Angara Vs Electoral Commission

Jose P Laurel

He was assigned as ASSOCIATE JUSTICE of the Supreme Court in 1936.

After his successful tenure as one of the sponsors of the 1935 constitution, a
Commonwealth Government was instituted and Dr. Jose P. Laurel would be appointed as
one of the Associate Justice of the Supreme court in February 1936.
His term as a associate justice would prove to be fruitful in the development of Philippine
Jurisprudence, as his penned decisions would still be relevant for present law practitioners
and students. 

Jose Angara

He won the 1935 election as an assemblyman for the province of Tayabas defeating rival
Pedro Ynsua.

Facts:

In the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and the respondents,
Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of
member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas.
On October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as
member-elect of the National Assembly for the said district, for having received the most
number of votes.            
On November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office.
On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session assembled, passed resolution no. 8
that sets the last day for filing electoral protest.
On Dec. 8, 1935, Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest"
against Angara and praying, among other things, that Ynsua be named/declared elected
Member of the National Assembly or that the election of said position be nullified.
On December 08, 1935, Pedro Ynsua filed an Electoral Protest to the Electoral Commission
to remove Angara from his post and be replaced by Ynsua himself.
On Dec. 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted resolution (No. 6) stating that last day
for filing of protests is on Dec. 9, 1935. Angara  contested the decision and said that the
Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Electoral Commission solely  as regards
the merits of contested elections to the National Assembly and the Supreme Court
therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Electoral Commission convened that the last day of filing Electoral Protest.

Main Issue:

The two sides are disputing whether or not the Supreme court has jurisdiction over the
Electoral commission and on the electoral controversy.
 They also wanted to see whether or not the Electoral commission acted within its power and
jurisdiction
Wether or not the Electoral Commission went beyond its mandated power and if the
Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over the issue and the Electoral Commission.

Court Decision:

In cases of conflict between the several departments and among the agencies thereof, the
judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism
devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries.
Judicial supremacy is the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the
government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.
Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and
functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative
than to any of the other two departments of the governments.
Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly.
Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional
prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Pedro
Ynsua against the election of the herein petitioner Jose A. Angara
The resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935 can not in any manner toll the
time for filing protests against the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the
Electoral Commission might prescribe.
In view of the conclusion reached by us relative to the character of the Electoral
Commission as a constitutional creation and as to the scope and extent of its authority
under the facts of the present controversy, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether
the Electoral Commission is an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person within the
purview of sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JPL STATES THE FOLLOWING:

That in cases of the conflict between the several departments and among the judiciary, with
the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally
to resolve the conflict.
Judicial supremacy is the power of Judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch, or agency transcends
the constitution.
The Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returning
and qualifications of members of the National Assembly.
The Supreme Court sided with the Electoral Commission and allowed the Electoral Protest
filed by Pedro Ynsua.
 Jose Angara won the 1935 elections as assemblyman for the province of TAYABAS.
The SUPREME COURT sided with the Electoral Commission and allowed the electoral
protest file by Ynsua.
When did Ynsua filed a motion or an electoral protest against Jose Angara? DECEMBER 8,
1935.

MARCOS VS NALUNDASAN
People of the Philippines vs. Marcos (1938) The Assassination of Julio Nalundasan

Facts:

Dec. 7, 1938, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo was
prosecuted for the murder of Julio Nalundasan, a political rival of the Marcoses that won
against Mariano Marcos twice in the local assemblyman elections in Batac, Ilocos Norte.
The Marcoses filed eight separate cases of false testimony against a certain Calixto
Aguinaldo, the main witness for the murder case.    
The Marcoses filed those eight complaints when only Lizardo’s trial had commenced while
their trial has yet to begin. This led for them to be charged with contempt of court.
Ilocos Norte’s Court of First Instance found Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos
and Ferdinand Marcos guilty of contempt of court in 1939. Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino
Lizardo were both found guilty for the murder of Julio Nalundasan and were punished with
death penalty.

Key Issue:

The Marcoses and Lizardo appealed to the supreme court that the Ilocos Norte trial court has
committed the following errors:

The trial court erred in according greater credibility to the prosecution witnesses.
The trial court erred in convicting two and acquitting two accused upon the same evidence.
The trial court erred in considering the character of Quirino Lizardo against the accused.
The trial court erred in not crediting the electoral censo, Exhibit 84 for the defense, with any
probative value. lawphil.net
The trial court erred in denying the motions of the accused for a reopening and a new trial.
The trial court erred in finding the four accused- appellant guilty of contempt.

