Pubcorp Finals

8/13/2019 Pubcorp Finals

1/43

TAN VS COMELEC

FACTS: BP 885 or An Act Creating the Province of Negros del Norte was passed.

Petitioners who were residents of Negros Occidental, wanted to stop COM!C fro"

holding a ple#iscite. BP 885 provided that the ple#iscite was to #e cond$cted %&' da(s fro"the approval of the Act and that the President was to appoint the first officials. Petitioners

arg$ed however, that the law was $nconstit$tional and contrar( to stat$te. )he Constit$tionstates that no province, cit(, "$nicipalit(, or #arrio "a( #e created, divided, "erged,

a#olished, or its #o$ndaries s$#stantiall( altered, e*cept in accordance with the criteria

esta#lished in the !ocal +overn"ent Code, s$#ect to approval #( a "aorit( of votes cast ina ple#iscite. )he !+C set as a standard that a province "$st have at least -,5'' s$are

/ilo"eters as its territor(. )he 0olicitor +eneral arg$ed that BP 885 eno(s a pres$"ption of

legalit( and that the $estion is "oot since the province of Negros del Norte had alread(

#een proclai"ed.

ISSUE:1hether or not Negros del Norte was validl( created2

HELD:No. )wo political $nits wo$ld #e affected in case of a division of a province3the

parent and the proposed province. )he Constit$tion co""ands that affected $nits #e

considered in a ple#iscite. )he Co$rt noted that the case of Paredes v *ec$tive 0ecretar(,which involved the creation of a new "$nicipalit( where the parent $nit was not involved,

co$ld not #e considered as a precedent. )hat case involved a #aranga( while this case

involves a province. Al"ost half of the s$gar plantations wo$ld #e dis"e"#ered for" the

parent province and so"e of its "ost i"portant cities. )he 0$pre"e Co$rt also consideredthe new province as lac/ing in the territor( re$ire"ent since the land "ass of the new

territor( was onl( &,854 s$are /ilo"eters. )he Co$rt reected the s$ggestion of the 0olicitor

+eneral that even the area of the sho$ld #e considered in deter"ining the territorialre$ire"ent

1


2/43

TATEL vs. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC

FACTS: On March %644, the 7esidents of Barrio 0ta. lena co"plained against the

dist$r#ance ca$sed #( the operation of the a#aca #ailing "achine inside the wareho$se ofMr. )atel. )he "achine was prod$cing s"o/e, o#no*io$s odor, and d$st. Conse$entl(, the

M$nicipal Co$ncil of irac appointed a co""ittee to investigate. Based on the investigation,the neigh#orhood was crowded and the roads were narrow which showed that the wareho$se

was ha9ardo$s to fire and which is dangero$s to the area. On April %644, 7esol$tion No. &6

was passed #( the M$nicipal Co$ncil of irac, which declared the wareho$se as a p$#licn$isance within the p$rview of Article 46: of the Civil Code. )atel filed an M7 #$t the sa"e

was denied. ;ence, he filed this petition for prohi#ition. As for the co$ncil, it contended that

)atelgovern"ent and as s$ch are endowed with police powers to carr(

o$t the o#ects of their creation. ?ts a$thorit( e"anates fro" the general welfare cla$se of theAd"in Code. @or an ordinance to #e valid, it "$st #e within the corporate powers of the

"$nicipalit( to enact. Ordinances are re$ired to #e %. ?n accord with the Constit$tion or

an( stat$te &. not #e $nfair or oppressive -. not #e i"partial or discri"inator( :. "$st notprohi#it #$t "a( reg$late trade 5. "$st #e general and consistent with p$#lic polic(, and 4.

"$st not #e $nreasona#le. Ordinance No. %- "eets these criteria. )he ordinance reg$lates the

constr$ction of wareho$ses located at a distance of &'' "eters fro" a #loc/ of ho$ses

wherein infla""a#le "aterials are stored and not the constr$ction of a wareho$se per se. )hep$rpose is to avoid the loss of life and propert( in case of fire. No $nd$e restraint is placed

$pon the petitioner or for an(#od( to engage in trade #$t "erel( a prohi#ition fro" storing

infla""a#le prod$cts in the wareho$se #eca$se of the danger of fire to the lives andproperties of the people residing in the vicinit(. As far as p$#lic polic( is concerned, there

can #e no #etter polic( that what has #een conceived #( the "$nicipal govern"ent

&


3/43

VILLACORTA VS. BERNARDO

FACTS: )his is a petition for certiorari against a decision of the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of

Pangasinan ann$lling an ordinance adopted #( the "$nicipal #oard of ag$pan Cit(.Ordinance &&, or An Ordinance 7eg$lating 0$#division Plans over parcels of land inag$pan, which was passed #( the M$nicipal Board, was #eing $estioned. )he co$rt

declared the ordinance as void #eca$se it conflicts with and e*pands Act :64, which is a

national law. @irst of all 0ec.% of the ordinance re$ires that all s$#division plans #e

s$#"itted to the Cit( ngineer #efore it can #e approved #( the irector of !ands. 0ec. - ofthe ordinance f$rther provides that a certification of the cit( engineer is needed #efore

registration of s$#division plans can #e "ade with the 7egister of eeds. 0ection & also

provides a service fee for s$#division plans. !astl(, the ordinance also i"poses a penalt( forviolations co""itted. All of the afore"entioned sections of the ordinance contravenes Act

:64 as the latter does not re$ire s$#"ission of plans to the cit( engineer, nor the iss$ance of

a certification #( the sa"e, nor does it provide an( penalties. )he Cit( of ag$pan arg$es, onthe other hand, that the ordinance #rings to a halt the s$rreptitio$s registration of lands

#elonging to the govern"ent.

ISSUES: 1hether or not Ordinance && is valid2

HELD:)he powers of the #oard in enacting s$ch a la$da#le ordinance cannot #e held valid

when it shall i"pede the e*ercise of rights granted in a general law andDor "a/e a general

law s$#ordinated to a local ordinance. )o s$stain the ordinance wo$ld #e to open the

floodgates to other ordinances a"ending and so violating national laws in the g$ise of

i"ple"enting the". )h$s, ordinances co$ld #e passed i"posing additional re$ire"ents for

the iss$ance of "arriage licenses, to prevent #iga"( the registration of vehicles, to "ini"i9e

carnaping the e*ec$tion of contracts, to forestall fra$d the validation of passports, to deter

i"post$re the e*ercise of freedo" of speech, to red$ce disorder and so on. )he list is

endless, #$t the "eans, even if the end #e valid, wo$ld #e ultra vires.

-


4/43

CRUZ VS. PARAS

FACTS: )he Petitioners are nightcl$# operators in Boca$e, B$lacan. )he( have #een

previo$sl( iss$ed licenses for their night cl$#s #( the M$nicipal Ma(or. B$t Ordinance no.8:, 0eries of %6E5, was passed, which provided that no operator of night cl$#s, ca#arets ordance halls shall henceforth #e iss$ed per"itsDlicenses to operate within the $risdiction of

the "$nicipalit( and no licenseDper"it shall #e iss$ed to an( professional hostess, hospitalit(

girls and professional dancer for e"plo("ent in an( of the afore"entioned esta#lish"ents.

ISSUE:1hether or not a "$nicipal corporation can pass a ordinance which prohi#it thee*ercise of a lawf$l trade, operation of night cl$#s , and the p$rs$it of a lawf$l occ$pation,

s$ch cl$#s e"plo(ing hostesses2

HELD:No. A "$nicipal corporation cannot prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s. Nightcl$#s

"a( #e reg$lated #$t not prevented fro" carr(ing on their #$siness. 7A 6-8, as originall(enacted, granted "$nicipalities the power to reg$late the esta#lish"ent, "aintenance and

operation of nightcl$#s and the li/e. 1hile it is tr$e that on Ma( &%, %65:, the law was

a"ended #( 7A 6E6 wDc p$rported to give "$nicipalities the power not onl( to reg$late #$tli/ewise to prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s, the fact is that the title of the law re"ained

the sa"e so that the power granted to "$nicipalities re"ains that of reg$lation, not

prohi#ition. )o constr$e the a"endator( act as granting "$nicipal corporations the power to

prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s wo$ld #e to constr$e it in a wa( that it violates theconstit$tional provision that Fever( #ill shall e"#race onl( one s$#ect which shall #e

e*pressed in the title thereof.F Moreover, the recentl(>enacted !+C GBP --EH spea/s si"pl(

of the power to reg$late the esta#lish"ent, and operation of #illiard pools, theatrical

perfor"ances, circ$ses and other for"s of entertain"ent. Certiorari granted.

:


5/43

QC vs. ERICTA

FACTS: )he I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: reg$lating the

esta#lish"ent, "aintenance and operation of private "e"orial ce"eter( or #$rial gro$ndwithin the $risdiction of I$e9on Cit(

0ection 6 of said ordinance states that At least si* G4H percent of the total area of the"e"orial par/ ce"eter( shall #e set aside for charit( #$rial of deceased persons who are

pa$pers and have #een residents of I$e9on Cit( for at least 5 (ears prior to their death, to #e

deter"ined #( co"petent Cit( A$thorities. )he area so designated shall i""ediatel( #edeveloped and sho$ld #e open for operation not later than si* "onths fro" the date of

approval of the application.

