How to Interpret the Constitution

7/23/2019 How to Interpret the Constitution

1/21

How to interpret the Constitution -sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/202242_abad.pdsc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/202242_abad.pdf

"x x x.

There are three ell!settled principles of constitutional constructionfirst# verba legis# that is# herever possible# the ordsused in the $onstitution should be given their ordinary %eaning except here technical ter%s are e%ployed& second# herethere is a%biguity# ratio legis est ani%a# %eaning that the ords of the $onstitution should be interpreted in accordance iththe intent of its fra%ers& and third# ut %agis valeat 'ua% pereat# %eaning that the $onstitution is to be interpreted as ahole.(

x x x."

)osted by )hilippine *as and $ases ! +tty. ,anuel -. *aserna -r. at 0 ),o co%%ents *ins to this post

!"C co#position$ how to interpret the letter and spirit o

the Constitution -sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/202242.pdsc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/july2012/202242.pdf

"x x x.

inally# hile the $ourt finds isdo% in respondents3 contention that both the enate and the 5ouse of 6epresentativesshould be e'ually represented in the -7$# the $ourt is not in a position to sta%p its i%pri%atur on such a construction at theris of expanding the %eaning of the $onstitution as currently orded. eedless to state# the re%edy lies in the a%end%entof this constitutional provision. The courts %erely give effect to the lagiver3s intent. The sole%n poer and duty of the $ourtto interpret and apply the la does not include the poer to correct# by reading into the la hat is not ritten therein.

85969:69# the petition is ;6+T9$:T=T>T=:+*. The -udicial and 7ar $ouncil is hereby enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one ? 1@%e%ber of $ongress ill sit as a representative in its proceedings# in accordance ith ection ? 1 @# +rticle A= = = of the1B $onstitution.

This disposition is i%%ediately executory.

: :6


2/21

In his letter, Judge Macarambon requests that he be allowed to retire under

Section 1 of RA No. 91, as amended, the !ertinent !ortions of which read"

S#$%I&N 1. 'hen a Justice of the Su!reme $ourt, the $ourt of A!!eals, the Sandiganba(an, or

of the $ourt of %a) A!!eals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metro!olitan trial court,

munici!al trial court, munici!al circuit trial court, shari*a district court, shari*a circuit court, oran( other court hereafter established who has rendered at least fifteen (15) years service in theJudiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both, +a retires for ha-ing

attained the age of se-ent( (ears, or +b resigns by reason of his/her incapacity to discharge

the duties of his/her office as certified by the Supreme ourt, heshe shall recei-e during the

residue of hisher natural life, in the manner hereinafter !ro-ided, the salar( which !lus the

highest monthl( aggregate of trans!ortation, re!resentation and other allowances such as!ersonal economic relief allowance +/#RA and additional com!ensation allowance which

heshe was recei-ing at the time of hisher retirement, or resignation, and non0wage benefit in the

form of education scholarshi! to one +1 child of all Justices and Judges to free tuition fee in a

state uni-ersit( or college"Provided,%hat such grant will co-er onl( one +1 bachelor*s degree.'hen a Justice of the Sandiganba(an or of the $ourt of %a) A!!eals, or a Judge of the regional

trial court, metro!olitan trial court, munici!al trial court, munici!al circuit trial court, shari*a

district court, shari*a circuit court, or an( other court hereafter established has attained the age

of si!ty ("#) years and has rendered at least fifteen (15) years service in the Government,

the last three ($) of which shall have been continuously rendered in the Judiciary, he/she

shall li%ewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his/her natural life also

in the manner hereinafter provided,the salar( !lus the highest monthl( aggregate of

trans!ortation, re!resentation and other allowances such as !ersonal economic relief allowance

+/#RA and additional com!ensation allowance which heshe was then recei-ing and the non0wage benefit in the form of education scholarshi! to one +1 child of all Justices and Judges to

free tuition fee in a state uni-ersit( or college" ) ) ) .

Judge Macarambon asserts that Section 1 allows the !a(ment of retirement

benefits to a udge of the R%$ who resigns b( reason of inca!acit( to discharge the

duties of his office. $iting the case ofRe: Application for Retirement under R.A.

