GREGORIO CRESPO VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA

ECIJA
 Crespo is the Municipal Mayor of Cabiao which later on accused
of harassment, abuse of authority and oppression by Pedro
Wycoco.
 Crespo filed a written explanation
 The Provincial Board, without notice, conducted hearing
suspending Crespo of his position
 one's employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right"
ISSUE: WON the issuance of preventive suspension was constitutional
guaranty of due process of law.
HELD: the order of preventive suspension was issued without giving
the petitioner a chance to be heard. To controvert the claim of petitioner
that he was not fully notified of the scheduled hearing, respondent
Provincial Board, in its Memorandum, contends that "Atty. Bernardo M.
Abesamis, counsel for the petitioner mayor made known by a request in
writing, sent to the Secretary of the Provincial Board his desire to be
given opportunity to argue the explanation of the said petitioner mayor
at the usual time of the respondent Board's meeting, but unfortunately,
inspire of the time allowed for the counsel for the petitioner mayor to
appear as requested by him, he failed to appeal."
EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO V. PALANCA
 Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation
may result either from a seizure of the property under legal
process, where it is brought into actual custody of the law, or may
result from the institution of legal proceedings which gives the
court has power over the property under special provisions of the
law.
 Foreclosure of mortgage upon various parcels of real property
situated in the city of Manila.
AIR MANILA VS BALATBAT
 validity of Resolution No. 139 (68) of the Civil Aeronautics Board
in CAB Case No. 1414
 PAL suggested new flight schedule
 On 28 May 1968, the Board issued its Resolution No. 139 (68),
approving DTS-35 for a period of 30 days, effective 1 June 1968,
subject to the conditions that (a) the flight between Manila and San
Fernando, La Union, F210/211 of the same timetable, be operated
daily instead of twice a week as proposed and (b) that all schedules
under DTS-35, for which no previous approval has been granted
by the Board, are to be referred to a hearing examiner for reception
of evidence on its economic justification. After the examiner's
report, several of the proposed flights were approved for 30 days
from 31 July 1968.
 Petition for excess of jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether or not procedural due process was violated by CAB
resolution therefore resulting in grave abuse of discretion.
HELD: No, it can not truthfully be said that the provisional approval by
the Board of PAL's proposed DTS-35 violates the requisites of
administrative due process. Admittedly, after PAL's proposal to
introduce new Mercury night flights (in CAB Case No. EP-1414) had
been referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL
submitted a so-called consolidated schedule of flights, DTS-35, that
included the same Mercury night flights involved in Case EP-1414, and
this was allowed by Board Resolution No. 139 (68).
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY VS CA
 Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, took effect on July 15, 1995.
 The petition argued that the act was self-executory and that no
implementing rules were needed.