)hen, the I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed a resol$tion re$esting the Cit( ngineer, I$e9on

Cit(, to stop an( f$rther selling andDor transaction of "e"orial par/ lots in I$e9on Cit(where the owners thereof have failed to donate the re$ired 4J space intended for pa$pers

#$rial. P$rs$ant to this petition, the I$e9on Cit( ngineer notified respondent ;i"la(ang

Pilipino, ?nc. in writing that 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: wo$ld #e enforced.

7espondent ;i"la(ang Pilipino filed with the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of 7i9al Branch K???at I$e9on Cit( a petition for declarator( relief, prohi#ition and "anda"$s with preli"inar(

in$nction, see/ing to ann$l 0ection 6 of the Ordinance in $estion. ?t alleged that the sa"e is

contrar( to the Constit$tion, the I$e9on Cit( Charter, the !ocal A$tono"( Act, and the7evised Ad"inistrative Code.

)he trial co$rt rendered the decision declaring 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: n$lland void.

Petitioners arg$e that the ta/ing of the respondentLs propert( is a valid and reasona#le

e*ercise of police power and that the land is ta/en for a p$#lic $se as it is intended for the#$rial gro$nd of pa$pers.

ISSUE: ?s 0ection 6 of the ordinance in $estion a valid e*ercise of the police power2

HELD: No. )here is no reasona#le relation #etween the setting aside of at least si* G4H

percent of the total area of an private ce"eteries for charit( #$rial gro$nds of deceased

pa$pers and the pro"otion of health, "orals, good order, safet(, or the general welfare of thepeople.

The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area fro" a private

ce"eter( to #enefit pa$pers. ?nstead of #$ilding or "aintaining a p$#lic ce"eter( for thisp$rpose, the cit( passes the #$rden to private ce"eteries.

5


6/43

)he e*propriation witho$t co"pensation of a portion of private ce"eteries is not covered #(

the 7evised Charter of I$e9on Cit( which e"powers the cit( co$ncil to prohi#it the #$rial of

the dead within the center of pop$lation of the cit( and to provide for their #$rial in a proper

place s$#ect to the provisions of general law reg$lating #$rial gro$nds and ce"eteries.

4


7/43

CITY OF MANILA VS IAC

FACTS:ivencio 0to. o"ingo, 0r. died and was #$ried in North Ce"eter( which lot was

leased #( the cit( to ?rene 0to. o"ingo for the period fro" $ne 4, %6E% to $ne 4, &'&%.)he wife paid the f$ll a"o$nt of the lease. Apart, however fro" the receipt, no other

doc$"ent e"#odied s$ch lease over the lot. Believing that the lease was onl( for five (ears,the cit( certified the lot as read( for e*h$"ation. On the #asis of the certification, oseph

;el"$th a$thori9ed the e*h$"ation and re"oval of the re"ains of icencio. ;is #ones were

placed in a #ag and /ept in the #odega of the ce"eter(. )he lot was also leased to anotherlessee. $ring the ne*t all so$ls da(, the private respondents were shoc/ed to find o$t that

icencio in>charge of the North Ce"eter( and oseph ;el"$th, the latterLs predecessor as

officer>in>charge of the said #$rial gro$nds owned and operated #( the Cit( +overn"ent ofManila. )he co$rt ordered defendants to give plaintiffs the right to "a/e $se of another lot.

)he CA affir"ed and incl$ded the award of da"ages in favor of the private respondents.

ISSUE: 1hether or not the operations and f$nctions of a p$#lic ce"eter( are agovern"ental, or a corporate or proprietar( f$nction of the Cit( of Manila.

HELD:)he said operations and f$nction are Proprietar( in nat$re. Petitioners alleged intheir petition that the North Ce"eter( is e*cl$sivel( devoted for p$#lic $se or p$rpose as

stated in 0ec. -%4 of the Co"pilation of the Ordinances of the Cit( of Manila. Private

respondents "aintain that the Cit( of Manila entered into a contract of lease which involvethe e*ercise of proprietar( f$nctions with ?rene 0to. o"ingo. )he cit( and its officers

therefore can #e s$ed for an(>violation of the contract of lease. )he Cit( of Manila is a

political #od( corporate and as s$ch endowed with the fac$lties of "$nicipal corporations to

#e e*ercised #( and thro$gh its cit( govern"ent in confor"it( with law, and in its propercorporate na"e. ?t "a( s$e and #e s$ed, and contract and #e contracted with. ?ts powers are

twofold in character>p$#lic, govern"ental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private

and proprietar( on the other. +overn"ental powers are those e*ercised in ad"inistering thepowers of the state and pro"oting the p$#lic welfare and the( incl$de the legislative,

$dicial, p$#lic and political. M$nicipal powers on the one hand are e*ercised for the special

#enefit and advantage of the co""$nit( and incl$de those which are "inisterial, private andcorporate.

E


8/43

MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP. INC.

FACTS:PA+CO7 opened a #ranch in Caga(an de Oro. ifferent sectors of the co""$nit(

opposed the said corporation incl$ding the local govern"ent. )he Ma(or of the cit( #ro$ghtthis instant petition averring that ga"#ling as intrinsicall( har"f$l. ;e also cites vario$sprovisions of the constit$tion and several decisions of the co$rt. ?n relation to this, the

0anng$niang pangl$ngsod passed an ordinance which prohi#ited the operation of casinos in

their place.

ISSUE: 1hether or not an ordinance "a( #e passed #( the 0angg$niang Pangl$ngsodprohi#iting the operation of casinos2

HELD: )he power of PA+CO7 to centrali9e and reg$late all ga"es o chance re"ains

$ni"paired. P %846 has not #een "odified #( the !ocal +overn"ent Code, which

e"powers the local govern"ent to prevent or s$ppress onl( those for"s of ga"#lingprohi#ited #( law.

Casino ga"#ling is a$thori9ed $nder P %846. )his decree has the stat$s of a stat$te that

cannot #e a"ended or n$llified #( a "ere ordinance. ;ence, it was not co"petent for

0angg$niang Pangl$ngsod of Caga(an de Oro cit( to enact ordinances prohi#iting the $se of#$ildings for the operation of a casino and prohi#iting the operation of casinos. )hose

ordinances are contrar( to P%846 and the p$#lic polic( anno$nced therein, therefore $ltra

vires and void.

8


9/43

BASCO VS. PAGCOR

FACTS: PA+CO7 was created and was granted a franchise to esta#lish, operate and

"aintain ga"#ling casinos within the territorial $risdiction of the Philippines. ?ts operationwas originall( cond$cted in the well /nown floating casino Philippine )o$rist. )he

operation was considered a s$ccess for it proved to #e a potential so$rce of reven$e and to

f$nd infrastr$ct$re and socio>econo"ic proects, th$s P %-66 was passed to attain this

o#ective.

0$#se$entl(, P %846 was passed to ena#le the govern"ent to reg$late and centrali9e all

ga"es of chance a$thori9ed #( e*isting franchise or per"itted #( law, $nder the following,

a"ong others, declared polic(. #H )o esta#lish and operate cl$#s and casinos, * * * G%H

generate so$rces of additional reven$e * * *, G&H create recreation and integrated facilities

which will e*pand and i"prove the countrys existing tourist attractions, and (3)minimize, if

not totally eradicate, all theevils, "alpractices and corr$ptions that are nor"all( prevalent

on the cond$ct and operation of ga"#ling cl$#s and casinos witho$t direct involve"ent. ?t

is reported that PA+CO7 is the third largest so$rce of govern"ent reven$e.

B$t the petitioners are $estioning the validit( of P %846. )he( contend that P %846 %H

constit$tes a waiver of the right of the Cit( of Manila to i"pose ta*es and legal fees and &H

its e*e"ption cla$se is violative of local a$tono"(.

ISSUE: 1hether or not P %846 is n$ll and void

HELD:No, P %846 is not n$ll and void. )heir contention is witho$t "erit for the following

reasons

a. )he Cit( of Manila, #eing a "ere M$nicipal corporation, has no inherent right to

i"pose ta*es. )he Charter or stat$te "$st plainl( show an confer that power or the"$nicipalit( cannot ass$"e it.

#. )he Charter of the Cit( is s$#ect to control #( Congress, which has the power to

create and a#olish M$nicipal corporations d$e to its general legislative powers. ?f

congress can grant the Cit( the power to ta*, it can also provide for e*e"ptions or

even ta/e #ac/ the power.

c. )he power of local govern"ents to reg$late ga"#ling thr$ grant of franchise, licensesor per"its was withdrawn and was vested e*cl$sivel( on the National +overn"ent.

Necessaril(, the power to de"and or collect license fees, which is a conse$ence of

the iss$ance of licenses or per"its, is no long vested in the Cit(.

d. !ocal govern"ents have no power to ta* instr$"entalities of the National

+overn"ent. PA+CO7 is a govern"ent owned or controlled corporation with an

6


10/43

original charter. As s$ch, it sho$ld #e and act$all( is e*e"pt fro" local ta*es.

