Banco Espanol.doc to Tanada.

8/8/2019 Banco Espanol.doc to Tanada.

1/7

Banco Espanol-Filipino Vs Palanca

Facts: The herein petitioner has instituted the foreclosure of the property subject of

a mortgage between the petitioner and the original defendant. The latter no longer

resides in the Philippines and resided in China until his death. As such, notice to the

Defendant was effected through publication in a newspaper of general circulation of

the province where the property in question is situated.

The defendant failed to file his answer and as such he was declared in default and

exparte proceedings where held. The trial court rendered a decision in favour of the

petitioner.

The defendant challenges the constitutionality of the decision on the grounds that

he was denied due process of law since no actual notice was given to him.

Issue: whether the defendant was deprived of due process of law?

Held: the court ruled in the negative, under the following reasons:

a) With respect to Jurisdiction, the action being an action quasi in rem

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary, Jurisdiction

over the res is sufficient to confer upon the court lawful jurisdiction

b) With to the notice requirement of Due Process the court ruled thatconstructive notice sufficiently complies with the notice requirement of Due

process since property is always assumed to be in the possession of its

owner, in person or by agent; and he may sagely held, under certain

conditions to be affected with common knowledge that proceedings have

been instituted for its condemnation and sale.

Therefore, the court held that the foreclosure proceedings is constitutional.


2/7

Almonte VS, Savellano Jr

Facts:The herein Petitioner was accused of the crime of rape, the venue of the trialwas set in Manila in the court of the herein respondent. Previous to the same, the

injured party in the rape case executed an affidavit of desistance.

The trial court nonetheless issued a warrant of arrest against the herein petitioners

and subsequently scheduled them for arraignment. The petitioners waived their

right to pre-trial and agreed to proceed with the trial on the merits.

Thereafter the court allowed the prosecution to present evidence relative only to

the question of the voluntariness and validity of the affidavit of desistance. Aftersuch presentation the assistant prosecutor manifested that in light of the of the

decision of the private complainant the state had no further evidence to prove the

guilt of the accused.

Thereupon, the Judge said that the case was submitted for decision.

Subsequently several motions for application of bail was instituted by the accused,

none where acted upon by the court.

Finally the court ruled against the accused.

Issue: whether the herein petitioner were deprived of due process?

Held:

The court held in the affirmative under the following reasons:

a) The requirement of Lawful hearing was not accorded to the accused since

after the prosecution presented evidence on the voluntariness of the affidavit

of execution the accused was not given any opportunity to cross examine the

witness presented by the prosecution nor was the accused given any

opportunity to provide evidence in support of their case nor were they given

any opportunity to present their rebuttal evidence. Further the court did noteven scheduled any date on which the accused may submit evidence and

witnesses in support of their plea.

b) One of the requirements of procedural due process is that there must be an

impartial court or tribunal cloth with Judicial power to hear and determine the

matter before it. In the case at bar the cold neutrality of the judge is lacking


3/7

under the reasoning that the trial judge gave no opportunity to the accused

to present their evidence and to be heard on their case and their several

motions for bail was never acted upon by the court.

Therefore, the court remanded the case to the lower courts for hearing however re-

raffled the same.

Rivera Vs CSC

Facts: the herein petitioner was manager of corporate banking Unit 1 of the land

bank of the Philippines. Through such capacity he was charged with several

offenses such as a) dishonesty b) graft and corruption etc.

The LBP held the petitioner guilty of the charges, as such the petitioner appealed to

the MSPB which modified the charges acquitting him of some but not all the

offenses. As such the LBP filed a motion for reconsideration with the MSPB, whereinHon. Thelma Gamide was the chairman of the said MSPB. The said motion for

reconsideration was denied the motion.

Thereafter the Both Parties filed an appeal with the CSC which sustained the original

order of the LBP. The herein petitioner then filed an MR, This time Hon. Thelma

Gamide took part in the hearing of the case as a commissioner of the CSC.

Issue: whether the petitioner was denied of due process of law?

Held: the court held in the affirmative, the opinion of which aar as follows:

in order that the review of the decision os a subordinate might not turn out to be

farce, the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is

under review; otherwise there could be no real review of the case. The decision of

the reviewing officer would be biased view; inevitably, it would be the same vew

since being human he would not admit the he was in the first view mistaken.