No. 910 of Associate Justice Ramon B. Britanico of the Intermediate Appellate

ourt,he !osits that his a!!ointment as $&M#2#$ $ommissioner inca!acitated

him to discharge his duties as an R%$ udge on account of his 3submission to the

will of the !olitical authorit( and a!!ointing !ower.4

As an alternati-e, he a!!eals that he be allowed to retire under the second

sentence of Section 1 considering that he has rendered a total of 15 (ears, 1 month

and 16 da(s of udicial ser-ice and a total of 78 (ears of go-ernment

ser-ice. Judge Macarabon claims that while he was short of the minimum age

requirement of 6, he belie-es that the $ourts ruling inRe: !re"orio !.


3/21

Pineda:1; is a!!licable to his case where the $ourt brushed aside such requirement

and considered the retirees career which was mar


4/21

In case of retirement, a ustice or udge must show com!liance with the age

and ser-ice requirements as !ro-ided in RA No. 91, as amended. %he second

sentence of Section 1 im!oses the following minimum requirements for o!tional

retirement"

+a must ha-e attained the age of si)t( +6 (ears oldB and

+b must ha-e rendered at least fifteen +18 (ears ser-ice in the Co-ernment, the last

three +7 of which shall ha-e been continuousl( rendered in the Judiciar(.

Strict com!liance with the age and ser-ice requirements under the law is the

rule and the grant of e)ce!tion remains to be on a case to case basis. :7; 'e ha-e

ruled that the $ourt allows seeminge)ce!tions to these fi)ed rulesfor certain

udges and ustices onl( and whene-er there are am!le reasons to grant such

e)ce!tion.:D;

&n the other hand, resignation under RA No. 91, as amended must be 3b(

reason of inca!acit( todischarge the duties of the office.4 InBritanico, we held that

the resignation contem!lated under RA No. 91, as amended must ha-e the

element of in-oluntariness on the !art of the ustice or udge. More than !h(sical

or mental disabilit( to discharge the udicial office, the in-oluntariness must s!ring

from the intent of the ustice or udge who would not ha-e !arted with hisher

udicial em!lo(ment were it not for the !resence of circumstances andor factors

be(ond hisher control.

In either of the two instances abo-e0mentioned, Judge Macarambons case

does not render him eligible to retire under RA No. 91, as amended.

&irst, Judge Macarambon failed to satisf( the age requirement as shown b(

the records and b( his own admission that he was less than 6 (ears of age when

he resigned from his udicial office before transferring to the $&M#2#$.

2i


5/21

'hird, we find no e)ce!tional reasons to ustif( Judge Macarambons

request. InRe: !re"orio Pineda, the case cited b( Judge Macarambon, the $ourt

full( e)!lained how a liberal a!!roach in the a!!lication of retirement laws should

be construed, thus"

%he rule is that retirement laws are construed liberall( in fa-or of the retiring em!lo(ee.

?owe-er, when in the interest of liberal construction the $ourt allows seeming e)ce!tions to

fi)ed rules for certain retired Judges or Justices, there are am!le reasons behind each grant of ane)ce!tion. %he crediting of accumulated lea-es to ma


6/21

+1-'*the Memorandum dated A!ril 7, 1 of $ourt Administrator Jose Midas /.

Marque>B and

+.*-the letter0request dated Se!tember 18, 11 of Judge Moslemen %.

Macarambon to retire under Re!ublic Act No. 91, as amended b( Re!ublic ActNo. 99D6 for lac< of legal basis.

Judge Macarambon is hereb( 0.2S*.to file an a!!lication for o!tional

retirement under Re!ublic Act No. 1616 with the Co-ernment Ser-ice Insurance

S(stem, subect to the submission of the requirements for retirement, and to the

deduction of the retirement gratuit( he recei-ed from his !re-ious retirement, if

there be an(, and subect finall( to the a-ailabilit( of funds and the usual clearance

requirements.

S +.*+*.3

! ! !34)osted by )hilippine *as and $ases ! +tty. ,anuel -. *aserna -r. at 11(D ), o co%%ents *ins to this post

+ndirect conte#pt$ how co##enced - ,.%. *o. 1(0(41;.6. o. 1C0C41

"x x x.