Otherwise, its operation "ight #e #$rdened, i"peded or s$#ected to control #( a

"ere local govern"ent.

e. )he power of local govern"ent to i"pose ta*es and fees is alwa(s s$#ect to

li"itations which Congress "a( provide #( law. 0ince P %846 re"ains an operativelaw $ntil a"ended, repealed or revo/ed, its e*e"ption cla$se re"ains as an e*ception

to the power to i"pose ta*es and fees. ?t cannot #e violative #$t rather is consistent

with the principle of local a$tono"(.

%'


11/43

BINAY VS DOMINGO

FACTS: On 0ept &E, %688, Petitioner Ma/ati, thro$gh its Co$ncil, approved 7esol$tion No.

4'. )he resol$tion provided for a #$rial assistance progra" where $alified #eneficiaries Gto#e given P5''.''H are #ereaved fa"ilies whose gross "onthl( inco"e does not e*ceed &

tho$sand per "onth. ?t will #e f$nded #( the $nappropriated availa#le f$nds in the "$nicipaltreas$r(. Metro Manila Co""ission approved the resol$tion. )he "$nicipal secretar(

certified a dis#$rse"ent f$nd of P:'','''.'' for the i"ple"entation of the progra". 1hen it

was referred to the COA, the resol$tion was disapproved. According to COA, there is norelation #etween the o#ective so$ght to #e attained $nder 7es. No. 4' and the alleged p$#lic

safet( and general welfare of the people of Ma/ati. Moreover, it is not for a p$#lic p$rpose. ?t

onl( see/s to #enefit a few individ$als. )he M$nicipal Co$ncil passed 7esol$tion No. &:-which reaffir"ed 7es. No. 4'. ;owever, the progra" has #een sta(ed #( COA ecision No.

%%56.

ISSUE:1hether or not 7esol$tion No. 4', re>enacted $nder 7esol$tion No. &:-, of the

M$nicipalit( of Ma/ati is a valid e*ercise of police power $nder the general welfare cla$se2

HELD: =0. Police power is inherent in the state #$t not in "$nicipal corporations. Beforea "$nicipal corporation "a( e*ercise s$ch power, there "$st #e a valid delegation of s$ch

power #( the legislat$re which is the repositor( of the inherent powers of the 0tate. A valid

delegation "a( arise fro" e*press delegation, or #e inferred fro" the "ere fact of thecreation of the corporation, and as a general r$le, "$nicipal corporations "a( e*ercise police

powers within the fair intent and p$rpose of their creation which are reasona#l( proper to

give effect to the powers e*pressl( granted, and stat$tes conferring powers on p$#liccorporations have #een constr$ed as e"powering the" to do things essential to the

eno("ent of life and desira#le for the safet( of the people. )he inferred powers are as "$ch

delegated powers as are those conferred in e*press ter"s. Police power> power to prescri#e

reg$lations to pro"ote the health, "orals, peace, ed$cation, good order or safet( and generalwelfare of the people. ?t is not confined within narrow circ$"stances of precedents resting on

past conditions it "$st follow the legal progress of a de"ocratic wa( of life. )he police

power of a "$nicipal corporation is #road, and is co""ens$rate with, #$t not to e*ceed, thed$t( to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safet(, and convenience as

consistentl( as "a( #e with private rights. ?t e*tends to all the p$#lic needs. P$#lic p$rpose is

not $nconstit$tional "erel( #eca$se it incidentall( #enefits a li"ited n$"#er of persons. )hecare for the poor is generall( recogni9ed as a p$#lic d$t(. )he s$pport for the poor has long

#een an accepted e*ercise of police power in the pro"otion of the co""on good. No

violation of e$al protection

%%


12/43

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMELEC

FACTS: $ring the %&th Congress, Congress enacted into law 7.A. 6''6 a"ending 0ection:5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code #( increasing the ann$al inco"e re$ire"ent for

conversion of a "$nicipalit( into a cit( fro" P&' "illion to P%'' "illion in order to restrain

Fthe "ad r$shF of "$nicipalities to convert into cities solel( to sec$re a larger share in the

?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent despite the fact that the( are incapa#le of fiscal independence.

Prior to its enact"ent, a total of 5E "$nicipalities had cit( hood #ills pending in Congress #$t

&: of the" were not converted d$ring the %%th Congress. )he ;o$se of 7epresentatives of

the %&th Congress adopted oint 7esol$tion No. &6 to e*e"pt the &: "$nicipalities whose

cit(hood #ills were not approved in the %%th Congress #$t it was ado$rned witho$t the0enateLs approval. $ring the %-th Congress, %4 of the &: "$nicipalities "entioned in the

$napproved oint 7esol$tion No. &6 filed #etween Nove"#er and ece"#er of &''4,

thro$gh their respective sponsors in Congress, individ$al cit(hood #ills containing a co""on

provision, as follows

Exemption from epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&%$' The ity of x x x shall !e exempted from the

income reuirement prescri!ed under epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&%$

)hese cit(hood #ills lapsed into law on vario$s dates fro" March to $l( &''E after President

+loria Macapagal>Arro(o failed to sign the". Petitioners filed the present petitions to declarethe Cit(hood !aws $nconstit$tional for violation of 0ection %', Article K of the %68E

Constit$tion and as well as for violation of the e$al protection cla$se. Petitioners also

la"ent that the wholesale conversion of "$nicipalities into cities will red$ce the share of

e*isting cities in the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent #eca$se "ore cities will share the sa"e

a"o$nt of internal reven$e set aside for all cities $nder 0ection &85 of the !ocal +overn"ent

Code.

ISSUES: 1hether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection %', Article K of %68E

Constit$tion and whether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate the e$al protection cla$se.

HELD: )he Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection 4 and %', Article K of %68E Constit$tion and the

e$al protection cla$se, and are th$s $nconstit$tional. )he constit$tion provides

0ection %', Article K of %68E Constit$tion.

#o province, city, municipality, or !arangay shall !e created, divided, merged, a!olished or

its !oundary su!stantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria esta!lished in the

%&


13/43

local government code and su!*ect to approval !y a ma*ority of the votes cast in a ple!iscite

in the political units directly affected$

?n that case, the cit(hood #ills violated 0ection %', Article K of the Constit$tion. )he creation

of local govern"ent $nits "$st follow the criteria esta#lished in the !ocal +overn"ent Codeand not in an( other laws. )here is onl( one !ocal +overn"ent Code. )he Constit$tion

re$ires Congress to stip$late in the !ocal +overn"ent Code all the criteria necessar( for the

creation of a cit(, incl$ding the conversion of a "$nicipalit( into a cit(. )he Congress cannot

write s$ch criteria in an( other law, li/e the Cit(hood !aws.

?f the criteria in creating local govern"ent $nits are not $nifor" and discri"inator(, there

can #e no fair and $st distri#$tion of the national ta*es to local govern"ent $nits. A cit( with

an ann$al inco"e of onl( P&' "illion, all other criteria #eing e$al, sho$ld not receive the

sa"e share in national ta*es as a cit( with an ann$al inco"e of P%'' "illion or "ore. 0incethe Cit(hood !aws do not follow the inco"e criterion in 0ection :5' of the !ocal

+overn"ent Code, the( precl$de the fair and $st distri#$tion of the ?nternal 7even$e

Allot"ent in violation of 0ection 4, Article K of the Constit$tion.

)he $al Protection Cla$se of the %68E Constit$tion per"its a valid classification $nder the

following conditions

+$ The classification must rest on su!stantial distinctions

-$ The classification must !e germane to the purpose of the law3$ The classification must not !e limited to existing conditions only and

.$ The classification must apply eually to all mem!ers of the same class$

)he e*e"ption to the P%'' "illion ann$al inco"e re$ire"ent is $nconstit$tional for

violation of the e$al protection cla$se. 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, as

a"ended #( 7A 6''6, does not contain an( e*e"ption. )he e*e"ption is contained in the

Cit(hood !aws, which is $nconstit$tional #eca$se s$ch e*e"ption "$st #e prescri#ed in the

!ocal +overn"ent Code as "andated in 0ection %', Article K of the Constit$tion.

)he e*e"ption provision "erel( states, /Exemption from epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&% ' The ity

of x x x shall !e exempted from the income reuirement prescri!ed under epu!lic "ct #o$

%&&%$/ )his one sentence e*e"ption provision contains no classification standards or

g$idelines differentiating the e*e"pted "$nicipalities fro" those that are not e*e"pted.

@$rther"ore, 7.A. 6''6 is a Prospective Application of the !aw. ?t too/ effect in &''% while

%-


14/43

the cit(hood #ills #eca"e law "ore than five (ears later. ;ence, the retroactive application is

inad"issi#le.

1;7@O7, the Co$rt grants the petitions and declares NCON0)?))?ONA! the

Cit(hood !aws.