Court Decision:

The Court found that the claims of the witness Calixto Aguinaldo were unreliable and
therefore acquits Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo from the murder case of Julio
Nalundasan.
However, the supreme court upheld the decision of the local trial court in charging the
Marcoses and Lizardo guilty of Contempt but the court decided to lower the fine from 200
pesos into 50 pesos.
 JULIO NALUNDASAN- KATUNGALI NI MARIANO MARCOS SA PAGKA ASSEMBLYMAN
MARIANO MARCOS- KATUNGALI NI JULIO NALUNDASAN
PIO MARCOS- KAPATID NI MARIANO MARCOS
FERDINAND MARCOS- PANGANAY NA ANAK NI MARIANO MARCOS
QUIRINO LIZARDO- TOP NOTCHER AT BAR EXAM (1939) BAYAW NI MARIANO MARCOS
NICASIO LAYAOEN- UNANG SUSPEK

"Ang batas ay likha lamang ng tao, kaya't malimit ay may kamalian"

CALALANG VS WILLIAMS
Maximo Calalang

A private citizen and as a taxpayer of Manila,

Brought before this court this petition for a writ of prohibition against the respondents.

Respondents:

A. D. Williams- Chairman of the National Traffic Commission

Vicente Fragante-Director of Public Works
Sergio Bayan- Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications
Eulogio Rodriguez- Mayor of the City of Manila
Juan Dominguez- Acting Chief of Police of Manila.

Petition

Recommend to the Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario
Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmarinas Street from 7:30 a. m. to
12:30 p. m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30p. m. and along Rizal Avenue extending from the
railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street from 7 a. m. to 1 p.m.

Timeline

It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17.
1940 resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications.
The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18. 1940 recommended to the
Director of Public Works with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works.
August 2. 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the approval of the
recommendations made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission with
modifications.
August 10. 1940. The Secretary of Public Works approved the recommendations.
Issue no. 1

Petition is unconstitutional
The Legislative can't delegate their power to make laws to the Department of Works and
Communications.

Supreme Court's counterargument Issue no. 1

The provisions of section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 648 do not confer legislative power
upon the Director of Public Works and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules
and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but
merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act.

Issue no. 2

The petition violates the public's right to free travel.

The provisions of Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute unlawful inference with legitimate
business or trade and abridged right to persona liberty and freedom of locomotion.

Supreme Court's Counterargument Supreme Issue no. 2

Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National Assembly in the exercise of the
paramount police power of the state
The act. by virtue of which the rules and regufations complained of were promulgated, aims
to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on national roads.

Issue no. 3

The rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding
the promotion of social justice to insure the well- being and economic security of all the
people.

Supreme Court's Counterarugument Issue no. 3

Social justice means the promotion of the weffare of aft the people.
The adoption by the Government of measures cafeulated to insure economic ability of all
the competent elements of society.

Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of

interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should
be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic
life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the
health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the
greatest number.
CUEVO VS BARREDO
Silvestra Cuevo Ina ng karpinterong si Anastacio Lozano, na nalunod at binawian ng buhay
sa trabaho.
Fausto Barredo Amo ng foreman na inirereklamo
Yoshio Tagashira- foreman na nagsabing dapat mabawi ang troso.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA

SECTION 1, CLAUSE 1, OF ACT NO. 1874

A defect in the condition of the ways, works, or machinery connected with or used in the
business of the employer, which arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied in
consequence of, the negligence of the employer or of a person in his service who had been
in trusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works, or machinery were in proper
condition.

OPINYON AT PANINIWALA:

Ang pagkamatay ay hindi sinasadya at ang nasabing troso ay hindi isang paraan, trabaho, o
makinarya na ginamit sa pagsasagawa ng bridge annex, ngunit sang materyal lamang na
gagamitin sa nasabing trabaho, at hindi ito ang direktang sanhi ng pagkamatay ni Lozano.

SECTION 1, CLAUSE 2, OF ACT NO. 1874

The negligence of a person in the service of the employer who was entrusted with and was
exercising superintendence and whose sole or principal duty was that of superintendence,
or in the absence of such superintendent, of a person acting as superintendent with the
authority or consent of such employer.

OPINYON AT PANINIWALA:

Ang namatay na empleyado ay nabigong magsagawa ng nararapat na pag-iingat at hindi

dahil sa kapabayaan ng nasasakdal o ng kaniyang tao na si Tagashira na pinagkatiwalaan at
nagsasagawa ng superintendence.

ANG HATOL

Si Fausto Barredo, bilang contractor ng trabaho, ay walang obligasyon na magbayad para sa

mga pinsala sa pagkamatay ni Anastacio Lozano.