%he issue of indirect contem!t needs further discussion because while the

&rder of the R%$ to allow audit of boo


7/21

$ontem!t of court is defined as a disobedience to the $ourt b( acting in

o!!osition to its authorit(, ustice and dignit(. It signifies not onl( a willful

disregard or disobedience of the courts orders, but such conduct which tends to

bring the authorit( of the court and the administration of law into disre!ute or in

some manner to im!ede the due administration of ustice. $ontem!t of court is adefiance of the authorit(, ustice or dignit( of the courtB such conduct as tends to

bring the authorit( and administration of the law into disres!ect or to interfere with

or !reudice !arties0litigant or their witnesses during litigation.:15; %he asse-erations

made b( !etitioners to ustif( their refusal to allow ins!ection or audit were

reected b( the trial court.

It ma( be noted that a !erson ma( be charged with indirect contem!t b(

either of two alternati-e wa(s, namel(" +1 b( a -erified !etition, if initiated b( a

!art(B or + b( an order or an( other formal charge requiring the res!ondent toshow cause wh( he should not be !unished for contem!t, if made b( a court

against which the contem!t is committed. In short, a charge of indirect contem!t

must be initiated through a -erified !etition, unless the charge is directl( made b(

the court against which the contem!tuous act is committed.:19;

%he R%$ initiated the contem!t charge. In the &rder:; dated 9 Januar(

, !etitioners were directed to a!!ear in court and to show cause wh( the(

should not be held in contem!t of court for their refusal to allow Financial

$atal(st, Inc. to audit the boo


8/21

indirect contem!t are initiated in this manner, and the absence of a -erified !etition

does not affect the !rocedure ado!ted.:;

%he R%$s issuance of a warrant of arrest was !ursuant to Section 5, Rule @1

of the Rules of $ourt, which reads"

Sec. 5. Imprisonment until order o%e&ed. 0 'hen the contem!t consists in the refusal oromission to do an act which is (et in the !ower of the res!ondent to !erform, he ma( be

im!risoned b( order of the court concerned until he !erforms it.

?owe-er, the foregoing notwithstanding, the warrant and the contem!t

!roceedings that !receded it were all similarl( mooted b( the dismissal of the main

!etition for dissolution of ?#GRI. Ci-en the mootness of the issues of ins!ection

and audit, the -er( orders refused to be obe(ed b( !etitioners, the citation of

contem!t and its consequences necessaril( became moot.) ) ).

)osted by )hilippine *as and $ases ! +tty. ,anuel -. *aserna -r. at 112 ), o co%%ents *ins to this post

!urisdiction and estoppel - ,.%. *o. 11'0;.6. o. 11B0D

"x x x.

=asic is the rule that a !art( cannot be allowed to in-o


9/21

oid or lac o jurisdiction - ,.%. *o. 114;.6. o. 11D4

"x x x.

&n this !oint, our disquisition in $pouses Atuel v. $pouses 'alde(:16; is instructi-e,thus"

Jurisdiction over the subect matter cannot be ac6uired through, or waived by, any

act or omission of the parties3 'he active participation of the parties in the proceedings

before the .0+07 does not vest urisdiction on the .0+07, as urisdiction is conferred

only by law3 'he courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non8waiver of

urisdiction3 9i%ewise, estoppel does not apply to confer urisdiction to a tribunal that has

none over a cause of action3 %he failure of the !arties to challenge the urisdiction of the

EARA= does not !re-ent this $ourt from addressing the issue, as the EARA=s lac< ofurisdiction is a!!arent on the face of the com!laint. Issues of urisdiction are not subect to the

whims of the !arties.

2n a long line of decisions, this ourt has consistently held that an order or decision

rendered by a tribunal or agency without urisdiction is a total nullity3 Accordingl(, we rule

that the decision of the EARA= in the instant case is null and -oid. $onsequentl(, the decision

of the $ourt of A!!eals affirming the decision of the EARA= is li


10/21

material allegations therein and the character of the relief !ra(ed for irres!ecti-e of

whether the !etitioner or com!lainant is entitled to an( or all such reliefs.:1;

Accordingl(, we turn to the !etitioners com!laint for amendment and

!artition, wherein the( alleged that"

. %he subect agricultural land identified as 2ot No. $, /sd070918@ +AR consisting

of an area of 9,876 square meters more or less situated at Br"&.$aingin, =ocaue, =ulacan, wasformerl( owned b( /edro 2a>aro and was tenanted b( S/&S#S J&S# E#2 R&SARI& ANE

F2&R#N%INA E# CKMAN, the late grand!arents of herein !etitioners, as the registered

tenant0farmers o-er the subect agricultural land de-oted to !lanting ofpala&B

7. 'hen the late grand!arents of herein !etitioners died, the children of the former,

s!ecificall(, brothers $ANEIE& E#2 R&SARI& and CI2 E#2 R&SARI&, !redecessors0in0

interest of herein !etitioners, continued in the tillage of the subect agricultural landB