%:


15/43

PACQUING VS. GUINGONA

FACTS: )he petition in +.7. No. %%5':: was dis"issed #( the @irst ivision of this Co$rt

on '% 0epte"#er %66: #ased on a finding that there was Fno a#$se of discretion, "$ch lesslac/ of or e*cess of $risdiction, on the part of respondent $dge Pac$ingF, in iss$ing the

$estioned orders. $dge Pac$ing had earlier iss$ed in Civil Case No. 88>:544', 7)C of

Manila, Branch :', the following orders which were assailed #( the Ma(or of the Cit( of

Manila, ;on. Alfredo 0. !i", in said +.7. No. %%5'::

a. order dated &8 March %66: directing Manila "a(or Alfredo 0. !i" to iss$e the

per"itDlicense to operate the ai>alai in favor of Associated evelop"ent Corporation GACH.

#. order dated %% April %66: directing "a(or !i" to e*plain wh( he sho$ld not #e

cited for conte"pt for non>co"pliance with the order dated &8 March %66:.

c. order dated &' April %66: reiterating the previo$s order directing Ma(or !i" to

i""ediatel( iss$e the per"itDlicense to Associated evelop"ent Corporation GACH.

)he order dated &8 "arch %66: was in t$rn iss$ed $pon "otion #( AC for e*ec$tion of a

final $dg"ent rendered on 6 0epte"#er %688 which ordered the Manila Ma(or to

i""ediatel( iss$e to AC the per"itD license to operate the ai>alai in Manila, $nder Manila

Ordinance No. E'45 .

On %- 0epte"#er %66:, petitioner +$ingona Gas e*ec$tivesecretar(H iss$ed a directive to

then chair"an of the +a"es and A"$se"ents Board G+ABH @rancisco 7. 0$"$long, r. to

hold in a#e(ance the grant of a$thorit(, or if an( had #een iss$ed, to withdraw s$ch grant of

a$thorit(, to Associated evelop"ent Corporation to operate the ai>alai in the Cit( of

Manila, $ntil the following legal $estions are properl( resolved

%. 1hether P.. EE% which revo/ed all e*isting ai>Alai franchisers iss$ed #( local

govern"ents as of &' A$g$st %6E5 is $nconstit$tional.

&. Ass$"ing that the Cit( of Manila had the power on E 0epte"#er %6E% to iss$e a

ai>Alai franchise to Associated evelop"ent Corporation, whether the franchise granted is

valid considering that the franchise has no d$ration, and appears to #e granted in perpet$it(.

-. 1hether the Cit( of Manila had the power to iss$e a ai>Alai franchise to

Associated evelop"ent Corporation on E 0epte"#er %6E% in view of e*ec$tive Order No.

-6& dated % an$ar( %65% which transferred fro" local govern"ents to the +a"es and

A"$se"ents Board the power to reg$late ai> Alai.

)he national govern"ent contends that Manila Ordinance No. E'45 which p$rported to grant

to AC a franchise to cond$ct ai>alai operations is void and $ltra vires since 7ep$#lic Act

%5


16/43

No. 65:, approved on &' $ne %65-, or ver( "$ch earlier than said Ordinance No. E'45, the

latter approved E 0epte"#er %6E%, in 0ection : thereof, re$ires a legislative franchise, not a

"$nicipal franchise, for the operation of ai>alai. Additionall(, the national govern"ent

arg$es that even ass$"ing, arg$endo, that the a#ove"entioned ordinance is valid, ACLs

franchise was

nonetheless effectivel( revo/ed #( Presidential decree No. EE%, iss$ed on &' A$g$st %6E5,

0ec. - of which e*pressl( revo/ed all e*isting franchises and per"its to operate all for"s of

ga"#ling facilities Gincl$ding the ai>alaiH iss$ed #( local govern"ents.

On the other hand, ACLs position is that Ordinance No. E'45 was validl( enacted #( the

Cit( of Manila p$rs$ant to its delegated powers $nder it charter, 7ep$#lic Act No. :'6. AC

also s$arel( assails the constit$tionalit( of P No. EE% as violative of the e$al protection

and non>i"pair"ent cla$ses of the Constit$tion. ?n this connection, co$nsel for AC

contends that this Co$rt sho$ld reall( r$le on the validit( of P No. EE% to #e a#le to

deter"ine whether AC contin$es to possess a valid franchise.

ISSUE: 1hether or not the Associated evelop"ent Corporation has a valid franchise to

"aintain and operate ai>alai.

HELD: NO. 7espondent AC does not possess the re$ired congressional franchise to

operate and cond$ct the ai>alai $nder 7A 65: and P EE%.

Congress did not delegate to the Cit( of Manila the power Fto franchiseF wagers or

#etting, incl$ding the ai>alai, #$t retained for itself s$ch power Fto franchiseF. 1hat

Congress

delegated to the Cit( of Manila in 7ep. Act No. :'6, with respect to wagers or #etting, wasthe power to Flicense, per"it, or reg$lateF which therefore "eans that a license or per"it

iss$ed #( the Cit( of Manila to operate a wager or #etting activit(, s$ch as the ai>alai where

#ets are accepted, wo$ld not a"o$nt to so"ething "eaningf$l N!00 the holder of the

per"it or license was also @7ANC;?0 #( the national govern"ent to so operate.

Moreover, even this power to license, per"it, or reg$late wagers or #etting on ai>alai

was re"oved fro" local govern"ents, incl$ding the Cit( of Manila, and transferred to the

+AB on % an$ar( %65% #( *ec$tive Order No. -6&. )he net res$lt is that the a$thorit( to

grant franchises for the operation of ai>alai frontons is in Congress, while the reg$lator(

f$nction is vested in the +AB.

0ince AC has no franchise fro" Congress to operate the ai>alai, it "a( not so

operate even if it has a license or per"it fro" the Cit( Ma(or to operate the ai>alai in the

Cit( of Manila.

%4


17/43

SANGALANG VS. IAC

FACTS: ose and !$tgarda #oth s$rna"ed 0angalang, petitioners and Bel>Air illageAssociation, ?nc. GBAAH, intervenor>petitioner, assailed the decision of the CA for the

opening of $piter 0treet for the p$#lic. )he petitioners contested that $piter 0treet is for the

e*cl$sive $se of BAA residents and that A(ala Corporation did not contrive to ac$ire"e"#ership at BAA p$rposel( to #argain for access to $piter 0treet #( the general p$#lic.

)he petitioners appealed as well that the de"olition and opening of Or#it 0treet has led to the

loss of privac( of BAA residents and deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law.

ISSUE:1hether or not the Ma(or of Ma/ati is vested with the power to order the de"olition

and opening of 0treets witho$t the #ac/ing of an ordinance

HELD: )he opening of $piter and Or#it 0treets were warranted #( the de"ands of the

co""on good, in ter"s of traffic decongestion and p$#lic convenience. )here is no "erit in

BAAesta#lished in this $risdiction. ?t has #eendefined as the state a$thorit( to enact legislation that "a( interfere with personal li#ert( of

propert( in order to pro"ote the general welfare. As defined, it consists of G%H an

i"position of restraint $pon li#ert( of propert(, G&H in order to foster the co""on good. ?t isnot capa#le of an e*act definition #$t has #een, p$rposel(, veiled in general ter"s to

$nderscore its all>co"prehensive e"#race. ?ts scope, ever>e*panding to "eet the e*igencies

of the ti"es, even to anticipate the f$t$re where it co$ld #e done provides eno$gh roo" for

an efficient and fle*i#le response to conditions and circ$"stance th$s ass$ring the greatest#enefits.

%E


18/43

MENZON VS PETILLA

FACTS: On March &5, %688 the petitioner A$relio . Men9on, a senior "e"#er of the

0angg$niang Panlalawigan was also designated #( 0ecretar( !$is 0antos to act as the ice>+overnor for the province of !e(te. )he petitioner too/ his oath of office #efore 0enator

Al#erto 7o"$lo on March &6, %688.

On Ma( &6, %686, the Provincial Ad"inistrator, )ente . I$intero in$ired fro" thendersecretar( of the epart"ent of !ocal +overn"ent, acinto ). 7$#illar, r., as to the

legalit( of the appoint"ent of the petitioner to act as the ice>+overnor of !e(te. ?n his repl(

letter dated $ne &&, %686, ndersecretar( acinto ). 7$#illar, r. stated that since B.P. --Ehas no provision relating to s$ccession in the Office of the ice>+overnor in case of a

te"porar( vacanc(, the appoint"ent of the petitioner as the te"porar( ice> +overnor is not

necessar( since the ice>+overnor who is te"poraril( perfor"ing the f$nctions of the

+overnor, co$ld conc$rrentl( ass$"e the f$nctions of #oth offices.

As a res$lt of the foregoing co""$nications #etween )ente . I$intero and acinto ).

