Set 2 Case Digest Compilation

7/31/2019 Set 2 Case Digest Compilation

1/13

SET 2 CASE DIGEST compilation

Bacani vs Nacoco

Political Law Two-fold Function of the Government

Bacani and Matoto are court stenographers assigned in the CFI ofManila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court,entitled Francisco Sycip vs. NACOCO, Alikpala, counsel forNACOCO, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcriptof the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing.Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel

Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereaftersubmitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. TheNational Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to LeopoldoT. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at therate of P1 per page. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor Generalrequired the plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength ofa circular of the DOJ it was expressed that NACOCO, being agovernment entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees inquestion. Petitioners counter that NACOCO is not a governmententity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules ofCourt. Defendants set up as a defense that the NACOCO is agovernment entity within the purview of section 2 of the RevisedAdministrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from payingthe stenographers fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Whether or not NACOCO is a government entity.

GOCCs do not acquire that status for the simple reasonthat they do not come under the classification of municipal orpublic corporation. Take for instance the NACOCO. While it wasorganized with the purpose of adjusting the coconut industry to aposition independent of trade preferences in the United States


2/13

and of providing Facilities for the better curing of copra productsand the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a functionwhich our government has chosen to exercise to promote thecoconut industry, however, it was given a corporate powerseparate and distinct from our government, for it was madesubject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as itscorporate existence and the powers that it may exercise areconcerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It maysue and be sued in the same manner as any other privatecorporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from ourgovernment.** President Wilson enumerates the constituent functions asfollows:

(1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection ofpersons and property from violence and robbery.

(2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife andbetween parents and children.

(3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchangeof property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or forcrime.

(4) The determination of contract rights between individuals.

(5) The definition and punishment of crime.

(6) The administration of justice in civil cases.

(7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, andrelations of citizens.

(8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation ofthe state from external danger or encroachment and theadvancement of its international interests.


3/13

The most important of the ministrant functions are: public works,public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, andregulations of trade and industry. The principles deter miningwhether or not a government shall exercise certain of theseoptional functions are: (1) that a government should do for thepublic welfare those things which private capital would notnaturally undertake and (2) that a government should do thesethings which by its very nature it is better equipped to administerfor the public welfare than is any private individual or group ofindividuals.

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO(G.R.

No. 73748 - May 22, 1986)

FACTS:1.On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issuedProclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice PresidentLaurel were taking power.2.On March 25, 1986, proclamationNo.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino governmentassumption of power by stating that the "new government was

installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipinopeople assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of thePhilippines."

ISSUE:Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.

HELD:

Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciablematter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the peopleare the judge. The Court further held that:1. The people have accepted the Aquino government which isin effective control of the entire country;


4/13

2. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a dejure government; and3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of thenew government.

Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh

Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiatedduring the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance ofManila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the Americanoccupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings onthe case, saying that a proclamation issued by General DouglasMacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings andjudgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enablinglaw, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of andcontinue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunctRepublic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under theJapanese).

The court resolved three issues:

1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made duringthe Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even afterthe American occupation;2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthurissued in which he declared that all laws, regulations andprocesses of any other government in the Philippines than that ofthe said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effectin areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and controlinvalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of thecourts;3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthursproclamation, those courts could continue hearing the casespending before them.


5/13

Ratio: Political and international law recognizes that all acts andproceedings of a de facto government are good and valid. ThePhilippine Executive Commission and the Republic of thePhilippines under the Japanese occupation may be considered defacto governments, supported by the military force and derivingtheir authority from the laws of war.Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in forceunless suspended or changed by the conqueror. Civil obedience isexpected even during war, for the existence of a state ofinsurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or doaway with civil government or the regular administration of thelaws. And if they were not valid, then it would not have beennecessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamationabrogating them.The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretationof the phrase processes of any other government and whether ornot he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicialproceedings of courts during the Japanese military occupation.IF, according to international law, non-political judgments andjudicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remainvalid even after the occupied territory has been liberated, then itcould not have been MacArthurs intention to refer to judicialprocesses, which would be in violation of international law.A well-known rule of statutory construction is: A statute oughtnever to be construed to violate the law of nations if any otherpossible construction remains.Another is that where great inconvenience will result from a

particular construction, or great mischief done, such construction isto be avoided, or the court ought to presume that suchconstruction was not intended by the makers of the law, unlessrequired by clear and unequivocal words.Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japaneseoccupation would clog the dockets and violate international law,