) ) ) )

6. %he #/ was issued b( the EAR to the res!ondent with the hel! of her brother Cil Eel

Rosario who, aside from shouldering all e)!enses relati-e thereto, lodged the !etition in Monica

del Rosarios name for the issuance of #/ o-er the subect agricultural land being tilled b( them,including the co0tenant farmers that are adacent and adoining in that areaB

@. 'he respondent, after receiving the *; over the subect agricultural land, refused

to give the shares of her brothers (predecessors8in8interest of herein petitioners) and

subdivide e6ually the subect land among them, they being surviving heirs of their late

parents who first tilled the subect agricultural land despite persistent demand B

) ) ) )

1. 0n agreement was li%ewise entered into by the respondent and the other tenant

farmers of the adoining lots, with the late Gil del +osario dated &ebruary 1


11/21

'?#R#F&R#, !remises considered, it :is; most res!ectfull( !ra(ed of this ?onorable

=oard that after due hearing, udgment be rendered in the abo-e0entitled !etition as follows"

+a rdering respondent to partition or subdivide e6ually among the

respondent and herein petitioners, in representation of their respective predecessors8in8interest, the subect agricultural landB

+b &rdering res!ondent to sto! collecting lease rentals from the herein !etitioners

relati-e to their establishments and those erected b( their !redecessors0in0interestB

+c &rdering res!ondent to sto! cutting :of; trees and other im!ro-ements thereon

established b( the herein !etitioners and their !redecessors0in0interestB

+d &rdering res!ondent to allow the !etitioners to !lant pala&or -egetable !lants

+sic o-er the agricultural land occu!ied b( themB

+e &rdering res!ondent to !a( attorne(s fees of :/;8,. to !etitioners and

costs of litigation.:1D; +#m!hasis su!!lied

A !erusal of the foregoing will readil( show that the com!laint essentiall(

sought the following"first, the enforcement of the agreement entered into b( and

between Cil and Monica wherein the latter !romised to cede to the former one0

third !ortion of the subect land u!on the issuance of the emanci!ation !atent o-er

the sameB andsecond, the reco-er( of !etitioners !ur!orted hereditar( share o-er

the subect land, in re!resentation of Cil and $andido.

Indubitabl(, the said com!laint for amendment and !artition does not

in-ol-e an( 3agrarian dis!ute,4 nor does it in-ol-e an( incident arising from the

im!lementation of agrarian laws. %he !etitioners and Monica ha-e no tenurial,

leasehold, or an( agrarian relations whatsoe-er that will bring this contro-ers(

within the urisdiction of the /ARAE and the EARA=. Since the /ARAE and the

EARA= ha-e no urisdiction o-er the !resent contro-ers(, the( should not ha-e

taance of the !etitioners com!laint for amendment of the #manci!ation

/atent and !artition.

Further, the instant case does not in-ol-e an 3incident arising from the

im!lementation of agrarian laws4 as would !lace it within the urisdiction of the

/ARAE and the EARA=. Admittedl(, the !etitioners alleged that it was Cil and

$andido who continued the tillage of the subect land after the death of S!ouses

Eel Rosario. 'hile the foregoing allegation seems to raise a challenge to

Monicas qualification as a farmer0beneficiar( of the subect land, we ne-ertheless
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/181548.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/181548.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/181548.htm#_ftn14


12/21

find the same insufficient to clothe the /ARAE and the EARA= with urisdiction

o-er the com!laint.

'hile ostensibl( assailing Monicas qualification as a farmer0beneficiar(,

the !etitioners did not see< the nullification of the emanci!ation !atent issued to

Monica and the issuance of a new one in their names. Instead, the !etitioners

merel( sought that the subect land be equall( !artitioned among the sur-i-ing

heirs of S!ouses Eel Rosario, including Monica. Geril(, b( merel( ased the -alidit( of the issuance of the emanci!ation !atent o-er

the subect land in fa-or of Monica.

) ) ).)osted by )hilippine *as and $ases ! +tty. ,anuel -. *aserna -r. at 111 ), o co%%ents *ins to this post

6ject#ent &llegation o possession o the property indispute since ti#e i##e#orial is not a deense. 7uchpossession5 or whatever length o ti#e5 cannot prevailover a 8orrens title5 the validity o which is presu#ed andi##une to any collateral attac. - ,.%. *o. 121(;.6. o. 121C

"x x x.