7$#illar, r., the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan, in a special session held on $l( E, %686, iss$ed

7esol$tion No. 5'5 where it held invalid the appoint"ent of the petitioner as acting ice>+overnor of !e(te. )he petitioner, on $l( %', %686, thro$gh the acting !P 7egional

Co$nsel, Att(. osi"o Alegre, so$ght clarification fro" ndersecretar( acinto ). 7$#illar,

r. regarding the $ne &&, %686 opinion. On $l( %&, %686, ndersecretar( acinto ). 7$#illar

replied and e*plained his opinion which stated On the #asis of the foregoing andconsidering that the law is silent in case of te"porar( vacanc(, in the Office of the ice>

+overnor, it is o$r view that the pec$liar sit$ation in the Province of !e(te, where the

electoral controvers( in the Office of the +overnor has not (et #een settled, calls for thedesignation of the 0angg$niang Me"#er to act as vice>governor te"poraril( ?n view, of the

clarificator( letter of ndersecretar( 7$#illar, the 7egional irector of the epart"ent of

!ocal +overn"ent, 7egion 8, 7es$rreccion 0alvatierra, on $l( %E, %686, wrote a letteraddressed to the Acting>+overnor of !e(te, !eopoldo . Petilla, re$esting the latter that

7esol$tion No. 5'5 of the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan #e "odified accordingl(. On A$g$st -,

%686, the 7egional irector wrote another letter to Acting>+overnor Petilla, reiterating hisearlier re$est.

espite these several letters of re$est, the Acting +overnor and the 0angg$niang

Panlalawigan, ref$sed to correct 7esol$tion No. 5'5 and correspondingl( to pa( the

petitioner the e"ol$"ents attached to the Office of ice>+overnor. )h$s, on Nove"#er %&,%686, the petitioner filed #efore this Co$rt a petition for certiorari and mandamus. )he

petition so$ght the n$llification of 7esol$tion No. 5'5 and for the pa("ent of his salar( for

his services as the acting ice>+overnor of !e(te.

?n the "eanti"e, however, the iss$e on the governorship of !e(te was settled and Adelina!arra9a#al was proclai"ed the +overnor of the province of !e(te.

%8


19/43

ISSUES: 1ON there is vacanc(2

HELD:=es. )he law on P$#lic Officers is clear on the "atter. )here is no vacanc(whenever the office is occ$pied #( a legall( $alified inc$"#ent. Asensu contrario, there is

a vacancy when there is no person lawfully authorized to assume and exercise at present the

duties of the office. Gsee0toc/ing v. 0tate, E ?nd. -&4, cited in Meche". A )reatise on the!aw on P$#lic Offices and Officers, at p. 4%H

Appl(ing the definition of vacanc( to this case, it can #e readil( seen that the office of the

ice>+overnor was left vacant when the d$l( elected ice>+overnor !eopoldo Petilla was

appointed Acting +overnor. ?n the e(es of the law, the office to which he was elected wasleft #arren of a legall( $alified person to e*ercise the d$ties of the office of the ice>

+overnor.

)here is no satisfactor( showing that !eopoldo Petilla, notwithstanding his s$ccession to the

Office of the +overnor, contin$ed to si"$ltaneo$sl( e*ercise the d$ties of the ice>

+overnor. )he nat$re of the d$ties of a Provincial +overnor call for a f$ll>ti"e occ$pant todischarge the". More so when the vacanc( is for an e*tended period. Precisel(, it was

PetillaLs a$to"atic ass$"ption to the acting +overnorship that res$lted in the vacanc( in theoffice of the ice>+overnor. )he fact that the 0ecretar( of !ocal +overn"ent was pro"pted

to appoint the petitioner shows the need to fill $p the position d$ring the period it was vacant.

)he epart"ent 0ecretar( had the discretion to ascertain whether or not the Provincial+overnor sho$ld devote all his ti"e to that partic$lar office. Moreover, it is do$#tf$l if the

Provincial Board, $nilaterall( acting, "a( revo/e an appoint"ent "ade #( a higher a$thorit(.

%6


20/43

FIVALDO VS. COMELEC AND RAUL LEE

FACTS:On March &', %665, private respondent $an +. @rivaldo filed his Certificate of

Candidac( for the office of +overnor of 0orsogon in the Ma( 8, %665 elections. On March&-, %665, petitioner 7a$l 7. !ee, another candidate, filed a petition with the Co"elec

doc/eted as 0PA No. 65>'&8 pra(ing that @rivaldo F#e dis$alified fro" see/ing or holdingan( p$#lic office or position #( reason of not (et #eing a citi9en of the Philippines,F and that

his Certificate of Candidac( #e cancelled. On Ma( %, %665, the 0econd ivision of the

Co"elec pro"$lgated a 7esol$tion granting the petition with the following disposition

F1;7@O7, this ivision resolves to +7AN) the petition and declares that respondentis ?0IA!?@? to r$n for the Office of +overnor of 0orsogon on the gro$nd that he is

NO) a citi9en of the Philippines. Accordingl(, respondentLs certificate of candidac( is

cancelled.F

)he Motion for 7econsideration filed #( @rivaldo re"ained $nacted $pon $ntil after the Ma(8, %665 elections. 0o, his candidac( contin$ed and he was voted for d$ring the elections held

on said date. On Ma( %%, %665, the Co"elec en !anc affir"ed the afore"entioned

7esol$tion of the 0econd ivision.

)he Provincial Board of Canvassers co"pleted the canvass of the election ret$rns and aCertificate of otedated Ma( &E, %665 was iss$ed showing the following votes o#tained #(

the candidates for the position of +overnor of 0orsogon

Antonio ;. sc$dero, r. 5%,'4'

$an +. @rivaldo E-,::'

7a$l7.!ee 5-,-':

?sagani P. Oca"po %,6&5

On $ne 6, %665, !ee filed in said 0PA No. 65>'&8, a Gs$pple"entalH petition 6pra(ing for

his procla"ation as the d$l(>elected +overnor of 0orsogon. ?n an order dated $ne &%, %665,

#$t pro"$lgated according to the petition Fonl( on $ne &6, %665,F the Co"elec en !anedirected Fthe Provincial Board of Canvassers of 0orsogon to reconvene for the p$rpose of

proclai"ing candidate 7a$l !ee as the winning g$#ernatorial candidate in the province of0orsogon on $ne &6,%665 * * *.F Accordingl(, at 8-' in the evening of $ne -',%665, !eewas proclai"ed governor of 0orsogon. On $l( 4, %665, @rivaldo filed with the Co"elec a

new petition doc/eted as 0PC No. 65>-%E, pra(ing for the ann$l"ent of the $ne -', %665

procla"ation of !ee and for his own procla"ation. ;e alleged that on $ne -', %665, at &''

in the afternoon, he too/ his oath of allegiance as a citi9en of the Philippines after Fhispetition for repatriation $nder P.. E&5 which he filed with the 0pecial Co""ittee on

Nat$rali9ation in 0epte"#er %66: had #een granted.F As s$ch, when Fthe said order Gdated

&'
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/120295.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/120295.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jun1996/120295.htm#_edn9


21/43

$ne &%, %665H Gof the Co"elecH * * * was released and received #( @rivaldo on $ne -',

%665 at 5-' oLcloc/ in the evening, there was no "ore legal i"pedi"ent to the procla"ation

Gof @rivaldoH as governor * * *.F ?n the alternative, he averred that p$rs$ant to the two casesof 0a!o vs$ omelec the ice>+overnor3 not !ee 3 sho$ld occ$p( said position of

governor. On ece"#er %6, %665, the Co"elec @irst ivision pro"$lgated the herein

assailed 7esol$tion holding that !ee, Fnot having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes,F wasnot legall( entitled to #e proclai"ed as d$l(>elected governor and that @rivaldo, Fhaving

garnered the highest n$"#er of votes, and *** having reac$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #(

repatriation on $ne -', %665 $nder the provisions of Presidential ecree No. E&5 *** GisH$alified to hold the office of governor of 0orsogonF th$s

FP7M?00 CON0?7, the Co""ission G@irst ivisionH, therefore 70O!0 to

+7AN) the Petition.

Consistent with the decisions of the 0$pre"e Co$rt, the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. !ee as

+overnor of 0orsogon is here#( ordered ann$lled, #eing contrar( to law, he not having

garnered the highest n$"#er of votes to warrant his procla"ation. pon the finalit( of theann$l"ent of the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. !ee, the Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed

to i""ediatel( reconvene and, on the #asis of the co"pleted canvass, proclai" petitioner$an +. @rivaldo as the d$l( elected +overnor of 0orsogon having garnered the highest

n$"#er of votes, and he having reac$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #( repatriation on $ne

-',%665 $nder the provisions of Presidential ecree No. E&5 and, th$s, $alified to hold theoffice of +overnor of 0orsogon.