6/13

therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to meanthat judicial proceedings are included in the phrase processes ofany other governments.In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws andinstitutions are continued in use by the occupant, they become hisand derive their force from him. The laws and courts of thePhilippines did not become, by being continued as required by thelaw of nations, laws and courts of Japan.It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, law onceestablished continues until changed by some competent legislativepower. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OFSOVEREIGNTY. Until, of course, the new sovereign by legislativeact creates a change.Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereigntyover the Philippines, and the laws and courts of the Philippines hadbecome courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating andconferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force untilnow, it follows that the same courts may continue exercising thesame jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restorationof the Commonwealth Government, until abolished or the lawscreating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by thesaid government.

DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court ofFirst Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of andcontinue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012.

Summary of ratio:1. International law says the acts of a de facto government arevalid and civil laws continue even during occupation unlessrepealed.2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but thiscannot be applied on judicial proceedings because such a


7/13

construction would violate the law of nations.3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing thecase pending before it.***3 kinds of de facto government: one established throughrebellion (govt gets possession and control through force or thevoice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of therightful government)through occupation (established and maintained by military forceswho invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course ofwar; denoted as a government of paramount force)through insurrection (established as an independent governmentby the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against theparent state)

Free Telephone Workers Union vs Ople

Political Law Control Power over the Ministries [Cabinet] Alter

Ego Forms of Government

On September 14, 1981, there was a notice of strike with theMinistry of Labor (Ople) for unfair labor practices and arbitraryimplementation of a Code of Conduct. Several conciliation meetingscalled by the Ministry followed, with petitioner manifesting itswillingness to have a revised Code of Conduct that would be fair toall concerned but with a plea that in the meanwhile the Code of

Conduct being imposed be suspended a position that failed tomeet the approval of private respondent. Subsequently,respondent, on September 25, 1981, certified the labor dispute tothe NLRC for compulsory arbitration and enjoined any strike at theprivate respondents establishment. Private respondent, followingthe lead of petitioner labor union, explained its side on the


8/13

controversy regarding the Code of Conduct, the provisions of whichas alleged in the petition were quite harsh, resulting in what itdeemed indefinite preventive suspension apparently the principalcause of the labor dispute. Ople issued the certification forcompulsory arbitration pursuant to the provisions on strikes of theLabor Code this is to avoid adverse effects to the nationalinterest.

Whether or not such provision is an undue delegation ofpower.

FTWU failed to make out a case of undue delegation.The President shall have control of the ministries. It may happen,therefore, that a single person may occupy a dual position ofMinister and Assemblyman. To the extent, however, that what isinvolved is the execution or enforcement of legislation, the Ministeris an official of the executive branch of the government. Theadoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in theamended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidentialcharacter. Article VII on the presidency starts with this provision:The President shall be the head of state and chief executive of theRepublic of the Philippines. Its last section is an even moreemphatic affirmation that it is a presidential system that obtains inour government. Thus: All powers vested in the President of thePhilippines under the 1935 Constitution and the laws of the landwhich are not herein provided for or conferred upon any officialshall be deemed and are hereby vested in the President unless the

Batasang Pambansa provides otherwise.However, it must be stressed that the exercise of such competencecannot ignore the basic fundamental principle and state policy thatthe state should afford protection to labor. Whenever, therefore, itis resorted to in labor disputes causing or likely to cause strikesor lockouts affecting national interest, the State still is required to


9/13

assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collectivebargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions ofwork. At this stage of the litigation, however, in the absence offactual determination by the Ministry of Labor and the NationalLabor Relations Commission, this Court is not in a position to ruleon whether or not there is an unconstitutional application.

Government vs Monte de Piedad

Political Law Parens Patriae

On June 3, 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred in the

Philippines. The Spanish Dominions then provided $400,000.00 asaid for the victims and it was received by the Philippine Treasury.Out of the aid, $80,000.00 was left untouched; it was theninvested in the Monte de Piedad Bank which in turn invested theamount in jewelries. But when the Philippine government latertried to withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot provide for theamount. The bank argued that the Philippine government is not anaffected party hence has no right to institute a complaint. Bank

argues that the government was not the intended beneficiary ofthe said amount.

