raid occurred on the stores of private
respondents and the supposed illicit goods were all seized. The progression of time between the
receipt of the information and the raid of the stores of private respondents shows that there was
sufficient time for petitioners and the PC raiding party to apply for a judicial warrant. Despite the
sufficiency of time, they did not apply for a warrant and seized the goods of private respondents.
In doing so, they took the risk of a suit for damages in case the seizure would probably prove to
violate the right of private respondents against unreasonable search and seizure. In the case at the
bench, the search and seizure were clearly illegal. There was no probable cause for the seizure.
Probable cause for a search has defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." These facts
and circumstances were not in any way shown by the petitioners to justify their warrantless
search and seizure. Indeed, after a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal
dismissed their complaint for unfair competition and later ordered the return of the seized goods.

Petitioners would deflect their liability with the argument that the Philippine Constabulary
was the one who conducts the raid and their participation was only to report the alleged illegal
activity of private respondents. While undoubtedly, the members of the PC raiding team should
have been included in the complaint for violation of the private respondents' constitutional rights,
still, the commission will not exculpate petitioners. In the case of Lim vs. Ponce de Leon,
the ruled for the recovery of damages for violation of constitutional rights and liberties from
public officer or private individual, thus;

Article XXXII of the Philippine Constitution stated that any public officer or employees or any
private individuals who directly or indirectly obstruct, defeat, violate or in any manner impede
or impair any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter
of damages.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also adjudge. In Article
2219, Moral damages may recover in the following and analogous cases;

(a) Illegal search;

(b) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

Pursuant to the foregoing provisions, a person whose constitutional rights that have been
violated or was impaired is entitled to actual and moral damages from the public officer
or employee responsible therefore. In addition, exemplary damages may also award.

Article XXXII nature is about the wrongdoings of the civil and criminal. Therefore, it is
not necessary that there should be malice or bad faith. To defeat and make such a requisite would
defeat the main purpose of Article XXXII in which it affects the protection of individual rights.
Abuses of power of the Public servant in the past has a pretext of justifiable motives or good
faith in their duties performances. Accurately, the object of the Article is to end ties to the
officials who abuse their power by plea of the good faith. While it was unquestionably expected
to be naïve that the violators of human rights would easily discouraged by the prospect of facing
damages suits, it should however be made clear under the certain term that Article XXXII of the
Civil Code makes the person who they are directly as well as the indirectly responsible for the
transgression joint tortfeasors.

Neither can it say that only those who show to have participated “directly” should be held
liable. Article XXXII of the Civil Code encompasses within the ambit of its provisions those
directly, as well as indirectly, responsible for its violations. Applying such a fore cited provisions
and leading cases, the court respondent granted correctly to the damages to private respondents.
Petitioners were indirectly involved in transgressing as the rights of private respondents were up
against unreasonable search and seizure. First, they instigated that the raid pursuant to their
covenant in the Memorandum Agreement is to undertake the prosecution in court of all illegal
sources of scouting supplies. As the observation was correctly, performed by the respondent
court.

"Indeed, the acts committed by the PC soldiers of unlawfully seizing Apelles' (respondents')
merchandise and of filing the criminal complaint for unfair competition against
Apelles (respondents) were for the protection and benefit of appellant (petitioner) corporation.
Such being the case, it is, thus, reasonably fair to infer from those acts
that it was upon appellant (petitioner) corporation's instance that the PC soldiers  conducted t
he raid  and effected  the illegal seizure. These circumstances should answer the trial court's
query posed in its decision now under consideration as to why the PC soldiers immediately
turned over the seized merchandise appellant (petitioner) corporation.”

The conduction of raid was grasps with the active participation of the Court of Appeal
employees. Larry De Guzman did not lift a finger to stop the seizure of the boy and girls scout
items as he was standing by and apparently assenting there, he was capable to do the same as the
officers themselves. So with the Petitioner Corporation in which even received for safekeeping
the goods unreasonably seized by the PC raiding team and De Guzman, and refused to surrender
them for quite a time despite the dismissal of its complaint for unfair competition. Second, the
Letter of Instruction No. 1299 was initially crafted on year of 1983 9th of March, to safeguard to
those who not only holds a privilege of franchise of scouting items but also whose wit citizen’s
in constitutional rights.

Law that constitutes the government as it serves as the protected barrier of the citizen
must not be violated, because the eye of the human can read the tale of the human who was once
a tiger. As the Decision was decided I, the Author of this essay had the same decision in which
stated above. Both MHP Garments Inc. parties and the Court of Appeal have a side in which they
violated the existing law. Both transgress the given constitutions, as they did not pay attention to
the written moral. The other party who is involved in the case can execute law and the other is
the one who violated the law. The main issue did not face existing rule that the MHP Garments
violated but instead the Court of Appeal decision as they execute their Authority without
processing and following the constitutions procedure. It was significant to distinguish if the
officials who work under government are truthfully doing their work, in their case they have time
to process the permit that allows them to seize in the Market but did not do as they go there
directly because someone tipped them. It is our right to protect from any abusive action as well
as the searching of properties without permission. We cannot just allow anyone to pass inside our
home without permission, as we have the right to make privacy of our own. No one must keep
silent when someone steps over the boundary of yourself, we must make our move and continue
to fight, because those who abuse are the one who let them abuse. We are all fighting in a Battle
Ground, those who shout for freedom and rights versus the one who abuse the rights and
freedom. Those who have no guts to shouts for their voices are losers and those who win the
fight are the winners. Keep the Constitution right and make the Law as our peace in mind.
REFERENCES:

https://www.digest.ph/decisions/garments-vs-ca

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/rachellosophy.wordpress.com/2020/03/11/mhp-garments-vs-
court-of-appeals/amp/

https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/constitution-faqs

https://www.cipe.org/what-we-do/democratic-governance/

https://www.philembassy.no/the-philippine-government#:~:text=This%20system%20revolves
%20around%20three,the%20leadership%20of%20the%20president.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/appeal

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64db53b5-a186-4427-88c2-d4260ec0dff7

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/387/

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1994septemberdecisions.php?id=804

https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/warrantless-arrest-unwarranted-arrest/

https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c7e50