Therefore the Court held that due process has been denied since the cold

impartiality required of a judge even the appearance of being impartial was not

given to the petitioner thus the court remanded the case to the CSC.


4/7

Samartino Vs Raon

Facts: an ejectment proceedings was instituted against the petitioner as a result

thereof summons was issued by the court. The sheriff served the summons by

means of leaving a copy of the ejectment suit to the brother of the petitioner. No

explanation whatsoever was given why personal service was not effected.

The petitioner failed to file an answer within the reglementary period since he was

currently confined in a rehabilitation hospital for drug use and was subsequently

held in default.

Issue: whether the petitioner was deprived of due process of law.

Held:

The court opined that the petitioner was deprived of due process of law since the

requirement of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant was never acquired. It

is basic in remedial law that ejectment suits are action in personam as such the

rules require that in order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

personal service of summons must be effected and only when it is not possiblesubstituted service may be availed of. Such impossibility of personal service must

be explained in the proof of service or of the officers return.

Only in exceptional circumstance may the availment of substituted service may be

proved in by evidence aliunde, such is not the case at bar.

Further, the court stated that the giving of notice far extends the concept of

jurisdiction in the sense that a person cannot be deprived of life liberty or property

without being informed of the charges or claims against him.

There being no valid substituted service of summons on the petitioner nojurisdiction over him was acquired by the court and thereby depriving him the

opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.


5/7

Ynot VS IAC

Facts: The herein Petitioner was caught transporting several carabaos via motor

boat from one province to another. The herein petitioner was accosted by the police

and confiscated the said carabaos under the reasoning that he has violated EO626

which prohibited the transportation of carabaos from one province to the other.

Issue: whether the EO 626 is constitutionally infirmed?

Held: the court held with that the said law is indeed constitutionally infirmed due to

several reasons, but for the focus of this discussion, the said law is violated due

process because the same demanded the immediate confiscation of the chattels of

the petitioner without the benefit of trial thereby depriving the petitioner of his day

in court. As such the law is in direct contravention of the constitutional right of

procedural due process which requires to hear before you strike.


6/7

Unicraft v CA

Facts: The herein petitioner has an office located in the Lapu Lapu city where the

private respondents are employed. On 02 July 1995 the city ordered the said branch

to be closed due to lack of business and lack of building permit, as a result of which

the private respondents employment was terminated.

As such the herein respondednt instituted a labor case agains the petitioner for

illegal dismissal and other offenses (ULP). Both parties agreed to submit the case to

a voluntary arbitrator who in turn required to submit parties to submit their

evidence within fifteen days thereof.

The herein petitioners failed to file their answers and as such the arbiter rendered

his decision in favour of the respondents.

The contends that they have been deprived of due process since they received

notice of the hearing only on the same day an hour after the scheduled hearing.

Issue: Whether the arbitrator deprived the petitioner their fundamental right to due

process?

Held: court held in the affirmative that the petitioners were deprived of due process

since they were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard or present

evidence in their behalf since notice to such hearing was only received by the

petitioners an hour later the scheduled hearing. To allow the contrary would render

the Due Process clause mere semantics.


7/7

Mariveles Shipyar Corp Vs. CA

Facts: The herein petitioner engaged the services of a company named Longest

force to provide the former the services of security guard. Thereafter the petitioner

found the services of longest force to be inadequate and unsatisfactory, As suchthey terminated the services offered by Longest Force, who in turn terminated the

employment of the security guards serving in the petitioners premises.

Thus the terminated employees filed a case for illegal dismissal and underpayment

in the Labor arbiter.

The Labor arbiter decided in favour of the terminated employees. The petitioner

seeks to reverse the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that they have not

been accorded due process.

Issue: whether the petitioner was deprived of due process

Held: the court held in the negative since procedural due process does not require a

trial type of hearing but more importantly requires only the the defendant be given

an opportunity to be heard either through oral debates or even through the vehicle

of pleadings and other documentary evidence such as in this case. Thus as stated

by the NLRC the herein petitioners was given more than ample opportunity to be

heard and present evidence on their behalf, as such Procedural due process has

been accorded to them.

Banco Espanol.doc to Tanada.

Documents

Transcript of Banco Espanol.doc to Tanada.