: Whether or not the Philippine government is competent tofile a complaint against the respondent bank?

The Philippine government is competentto institute action against Monte de Piedad, this is in accordance

with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being theprotector of the rights of the people has the inherent supremepower to enforce such laws that will promote the public interest.No other party has been entrusted with such right hence asparents of the people the government has the right to takeback the money intended for the people.


10/13

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,et.al v . HON. EDUARDOERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,et.al

G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011,EN BANC

(Carpio, J.)The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waters will

not risk the Philippines because an archipelagic State has sovereignpower that extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagicbaselines, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009 tocomply with the terms of the United Nations Convention on theLaw of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified onFebruary 27, 1984. Such compliance shortened one baseline,optimized the location of some base points around the Philippinearchipelago and classified adjacent territories such as the Kalayaan

Island Ground (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as regimes ofislands whose islands generate their own applicable maritimezones. Petitioners, in their capacities as citizens, taxpayers orlegislators assail the constitutionality of R.A. 9522 with one oftheir arguments contending that the law unconstitutionallyconverts internal waters into archipelagic waters, thus subjectingthese waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage underUNCLOS III, including over flight. Petitioners have contended that

these passage rights will violate the Constitution as it shall exposePhilippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard.

ISSUE:Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for converting

internal waters into archipelagic waters


11/13

HELD:PetitionDISMISSED.The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is consistent

with the Philippines national interest. Aside from being a vital stepin safeguarding the countrys maritime zones, the law also allowsan internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of thePhilippines maritime zones and continental shelf. The Court alsofinds that the conversion of internal waters into archipelagic waterswill not risk the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of theUNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereign power thatextends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. It is furtherstated that the regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage will notaffect the status of its archipelagic waters or the exercise ofsovereignty over waters and air space, bed and subsoil and theresources therein.

Furthermore, due to the absence of its own legislationregarding routes within the archipelagic waters to regulateinnocent and sea lanes passage, the Philippines has no choice butto comply with the international law norms. The Philippines issubject to UNCLOS III, which grants innocent passage rights overthe territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treatyslimitations and conditions for their exercise, thus, the right ofinnocent passage, being a customary international law, is

automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. If thePhilippines or any country shall invoke its sovereignty to forbidinnocent passage, it shall risk retaliatory measures from theinternational community. With compliance to UNCLOS III and theenactment of R.A. 9522, the Congress has avoided such conflict.Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, the compliance to


12/13

UNCLOSIII through the R.A. 9522 will not expose Philippineinternal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazard. As amatter of fact, if the Philippines did not comply with the baselineslaw, it will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselinesfrom where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelfis measured and which will produce two-fronted disaster: (1)openinvitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit theresources in the waters and submarine areas around thearchipelago and (2) it shall weaken the countrys case in anyinternational dispute over Philippine maritime space. Such disasterwas avoided through the R.A. 9522.

Tanada vs. Angara

272 SCRA 18

FACTS: The suit was filed to nullify the concurrence of thePhilippines Senate to the Presidents Ratification of the Agreementestablishing the World Trade Organization. It was contended thatthe agreement places nationals and products of member countries

on the same footing as Filipinos and local products in contraventionof the Filipino First Policy.

Petitioners maintained that this Agreement was an assault onthe sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant thatCongress could not pass legislation that would be good for nationalinterest and general welfare if such legislation would not conformto the WTO Agreement.

ISSUE: Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and itsannexes limit, restrict, or impair the exercise of legislative powerby Congress.


13/13

HELD: While sovereignty has traditionally been deemedabsolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is howeversubject to limitations and restrictions voluntarily agreed to by thePhilippines as a member of the family of nations. One of the oldestand most fundamental rules in international law is pacta suntservanda international agreements must be performed in goodfaith. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation butcreates a legally binding obligation on the parties xxx. A statewhich has contracted valid international obligations is bound tomake in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary toensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.

By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict theabsoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations maysurrender some aspects of their state power in exchange forgreater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.After all, states, like individuals live with coequals, and in pursuit ofmutuality covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonlyagree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.

The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and inreality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into thepicture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membershipin the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treatystipulations.

Set 2 Case Digest Compilation

Documents

Transcript of Set 2 Case Digest Compilation