Si Silvestra Cuevo ay nanalangin na bigyan siya ng iba pang remedyo na maaaring ipalagay
ng korte na makatarungan.
 Ang kasong ito ay iniharap sa Court of Appeals na inihain ni Silvestra Cuevo sa bisa ng
petition for certiorari.
Ang certiorari ay isang utos kung saan sinusuri ng mas mataas na hukuman ang desisyon ng
mababang hukuman.

SECOND DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

OPINYON AT PANINIWALA:

Ang reklamong ito ay humihingi ng bayad para sa pagkamatay ng isang empleyado na

kumilos nang may pag-iingat, bilang resulta ng kapabayaan ng isang foreman.
Ang batas ay nagtatatag ng legal na pagpapalagay ng pagkakaroon ng kapabayaan sa bahagi
ng employer.
Ang reklamong ito ay nakabatay sa dalawang dahilan, ang ebidensya na sumusuporta sa
parehong mga teorya ay ipinakita nang walang tumututol, at ang teorya ay hindi binago sa
gayon.
Ang nagbabantang utos ay sinusunod ng isa sa mga manggagawa na marunong lumangoy
ngunit siya ay malunod.
Ito ay kapabayaan dahil hindi inisip ng foreman ang nakamamatay na resulta.
Alam niya na ang buhay ng isang tao ay mas mahalaga kaysa sa isang troso.
Ang empleyado na marunong lumangoy ay walang kapabayaan dahilan nag wala siyang oras
para pag-isipan pa ang desisyong bawiin ang troso.
Tiwala siya sa kanyang kakayahan at sa kanyang foreman na mas may karanasan at
matalinong tao.
Bilang kapus-palad, takot siya na matanggal sa trabaho.
Hindi maaaring idahilan na ang nalunod ay hindi nag-ingat dahil ang pagbabantang utos ng
foreman ay binanggit nang may awtoridad.
Ito ay tinanggap bilang utos at sinunod kaagaran dahil walang oras para pag-isipan pa ito, na
naging sanhi ng pagkalunod ng taong sumunod dito.
Si Fausto Barredo, bilang kanilang pinuno, ay may pananagutan sa mga aksyon ng kanyang
mga ahente.
Ang epekto g kapabayaan ng kanyang foreman, habang kumikilos sa loob ng saklaw ng
kanyang awtoridad, ay umaabot sa kanya.
Ayon sa Section 2 of Act No. 1874, ang umaasa sa suweldo ng empleyadong namatay ay
sapat na para magsampa ng kaso kahit hindi ito umaasa nang buo mula sa suweldo nito.
Si Silvestra Cuevo ay may pangalawang asawa. Eto ay si Tomas Diaz, na walang
permanenteng trabaho.
Ang namatay na anak ni Cuevo ay nagbibigay sa kanya ng lahat ng kanyang kinikita.

ANG HATOL AY BINALIGTAD:

Si Fausto Barredo ay inutusang magbayad ng halagang 1,000 pesos bilang bayad para sa
mga pinsala.
May legal na interes mula sa petsa ng paghahain ng reklamo, hanggang sa ito ay ganap na
mabayaran.
JPL POV

Act No. 1874 entitled "An Act to extend and regulate the responsibility of employers for the
personal injuries and deaths suffered by their employees while at work" was enacted by the
Philippine Commission on June 19, 1908.
In imputing negligence to the superintendent it is observed that he knew or should have
known "from ordinary experience, that whoever jumped into the water in those
circumstances would be in danger of drowning
My opinion is that under Act No. 1874, it is yet possible to relax the rule in the sense that if
the master is originally and primarily chargeable with negligence in his legal relations with
his servant, failure of the latter to make an appraisal of the danger incident to the execution
of an order of his master, and which danger may not be apparent to a man in his position
and condition, is not necessarily a failure to exercise due care such as to bar recovery for
damages in case of personal injury or death.
I accept the conclusion of liability of the respondent Fausto Barredo in this case.

RAY CONLEY
Ray Conley was an American Detective that came from the US in 1912;
He became involved with bribery and drugs and o enses of falsification.
With him involved in some o enses or violations, it leads to charging him with criminal and
administrative cases by Manila Mayor Ramon Fernandez.
Ray Conley was acquitted of his criminal o enses.
When the decision has been made, Jose Laurel and Manila Mayor Ramon Fernandez both
agreed to have an administrative investigation for the administrative cases against Ray
Conley
When Governor Wood received the resignation letter of Jose Laurel, he did not accept it
because according to him he needs Laurel's credentials and skills.
Governor Wood then called Laurel to convince him not to resign.
Laurel did not want to tolerate and be a part of the abuses committed by Governor Wood
and Ray Conley.
After Jose Laurel's resignation, all Filipinos who are part of the cabinet likewise resigned.