%he !oint of inquir( is whether the res!ondents ha-e the right to e-ict the

!etitioners from the subect !ro!ert( and this should be resol-ed in the

res!ondents fa-or. =etween the !etitioners unsubstantiated self0ser-ing claim that

their father inherited the contested !ortion of 2ot No. 781@ and the

res!ondents %orrens title, the latter must !re-ail. %he res!ondents title o-er such

area is e-idence of their ownershi! thereof. %hat a certificate of title ser-es as

e-idence of an indefeasible and incontro-ertible title to the !ro!ert( in fa-or of the

!erson whose name a!!ears therein and that a !erson who has a %orrens title o-er a

land is entitled to the !ossession thereof:16;

are fundamental !rinci!les obser-ed inthis urisdiction. Alternati-el( !ut, the res!ondents title and that of their

!redecessors0in0interest gi-e rise to the reasonable !resum!tion that the !etitioners

ha-e no right o-er the subect area and that their sta( therein was merel( tolerated.

%he !etitioners failed to o-ercome this !resum!tion, being inadequatel( armed b(

a narration that (earns for !roof and corroboration. %he !etitioners har!ed that the

subect area was their fathers share in his !arents estate but the absence of an(
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04551172217752423328http://www.blogger.com/profile/04551172217752423328http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.htmlhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.html#comment-formhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.html#comment-formhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.html#linkshttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16http://www.blogger.com/profile/04551172217752423328http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.htmlhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.html#comment-formhttp://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=2483276388443304416&postID=341612891944730440http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2012/07/agrarian-reform-jurisdiction-of-parad.html#linkshttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/182716.htm#_ftn16


13/21

e-idence that such !ro!ert( was indeed adudicated to their father im!resses that

their claim of ownershi! is nothing but a mere afterthought. In fact, 2ot No. 781@

was alread( registered in Marias name when Jose Sr. built the house where the

!etitioners are now !resentl( residing. It is rather s!ecious that Jose Sr. chose

inaction des!ite Marias failure to cause the registration of the subect area in his

name and would be contented with a bungalow that is erected on a !ro!ert( that is

su!!osedl( his but registered in anothers name. %hat there is allegedl( an

unwritten agreement between Maria and Girginia that Jose Sr.s and the !etitioners

!ossession of the subect area would remain undisturbed was ne-er !ro-en, hence,

cannot be the basis for their claim of ownershi!. Rather than !ro-ing that Jose Sr.

and the !etitioners ha-e a right o-er the dis!uted !ortion of 2ot No. 781@, their

!ossession uncou!led with affirmati-e action to question the titles of Maria and the

res!ondents show that the latter merel( tolerated their sta(.

Forcible entr( and unlawful detainer cases are summar( !roceedingsdesigned to !ro-ide for an e)!editious means of !rotecting actual !ossession or the

right to the !ossession of the !ro!ert( in-ol-ed. %he a-owed obecti-e of actions

for forcible entr( and unlawful detainer, which ha-e !ur!osel( been made

summar( in nature, is to !ro-ide a !eaceful, s!eed( and e)!editious means of

!re-enting an alleged illegal !ossessor of !ro!ert( from unustl( continuing his

!ossession for a long time, thereb( ensuring the maintenance of !eace and order in

the communit(.:1@; %he said obecti-es can onl( be achie-ed b( according the

!roceedings a summar( nature. ?owe-er, its being summar( !oses a limitation on

the nature of issues that can be determined and full( -entilated. It is for this reason

that the !roceedings are concentrated on the issue on !ossession. %hus, whether the

!etitioners ha-e a better right to the contested area and whether fraud attended the

issuance of Marias title o-er 2ot No. 781@ are issues that are outside the

urisdiction and com!etence of a trial court in actions for unlawful detainer and

forcible entr(. %his is in addition to the long0standing rule that a %orrens title

cannot be collaterall( attac


14/21

$once!cion, ) ) ) married to Nenita 2. Songco.4 It is a settled rule that the !erson who has

a %orrens title o-er a land is entitled to !ossession thereof. ?ence, as the registered owner of the

subect !ro!ert(, res!ondent is !referred to !ossess it.