Confor"a#l( with 0ection &4' of the O"ni#$s lection Code G1$2$ 1lg$ +H, the Cler/ of

the Co""ission is directed to notif( ;is *cellenc( the President of the Philippines, and the

0ecretar( of the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan of the Province of 0orsogon of this resol$tion

i""ediatel( $pon the d$e i"ple"entation thereof.F On ece"#er &4,%665, !ee filed a"otion for reconsideration which was denied #( the Co"elec en !anc in its 7esol$tion

pro"$lgated on @e#r$ar( &-, %664. On @e#r$ar( &4, %664, the present petition was filed.Acting on the pra(er for a te"porar( restraining order, this Co$rt iss$ed on @e#r$ar( &E,

%664 a 7esol$tion which inter alia directed the parties Fto "aintain thestatus uoprevailing

prior to the filing of this petition.F

ISSUE:1as the repatriation of @rivaldo valid and legal2 ?f so, did it seasona#l( c$re his lac/

of citi9enship as to $alif( hi" to #e proclai"ed and to hold the Office of +overnor2 ?f not,

"a( it #e given retroactive effect2 ?f so, fro" when2

HELD: On the #asis of the partiesL s$#"issions, we are convinced that the pres$"ption ofreg$larit( in the perfor"ance of official d$t( and the pres$"ption of legalit( in the

repatriation of @rivaldo have not #een s$ccessf$ll( re#$tted #( !ee. )he "ere fact that the

proceedings were speeded $p is #( itself not a gro$nd to concl$de that s$ch proceedings werenecessaril( tainted. After all, the re$ire"ents of repatriation $nder P.. No. E&5 are not

diffic$lt to co"pl( with, nor are the( tedio$s and c$"#erso"e. ?n fact, P.. E&5 itself

re$ires ver( little of an applicant, and even the r$les and reg$lations to i"ple"ent the said

decree were left to the 0pecial Co""ittee to pro"$lgate. )his is not $n$s$al since, $nli/e in

&%


22/43

nat$rali9ation where an alien covets a first'time entr( into Philippine political life, in

repatriation the applicant is a for"er nat$ral>#orn @ilipino who is "erel( see/ing to reac$ire

his previo$s citi9enship. ?n the case of @rivaldo, he was $ndo$#tedl( a nat$ral>#orn citi9enwho openl( and faithf$ll( served his co$ntr( and his province prior to his nat$rali9ation in

the nited 0tates 3 a nat$rali9ation he insists was "ade necessar( onl( to escape the iron

cl$tches of a dictatorship he a#horred and co$ld not in conscience e"#race 3 and who, afterthe fall of the dictator and the re>esta#lish"ent of de"ocratic space, wasted no ti"e in

ret$rning to his co$ntr( of #irth to offer once "ore his talent and services to his people.

0o too, the fact that ten other persons, as certified to #( the 0olicitor +eneral, were granted

repatriation arg$es convincingl( and concl$sivel( against the e*istence of favoritis"vehe"entl( posited #( 7a$l !ee. At an( rate, an( contest on the legalit( of @rivaldoLs

repatriation sho$ld have #een p$rs$ed #efore the Co""ittee itself, and, failing there, in the

Office of the President, p$rs$ant to the doctrine of e*ha$stion of ad"inistrative re"edies.

nder 0ec. -6 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, FGaHn elective local official "$st #e

Q a citi9en of the Philippines

Q a registered voter in the #aranga(, "$nicipalit(, cit(, or province * * * where he

intends to #e elected

Q a resident therein for at least one G%H (ear i""ediatel( preceding the da( of the

election

Q a#le to read and write @ilipino or an( other local lang$age or dialect.F

Q ?n addition, Fcandidates for the position of governor * * * "$st #e at least twent(>threeG&-H (ears of age on election da(.F

@ro" the a#ove, it will #e noted that the law does not specif( an( partic$lar date or ti"e

when the candidate "$st possess citi9enship, $nli/e that for residence Gwhich "$st consist ofat least one year4s residency immediately preceding the da( of electionH and age Gat least

twent( three (ears of age on election day)$

Philippine citi9enship is an indispensa#le re$ire"ent for holding an elective p$#lic office,

and the p$rpose of the citi9enship $alification is none other than to ens$re that no alien, i.e.,no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern o$r people and o$r co$ntr( or a

$nit of territor( thereof. Now, an official #egins to govern or to discharge his f$nctions onl($pon his procla"ation and on the da( the law "andates his ter" of office to #egin. 0ince@rivaldo re>ass$"ed his citi9enship on $ne -', %6653the ver( da( the ter" of office of

governor Gand other elective officialsH #egan3he was therefore alread( $alified to #e

proclai"ed, to hold s$ch office and to discharge the f$nctions and responsi#ilities thereof asof said date. B$t to re"ove all do$#ts on this i"portant iss$e, we also hold that the

repatriation of @rivaldo 7)7O AC) to the date of the filing of his application on A$g$st

%E,%66:.

&&


23/43

&-


24/43

JABELLANA VS. DILG

FACTS: Att(. rwin avellana was elected Cit( Co$ncilor of Bago Cit(, Negros Occidental.

Cit( ngineer ivinagracia filed an Ad"inistrative Case against avellana for contin$o$sl(engaging in the practice of law witho$t sec$ring a$thorit( fro" the 7egional irector of the

?!+. ?t also alleged that avellana filed a case against ivinagracio for ?llegal is"ilssaland 7einstate"ent with a"ages.

ISSUE: 1hether or not avellana properl( engaged in the practice of law2

HELD:No. !+C, 0ec. 6'. 0angg$nian "e"#ers "a( practice their professions, engage in

an( occ$pation, or teach in schools e*cept d$ring session ho$rs. Provided, that sangg$nian"e"#ers who are also "e"#ers of the Bar shall not Appear as co$nsel #efore an( co$rt in

an( civil case wherein a local govern"ent $nit or an( office, agenc(, or instr$"entalit( of

the govern"ent is the adverse part( Collect an( fee for their appearance in ad"inistrativeproceedings involving the !+ of which he is an official. )he co"plaint for illegal dis"issal

filed #( aviero and Catapang against Cit( ngineer ivinagracia is in effect a co"plaint

against the Cit( +overn"ent of Bago Cit(, their real e"plo(er, of which petitioner avellana

is a co$ncil"an. ;ence, $dg"ent against ivinagracia wo$ld act$all( #e a $dg"ent againstthe Cit( +overn"ent. B( serving as co$nsel for the co"plaining e"plo(ees and assisting

the" to prosec$te the clai"s against ivinagracia, the petitioner violated Me"o Circ$lar No.

E:>58 prohi#iting a govern"ent official fro" engaging in the private practice of hisprofession, is s$ch practice wo$ld represent interests adverse to the govern"ent.

&:


25/43

PROVINCE OF CEBU VS. IAC:

FACTS:)he facts of the case are not in disp$te. On @e#r$ar( :, %64:, while then inc$"#ent

+overnor 7ene spina was on official #$siness in Manila, the ice>+overnor, PriscillanoAl"endras and three G-H "e"#ers of the Provincial Board enacted 7esol$tion No. %88,

donating to the Cit( of Ce#$ &%' province. owned lots all located in the Cit( of Ce#$, withan aggregate area of over -8' hectares, and a$thori9ing the ice>+overnor to sign the deed

of donation on #ehalf of the province. )he deed of donation was i""ediatel( e*ec$ted in

#ehalf of the Province of Ce#$ #( ice>+overnor Al"endras and accepted in #ehalf of the

Cit( of Ce#$ #( Ma(or 0ergio Os"eRa, r. )he doc$"ent of donation was prepared andnotari9ed #( a private law(er. )he donation was later approved #( the Office of the President

thro$gh *ec$tive 0ecretar( $an Cancio.

According to the $estioned deed of donation the lots donated were to #e sold #( the Cit( of

Ce#$ to raise f$nds that wo$ld #e $sed to finance its p$#lic i"prove"ent proects. )he Cit(of Ce#$ was given a period of one G%H (ear fro" A$g$st %5, %64: within which to dispose of

the donated lots. pon his ret$rn fro" Manila, +overnor spina deno$nced as !egal and

i""oral the action of his colleag$es in donating practicall( all the patri"onial propert( ofthe province of Ce#$, considering that the latterLs inco"e was less than one. fo$rth G%D:H of

that of the Cit( of Ce#$. )o prevent the sale or disposition of the lots, the officers and

"e"#ers of the Ce#$ Ma(orLs !eag$e Gin #ehalf of their respective "$nicipalitiesH alongwith so"e ta*pa(ers, incl$ding Att(. +arcia, filed a case see/ing to have the donation

declared illegal, n$ll and void. +overnor spina, apprehensive that the lots wo$ld #e

irretrieva#l( lost #( the Province of Ce#$, decided to go to co$rt. ;e engaged the services ofrespondent +arcia in filing and prosec$ting the case in his #ehalf and in #ehalf of the

Province of Ce#$.

+arcia filed the co"plaint for the ann$l"ent of the deed of donation with an application for

the iss$ance of a writ of preli"inar( in$nction, which application was granted on the sa"eda(, A$g$st 4, %645. On $ne &5, %6E:, a co"pro"ise agree"ent was reached #etween the

province of Ce#$ and the cit( of Ce#$. On $l( %5, %6E:, the co$rt approved the co"pro"ise

agree"ent and a decision was rendered on its #asis. @or services rendered in Civil Case no.&-8>BC, C@? of Ce#$, respondent Pa#lo P. +arcia filed thro$gh co$nsel a Notice of

Attorne(Ls !ien, dated April %:, %6E5, pra(ing that his state"ent of clai" of attorne(Ls lien in

said case #e entered $pon the records thereof, p$rs$ant to 0ection -E, 7$le %-8 of the 7$les

of Co$rt. )o said notice, petitioner Province of Ce#$ filed thro$gh co$nsel, its oppositiondated April &-, %6E5, stating that the pa("ent of attorne(Ls fees and rei"#$rse"ent of

incidental e*penses are not allowed #( law and settled $rispr$dence to #e paid #( the

Province. A reoinder to this opposition was filed #( private respondent +arcia.

After hearing, the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of Ce#$, then presided over #( $dge AlfredoMarigo"en, rendered $dg"ent dated Ma( -', %6E6, in favor of private respondent and

against petitioner Province of Ce#$, declaring that the for"er is entitled to recover attorne(Ls

fees on the #asis of $ant$" "er$it and fi*ing the a"o$nt thereof at P-','''.''. Both

&5


26/43

parties appealed fro" the decision to the Co$rt of Appeals. ?n the case of private respondent,

however, he appealed onl( fro" that portion of the decision which fi*ed his attorne(Ls fees at

P-','''.'' instead of at -'J of the val$e of the properties involved in the litigation as statedin his original clai"

On Octo#er %8, %685, the ?nter"ediate Appellate Co$rt rendered a decision affir"ing thefindings and concl$sions of the trial co$rt that the private respondent is entitled to recover

attorne(Ls fees #$t fi*ing the a"o$nt of s$ch fees at 5J of the "ar/et val$e of the propertiesinvolved in the litigation as of the date of the filing of the clai" in %6E5. Both parties went to

the 0$pre"e Co$rt with private respondent $estioning the fi*ing of his attorne(Ls fees at 5J

instead of -'J of the val$e of the properties in litigations as pra(ed for in his clai"s.

ISSUE: 1ON Att(. Pa#lo P. +arcia is entitled to attorne(


27/43

PILAPIL VS. CA

FACTS: )he petitioners>spo$ses Ghereinafter, PilapilsH own a 4,568 s$are "eter parcel of

land sit$ated in Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan, Ce#$ and covered #( )a* eclaration No. %5'4E.)he said parcel corresponds to !ot No. -&' and !ot -&- and that portion covered #( PlanPs$>'E>''5''E, d$l( approved #( the 7egional irector of 7egion ?? of the B$rea$ of

!ands. )he land for"erl( #elonged to Marcelo Pilapil, the grandfather of petitioner 0ocrates

Pilapil.

Private respondents Ghereinafter, Colo"idasH, who are residents of Manda$e Cit(, p$rchasedon : $ne %68% fro" steria vda. de Ceni9a and the heirs of !eoncio Ceni9a a parcel of land,

also located at Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan, Ce#$, covered #( )a* eclaration No. %6E4: and

descri#ed as follows

. . . Bo$ndaries N>+regorio !onga/it 0>+regorio !onga/it >Manglar 1>+regorio !ong/it Area %',6%' s. "eters Sind of land Past$re cocal and

wood ?"prove"ents &' cocos prod. Assessed al$e P%,-4'.'' Present

Possessors )he herein petitioners.

)his parcel of land, per Plan Ps$>'E>''&E4-, was fo$nd to contain onl( 4,::8 s$are "eters.?t is now covered #( @ree Patent No. G??>%H>%5::8, iss$ed on &- March %68&, and Original

Certificate of )itle No. P>&'588of the 7egister of eeds of the Province of Ce#$ iss$ed in

the na"e of the Colo"idas and is located aro$nd E' "eters fro" the National 7oad. )heColo"idas clai" that the( had ac$ired fro" 0esenando !ong/it a road right of wa( which

leads towards the National 7oad this road right of wa(, however, ends at that portion of the

propert( of the Pilapils where a camino vecinal e*ists all the wa( to the said National 7oad.

?n the earl( part of $l( of %68%, the Colo"idas Ftried to i"prove the road of /caminovecinal/, for the convenience of the p$#lic,F #$t the Pilapils harassed and threatened the"

with F#odil( har" fro" "a/ing said i"prove"ent.F )he Pilapils also threatened to fence off

the camino vecinal.

)h$s, on %4 $l( %68%, the Colo"idas filed against the Pilapils a petition for in$nction andda"ages with a pra(er for a writ of preli"inar( "andator( andDor prohi#itor( in$nction with

the 7egional )rial Co$rt of Ce#$. and pra( that $pon the filing of the petition, a restraining

order #e iss$ed directing the Pilapils or an(one acting in their #ehalf to cease and desist fro"

preventing or harassing the" GColo"idasH fro" $sing the camino vecinal andDor fencing offthe sa"e, and after hearing, a writ of preli"inar( in$nction #e iss$ed co""anding the

Pilapils to cease and desist fro" proceeding with the acts co"plained of. )he Pilapils filed

their Answer in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&. )he( specificall( den( therein the e*istence of a/camino vecinal/on their propert( and allege, inter alia, that the enclosing of their propert(

and allege, inter alia, that the enclosing of their propert( #( a fence was done in the valid

e*ercise of their right of ownership and that if the Colo"idas were pre$diced there#(, the(onl( have the"selves to #la"e for #$(ing said propert( witho$t verif(ing its condition and

&E


28/43

e*isting ease $ring trial on the "erits in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&, the Colo"idas presented

the following witnesses +orgonio Colo"ida, r. hi"self, 0esenado !onga/it and @lorentino

Pepito. )he( also offered in evidence doc$"entar( e*hi#its. the "ore relevant and "aterialof which are G%H 7esol$tion No. %'4 of the M$nicipal Co$ncil of !iloan passed on %8 A$g$st

%6E- and entitled FA$thori9ing the 7esidents of Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan to 7epair and

?"prove a amino 5ecinalin their 0itioF and G&H a s/etch prepared #( witness 0esenando!onga/it p$rportedl( showing that the camino vecinaltraverses the propert( of the Pilapils.

Both !onga/it and Pepito testified on the said camino vecinal, insisting that it traverses the

propert( of the Pilapils.

pon the other hand, the Pilapils presented the following as their witnesses 7o"an0$ngahid, ngineer pifanio ordan Gthe M$nicipal Planning and evelop"ent Coordinator

of the M$nicipalit( of !iloanH and petitioner 0ocrates Pilapil. ngineer ordan testified on

!iloanLs r#an !and se Plan or 9oning "ap which he prepared $pon the instr$ction of thenM$nicipal Ma(or Cesar B$tai and which was approved #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an of !iloan.

Per the said plan, the camino vecinalin sitio Baha/ does not traverse, #$t r$ns along the side

of the Pilapil propert(. On 8 @e#r$ar( %688, the trial co$rt rendered its decision in favor ofthe Colo"idas "ents. )he CA in its decision affir"ing in toto the 8 @e#r$ar( %688 r$ling of

the trial co$rt. ;ence, the "atter was #ro$ght #efore the 0C.

ISSUE: 1ON the 9oning plan "$st give wa( the clai"s of #oth parties2

HELD: No. )he propert( of provinces, cities and "$nicipalities is divided into propert( for

p$#lic $se and patri"onial propert(. 40)he first consists of the provincial roads, cit( streets,"$nicipal streets, s$ares, fo$ntains, p$#lic waters, pro"enades, and p$#lic wor/s for p$#lic

service paid for #( the said provinces, cities or "$nicipalities. 41)he( are governed #( the

sa"e principles as propert( of p$#lic do"inion of the sa"e character. 4nder the applica#le

law in this case, Batas Pa"#ansa Blg. --E G)he !ocal +overn"ent CodeH, the 0angg$niangBa(an, the legislative #od( of the "$nicipalit(, 4! had the power to adopt 9oning and

s$#division ordinances or reg$lations s$#ect to the provisions of e*isting laws, and toprovide for the constr$ction, i"prove"ent, repair and "aintenance of "$nicipal streets,

aven$es, alle(s, sidewal/s, #ridges, par/s and other p$#lic places, reg$late the $se thereof

and prohi#it the constr$ction or placing of o#stacles or encroach"ents on the" as provided

in 0ection %', Chapter &, )itle One, Boo/ ? of said Code. A camino vecinal is a "$nicipalroad. ?t is also propert( for p$#lic $se. P$rs$ant, therefore, to the a#ove powers of a local

govern"ent $nit, the M$nicipalit( of !iloan had the $nassaila#le a$thorit( to GaH prepare and

adopt a land $se "ap, G#H pro"$lgate a 9oning ordinance which "a( consider, a"ong otherthings, the "$nicipal roads to #e constr$cted, "aintained, i"proved or repaired and GcH close

an( "$nicipal road.

?n the instant case, the M$nicipalit( of !iloan, thro$gh the 0angg$niang Ba(an, approved ther#an !and se Plan this plan was d$l( signed #( the M$nicipal Ma(or G*hi#it F%FH. B(

doing so, the said legislative #od( deter"ined, a"ong others, the location of the camino

vecinal in sitio Baha/. As f$rther declared #( ngineer ordan, thiscamino vecinal in sitio

&8


29/43

Baha/ Fpasses the side of the land of 0ocrates Pilapil. )his is the proposed road leading to

the national highwa(.F "1)he Colo"idas presented no re#$ttal witness to show that #( the

approval of the 9oning "ap #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an, the( were effectivel( deprived ofaccess to the national highwa( fro" their propert(. Of co$rse, the( "a( arg$e that the 9oning

"ap was prepared for and approved #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an after the filing of their

petition in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&. Be that as it "a(, this preparation and approval, clearl( as$pervening event, was relied $pon, introd$ced in evidence witho$t o#ection on the part of

the Colo"idas and eval$ated #( the trial co$rt. ?n short, the latter allowed the iss$e raised #(

the s$pervening event to #e tried. )here was nothing proced$rall( o#ectiona#le to this onthe contrar(, 0ection 5, 7$le %' of the 7$les of Co$rt allows it. 0$ch s$pervening fact, d$l(

proved to #e an official act of the M$nicipalit( of !iloan, #inds not onl( the Pilapils and the

Colo"idas, #$t also the general p$#lic. )he sole"n declarations of old people li/e 0esenando

!onga/it and @lorentino Pepito cannot overt$rn the decision of the M$nicipalit( of !iloan.