%he -alidit( of res!ondents certificate of title cannot be attac


15/21

regard, the rulings of this $ourt to the effect that while a registered land ma( not be acquired b(

!rescri!tion, (et, b( -irtue of the registered owners inaction and neglect, his right to reco-er the

!ossession thereof ma( ha-e been con-erted into a stale demand.

'hile, at a blush, there is a!!arent merit in !etitioners !osture, a closer loo< at our

uris!rudence negates their submission.

%o start with, the lower court found that !etitioners !ossession of the subect lot was

merel( at the tolerance of its former lawful owner. In this connection, Bishop vs. ourt ofAppealsteaches that if the claimants !ossession of the land is merel( tolerated b( its lawful

owner, the latters right to reco-er !ossession is ne-er barred b( laches.

As registered owners of the lots in question, the !ri-ate res!ondents ha-e a right to eectan( !erson illegall( occu!(ing their !ro!ert(. %his right is im!rescri!tible. )ven if it %e

supposed that the& -ere a-are of the petitioners occupation of the propert&, and re"ardless of

the len"th of that possession, the la-ful o-ners have a ri"ht to demand the return of their

propert& at an& time as lon" as the possession -as unauthori(ed or merel& tolerated, if atall. his ri"ht is never %arred %& laches.:7; +$itations omitted

It is, in fact, the !etitioners who are guilt( of laches. /etitioners, who

claimed that Maria fraudulentl( registered the subect area inherited b( their father,

did not lift a finger to question the -alidit( of &$% No. 8D7, which was issued in

199. /etitioners waited for the la!se of a substantial !eriod of time and if not for

the res!ondents demands to -acate, the( would not ha-e bothered to assert their

fathers su!!osed successional rights. %he !etitioners inaction is contrar( to the

!osture ta


16/21

res!ondents. 'hile it is true that Article .1 of the I=FAM&S/IMMAJ $=A

considers a seafarer as terminated when he signs off from the -essel due to

sic


17/21

+a Serious misconductor willful disobendience b( the em!lo(ee of the lawful orders of

his em!lo(er or his re!resentati-es in connection with his wor%B

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )+e &ther causes analogous to the foregoing.

Misconduct in-ol-es 3the transgression of some established and definite rule of action,forbidden act, a dereliction of dut(, willful in character, and im!lies wrongful intent and not mere

error in udgment.4 For misconduct to be serious and therefore a -alid ground for dismissal, it

must be"

1. of gra-e and aggra-ated character and not merel( tri-ial or unim!ortant and

. connected with the wor< of the em!lo(ee.

In this case, !etitioner dismissed res!ondent based on the N=I*s finding that the latter

stole and used Lusecos credit cards. =ut since the theft was not committed against petitioner

itself but against one of its employees, respondent=s misconduct was not wor%8related and

therefore, she could not be dismissed for serious misconduct3

Nonetheless, Article 5+e of the 2abor $ode tal


18/21

Final Notice to Gacate, then their $om!laint was timel( filed within the one0(ear

!eriod and a!!ro!riatel( taance of b( the Me%$. ?owe-er, if the

rec


19/21

dis!ossession has lasted for more than one (ear. It is an ordinar( ci-il !roceeding

to determine the better right of !ossession of realt( inde!endentl( of title. 2n other

words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had

elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant:s

possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or

illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana34:6D;

%here are no substantial disagreements with res!ect to the first three

requisites for an action for unlawful detainer. Res!ondent Sun-ar initiall( deri-ed

its right to !ossess the subect !ro!ert( from its sublease agreements with %R$FI

and later on with /EAF. ?owe-er, with the e)!iration of the lease agreements on

71 Eecember , res!ondent lost !ossessor( rights o-er the subect !ro!ert(.

Ne-ertheless, it continued occu!(ing the !ro!ert( for almost se-en (ears

thereafter. It was onl( on 7 Februar( 9 that !etitioners made a final demand

u!on res!ondent Sun-ar to turn o-er the !ro!ert(. 'hat is dis!uted, howe-er, is the

fourth requisite of an unlawful detainer suit.%he $ourt rules that the final requisite is li


20/21

!ro!ert(B and that one year had elapsed from respondent:s demand given on >July $, 1


21/21

!eriod within which to commence an eectment suit, considering that the !eriod

will still be rec

How to Interpret the Constitution

Documents

Transcript of How to Interpret the Constitution