&6


30/43

CABRERA VS CA

FACTS: On 0ept %646, the Provincial Board of Catand$anes adopted 7esol$tion No. %58

which closed the old road leading to the new Capitol Bldg of the province and to give to theowners of the properties traversed #( the new road e$al area as per the s$rve( of the

;ighwa( istrictngineer. eeds of e*change were e*ec$ted $nder which the province conve(ed to several

persons, the portions of the closed road in e*change for their own respective properties on

which was s$#se$entl( laid a new concrete road. ?n %6E8, the part of the northern end of theold road fronting the petitioner


31/43

CRUZ VS. CA:

FACTS: Petitioner 7icardo Cr$9 states that he and his #$siness associates lpidio )alastas,

@eliciana Alcantara and others have #een the owners and operators of the Padre 7ada Mar/etat )ondo, Manila for "ore than twent(>five G&5H (ears.

)he "ar/et was a$thori9ed to #e operated as a p$#lic "ar/et of the Cit( of Manila #( virt$eof 7esol$tion No. &-', as a"ended #( 7esol$tion No. :'4, #oth series of %6:6.

On Ma( &4, %6E', the "anage"ent of said "ar/et represent #( petitioner Cr$9 wrote Ma(or

illegas that the "anage"ent was withdrawing three>fo$rths of the area of the "ar/et Ffro"

the direct s$pervision and control of the Cit( )reas$rerLs Office effective on $ne %5, %6E',and fro" said date the withdrawn portion shall cease to f$nction and operate as a p$#lic

"ar/et.F )he respondent>vendors, who were li/ewise notified of s$ch withdrawal, protested

s$ch "ove,

After several e*changes of referrals, indorse"ents, and co""$nications, Ma(or illegasallowed the withdrawal in the light of the Co$rt of AppealsL decision in CA>+. 7. Nos.

-6666>7, and :''''>7 $pholding the right of the operators of the lcano Mar/et to withdraw

their propert( fro" its $se as a p$#lic "ar/et stating, a"ong others, that approval for thewithdrawal #( the Cit( of Manila is not even necessar(. Motions for reconsiderations were

denied. ;ence, herein private respondents instit$ted Civil Case No. 8'EE-. )he lower co$rt

$pheld the decision of Ma(or illegas in withdrawing the Pedra 7ada Mar/et as a p$#licMar/et and dis"issing the plaintifffo$rths of the "ar/et fro" its stat$s as

a p$#lic "ar/et wo$ld practicall( res$lt in the total withdrawal of the entire "ar/et. )he

re"aining one fo$rth is no longer #eing $sed #( the owner for its avowed p$rpose. B( the

-%


32/43

ver( nat$re of a "ar/et, #its location, opening, operations, and clos$re "$st #e reg$lated #(

govern"ent. ?t is not a $estion of the petitionerLs right to r$n his "ar/et as he pleases #$t

what agenc( or office sho$ld s$pervise its operations.

)he 0C agree with the Co$rt of Appeals that the Ma(or had no legal a$thorit( to, #( hi"self,

allow the petitioner to withdraw the "aor portion of Padre 7ada Mar/et fro" its $se as ap$#lic "ar/et, there#( also withdrawing it fro" the cit(Ls constant s$pervision.

)he esta#lish"ent and "aintenance of p$#lic "ar/ets is #( law a"ong the legislative powers

of the Cit( of Manila. 0ince the operation of Padre 7ada Mar/et was a$thori9ed #( a

"$nicipal #oard resol$tion and approved #( the Cit( Ma(or, as provided #( law, it follows

that a withdrawal of the whole or an( portion fro" $se as a p$#lic "ar/et "$st #e s$#ect to

the sa"e oint action of the Board and the Ma(or. )he Ma(or of Manila, #( hi"self, cannot

provide for the opening, operations, and clos$re of a p$#lic "ar/et.

-&


33/43

VILLANUEVA VS CASTANEDA

FACTS: )he petitioners are those vendors in the talipapa in the vicinit( of the p$#lic "ar/et

of 0an @ernando, Pa"panga, along Mercado 0treet. )he( clai" that the( have a right tore"ain in and cond$ct #$siness in this area #( virt$e of a previo$s a$thori9ation granted to

the" #( the "$nicipal govern"ent. )he respondents den( this and $stif( the de"olition oftheir stalls as illegal constr$ctions on p$#lic propert(.

ISSUE:1hether or not Petitioners had a right to sta( insisting that the( have lease contractsof the said place2

HELD:1e r$le that the petitioners had no right in the first place to occ$p( the disp$tedpre"ises and cannot insist in re"aining there now on the strength of their alleged lease

contracts. )he( sho$ld have reali9ed and accepted this earlier, considering that even #efore

Civil Case No. &':' was decided, the "$nicipal co$ncil of 0an @ernando had alread(adopted 7esol$tion No. &6, series of %64:, declaring the area as the par/ing place and p$#lic

pla9a of the "$nicipal

--


34/43

DACANAY V ASISTIO

FACTS:On an 5 %6E6, MMC Ordinance No. E6>'& was enacted #( the Co""ission,

designating certain cit( and "$nicipal streets as sites for flea "ar/ets. )hen on an$ar( %'%6E6 O No. %-5 was iss$ed #( Acting MMC Ma(or irgilio 7o#les which esta#lished the

Caloocan Cit( @lea Mar/et A$thorit(. )he Caloocan Cit( "a(or opened E flea "ar/ets intheir cit(. One of the streets designated was ;eroes del U64 where the petitioner lives. )he

road was considered the "ost via#le and progressive, lessening $ne"plo("ent in the cit(

and servicing the residents with afforda#le #asic necessities. ;owever, in %68E AntonioMartine9, as O?C cit( "a(or of Caloocan, had the stalls de"olished. )he stall owners filed

an action for prohi#ition against the Cit(, the O?C Ma(or, and the Cit( ngineer. ?n the )rial

Co$rt ;eroes del


35/43

TORIO VS FONTANILLA

F$%&s: On Octo#er &% %658, the M$nicipal Co$ncil of Malasi$i, Pangasinan, passed

7esol$tion No. %56 which resolved to "anage the %656 Malasi$i town fiesta. Meanwhile7esol$tion No. %8& was also passed creating the )own @iesta *ec$tive Co""ittee. )he said

co""ittee organi9ed a s$#co""ittee on entertain"ent and stage with ose Macaraeg aschair"an. P%'' was appropriated for the constr$ction of & stages for the 9ar9$ela and the

cancionan. Macaraeg s$pervised theconstr$ction of the stage.)he 9ar9$ela entitled Midas

*travagan9a was donated #( an associationof Malasi$i e"plo(ees of the Manila 7ailroadCo"pan( in Caloocan.@ontanilla, one of the perfor"ers, died #eca$se the stage collapsed

and hegot pinned $nderneath.@ontanilla


36/43

RODRIGUEZ V. COMELEC

FACTS: d$ardo 7odrig$e9 and Bienvenido Mar$e9 were protagonists for the

g$#ernatorial post of I$e9on in the %66& elections. 7odrig$e9 won and was proclai"edgovernor. Mar$e9 challenged the victor( #( arg$ing that 7odrig$e9 left the 0 where a

charge is pending against hi" #efore the !A Co$rt for fra$d$lent ins$rance clai"s, grandtheft, and atte"pted grand theft of personal propert(. 7odrig$e9 is therefore a f$gitive fro"

$stice which is a gro$nd for his dis$alification $nder 0ec. :' GeH of the !+C. )he

COM!C r$led that a T f$gitive fro" $stice incl$des not onl( those who flee afterconviction to avoid p$nish"ent #$t li/ewise those who, after #eing charged, flee to avoid

prosec$tion. )his definition finds s$pport fro" $rispr$dence and "a( #e so conceded as

e*pressing the general and ordinar( connotation of the ter".

ISSUE: 1hether or not 7odrig$e9 is considered as a f$gitive fro" $stice2

HELD: No. )he definition of f$gitive fro" $stice indicates that the intent to evade is

the co"pelling factor that ani"ates onedefinition of f$gitive fro" $stice. )he legal r$le in the Mar$e9

ecision "$st govern the instant petition. )he Co$rt specificall( refers to the concept off$gitive fro" $stice as defined in the "ain opinion of Mar$e9 which highlights the

significance of an intent to evade. ?n Mar$e9, the Co$rt r$led that A Uf$gitive fro" $stice

Pubcorp Finals

Documents

Transcript of Pubcorp Finals